Area 1 Development Control Committee

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

At: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Swansea

On: Tuesday 21 February 2012

Time: 2.00p.m. Members are asked to contact John Lock (Planning Control Manager) on 635731 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 24 January 2012.

FOR DECISION

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

Patrick Arran Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement 14 February 2012 Contact: Democratic Services 01792 636824

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 ON TUESDAY 24 JANUARY 2012 AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor D P Tucker (Chair) presided

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

A C S Colburn M H Jones W K Morgan A M Day S M Jones T H Rees W Evans J B Kelleher J C Richards E W Fitzgerald R D Lewis G Seabourne M E Gibbs K E Marsh C M R W D Thomas D I E Jones P M Matthews D W W Thomas J W Jones

70. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J E Burtonshaw, E T Kirchner, P M Meara, J Newbury, B G Owen, C L Philpott and R J Stanton.

71. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

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

Councillor A M Day - Personal and Prejudicial - Minute No. 75 - Item 1 (2011/1338) - as Cabinet Member for Education and left during discussion.

Councillor W F Fitzgerald - Personal - Minute No. 76 (94/0196) - Member of Penllergare Trust and left during discussion.

Councillor K E Marsh - Personal - Minute No. 75 - Item 1 (2011/1338) - as LA Governor at school and left during discussion.

Councillor C M W R D Thomas - Personal - Minute No. 75 - Item 1 (2011/1335) - as LA Governor at school and left during discussion.

Councillor D P Tucker - Personal - Minute No. 73 - Item 6 (2011/1568) and Item 7(2011/1610) - my solicitor has previously spoken relating to the site.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (24.01.2012) Cont’d

72. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 20 December 2011 be accepted as a correct record.

73. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL

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

# (Item 6) Application No. 2011/1568

Retention of agricultural hard standing and open sheep pen, feeds and implement store at land adjoining Byways, Lunnon, Swansea.

(NOTE: Prior to deferral Mr Banks (agent) addressed the Committee and a visual presentation was given to Members.)

Reason

To update the report and allow further consideration of the agricultural justification.

# (Item 7) Application No. 2011/1610

Retention of horticultural hard standing with walled enclosure at land to the rear of Byways, Lunnon, Swansea.

(NOTE: Prior to deferral Mr Banks (agent) addressed the Committee and a visual presentation was given to Members.)

Reason

To update the report and allow further consideration of the horticultural justification.

74. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS

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

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (24.01.2012) Cont’d

(Item 13) Application No. 2011/1292

Two front dormers, one rear roof extension, single storey rear extension with side and rear roof extension to provide accommodation in the roof space at 7 South Close, Bishopston, Swansea.

Reason

To view the property in the context of the streetscene.

(Item 14) Application No. 2011/1266

Increase in ridge height with associated increase in eaves height to provide accommodation in the roof space incorporating 3 no. front dormers, one single storey rear extension with accommodation in the roof space and one rear dormer and a front porch (amendment to planning application 2010/0944 granted 19 November 2010) at Awel-y-Coed, Blue Anchor, Swansea.

(NOTE: Prior to being deferred for a site visit Mr Pillinger (objector) and Mr Powell (agent) addressed the Committee.)

Reason

To view the impact of the rear extension on the neighbouring property.

(Item 15) Application No. 2011/0802

Construction of office block (Class B1) together with 2 no. storage units (Class B8) and associated car parking at Unit 27 Crofty Industrial Estate, Crofty, Penclawdd, Swansea.

Reason

To view the visual impact of the proposed two storey building within a single storey industrial estate and potential overbearing impact.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (24.01.2012) Cont’d

(Item 18) Application No. 2010/0406

Proposed non ferrous metal recycling centre and a depot at former Penlan Coal Handling Depot, Alltygraban Road, Govesend, Swansea.

Reason

To consider objections from neighbours.

75. 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 the schedule were reported and are indicated below by (#).

RESOLVED that:

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

# (Item 1) Application No. 2011/1338

Construction of STF building and parking area (Council Development Regulation 3) at Bishopston Comprehensive School, The Glebe, Bishopston, Swansea.

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

# (Item 2) Application No. 2010/1708

Two storey side extension incorporating two dormers, part two storey part single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and two front dormers at 178 Bishopston Road, Bishopston, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Mr Evans (objector) and Mr Griffiths (agent) addressed the Committee.)

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (24.01.2012) Cont’d

# (Item 3) Application No. 2011/1345

Construction of 3 storey block of 6 self contained apartments and underground parking at 732 Mumbles Road, Mumbles, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Mr Maiello (agent) addressed the Committee.)

# (Item 4) Application No. 2011/0564

Detached dwelling with integral garage at land adjacent to 26 Highpool Lane, Newton, Swansea.

(NOTE: Report updated as follows: change description to “Retention and completion of”.

Amended Conditions

01. Change to “The development shall be completed in accordance with”.

02. Delete.

04. Change to “the dwelling shall achieve a”.

05. Delete.

07. Change to “the dwelling shall not be occupied until”.

A visual presentation was given to Members.)

# (Item 5) Application No. 2011/1367

Change of use of ground floor from retail (Class A1) to letting agency/estate agents (Class A2) at 23 Gower Road, Sketty, Swansea.

(NOTE:

• Highway observations of no objection reported;

• A visual presentation was given to Members;

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (24.01.2012) Cont’d

• Recommendation amended following legal advice to reflect that the Area Committee can deal with matter without need to refer to Planning Committee.)

# (Item 8) Application No. 2011/0865

Reception/staff building and replacement garage at Newpark Holiday Park, Port Eynon, Swansea.

(NOTE: Highway observations of no objection reported.)

(Item 9) Application No. 2011/1325

Two storey extension to north elevation, single storey extension to east elevation and conservatory at south elevation at The Beacons, Nicholaston, Penmaen, Swansea.

(Item 10) Application No. 2011/1210

Variation of conditions 2, 3, 4 (code for sustainable homes) 6 and 8 (drainage) of planning permission 2011/0519 granted on 13 June 2011 to enable retention and completion of dwelling following commencement of development and without meeting code for sustainable homes requirements at 5 Clos Sant Cenydd, Llangennith, Swansea.

(Item 11) Application No. 2011/1389

Construction of three linked dwellings at Carreglwyd Farm, Port Eynon, Swansea.

# (Item 12) Application No. 2011/1637

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to a hair and beauty salon (Class A1/D1) fenestration alterations and installation of roof lights to east and west elevations at 458 Gower Road, Killay, Swansea.

(NOTE: Informative 03 added. Advising of highway safety issues and parking and letter to be sent to the developer.)

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (24.01.2012) Cont’d

# (Item 17) Application No. 2011/1148

Detached dwelling house with integral garage (amendment to planning permission 2010/1602 granted 27 April 2011) at land adjacent to 17 Bryncerdin Road, Newton, Swansea.

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given.

Late letter of objection reported.)

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

(Item 16) Application No. 2011/1385

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

(NOTE: A visual presentation was given to Members.

Late letter from applicant seeking deferment reported.

Mr D. Gwynne (agent) addressed the Committee.)

76. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94/1096 - PENLLERGAER COUNTRY PARK, PENLLERGAER, SWANSEA

The Head of Economic Regeneration - Planning presented a report relating to the Section 106 agreement the residential development at Parc Penllergaer.

The background and rationale to the matter was outlined and detailed in the report.

RESOLVED that the £50,000 contribution received from Bellway Homes be transferred to the Penllergare Trust on a basis that it guarantees the money be spent on works within the Country Park or for works to the listed observatory associated with the Country Park to improve access and/or provide facilities for the better enjoyment by the public of the Country Park.

The meeting ended at 4.52 p.m.

CHAIR

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 24 January 2012 (GB/HCR) 24 January 2012

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA 1. BISHOPSTON DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE 5. COCKETT 7. DUVANT Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration 8. FAIRWOOD & Planning to the Chair and Members of the 9. GORSEINON Area 2 Development Control Committee 10. GOWER 11. GOWERTON 12. KILLAY NORTH DATE: 21ST FEBRUARY 2012 13. KILLAY SOUTH 14. KINGSBRIDGE 29 18. LOWER LOUGHOR 20. MAYALS 9 27 23. NEWTON 35 18 24. OYSTERMOUTH 14 25. PENCLAWDD 27. PENLLERGAER 11 28. PENNARD 5 29. PENYRHEOL 25 32. SKETTY 35. UPPER LOUGHOR 7 8 12 36. WEST CROSS

13 32

20 10 36 28 1 23 24

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

CONTENTS

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

1 2011/1610 Land to the rear of Byways Lunnon Swansea SA3 2EJ REFUSE Retention of horticultural hardstanding with walled enclosure

2 2011/1568 Land adjoining Byways Lunnon Swansea SA3 2EJ REFUSE Retention of agricultural hardstanding and open sheep pen, feeds and implement store

3 2011/1292 7 South Close Bishopston Swansea SA3 3ER REFUSE Two front dormers, one rear roof extension, single storey rear extension with side and rear roof extension to provide accommodation in the roof space

4 2011/1266 Awel-Y-Coed Blue Anchor Swansea SA4 3JB APPROVE Retention and completion of an increase in eaves height to provide accommodation in the roof space incorporating 3 no. front dormers, one single storey rear extension with accommodation in the roof space and one rear dormer and a front porch (amendment to planning application 2010/0944 granted 19th November 2010)

5 2011/0760 Land at Picket Mead House Murton Lane Newton APPROVE Swansea Construction of 4 detached dwellings

6 2011/0766 Land at Picket Mead House Murton Lane Newton APPROVE Swansea Demolition of outbuildings within the residential curtilage and partial demolition of the North Elevation of existing Picket Mead House (application for Conservation Area consent)

7 2012/0083 20 Moorland Avenue Newton Swansea SA3 4UA APPROVE Retention of replacement vehicular and pedestrian gates, pillars and wall on front boundary up to a maximum of 1.8m high

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

8 2009/1504 Field 0726 and 1229 Nicholaston Farm Penmaen APPROVE Swansea SA3 2HL Retention of mixed use of field for agriculture and tented camping from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October in any year

9 2009/1506 Fields 2038 and 2839 Nicholaston Farm, Penmaen APPROVE Swansea SA3 2HL Retention of mixed use of fields for agriculture and tented camping from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October in any year

10 2009/1216 Land off The Croft, Castle Street, Loughor, Swansea APPROVE 4 detached dwellings with detached garages (outline)

11 2010/1005 The Round House Parkmill Swansea SA3 2EE APPROVE Replacement dwelling, detached garage/store and new access

12 2010/1381 Land adjacent to Marshfield House 146 Culfor Road, REFUSE Loughor, Swansea Detached dormer bungalow

13 2010/1774 Tir Nan Og Stembridge Mill Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 APPROVE 1BT Replacement of detached annexe to provide ancillary living accommodation

14 2011/0940 High Kiln Bank, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1NA APPROVE Detached two storey unit of holiday accommodation

15 2011/1192 Cherry Tree Cottage, Port Eynon, Swansea SA3 1NN APPROVE Detached garage and laundry room

16 2011/1339 27 Slade Road Newton Swansea SA3 4UE APPROVE Replacement dwelling

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

17 2011/1465 Lower Shop Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1AD APPROVE Retention and completion of change of use from dwelling with shop to two dwellings

18 2011/1514 Broadview, Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EH APPROVE Conversion of first floor of existing carpentry workshop to one self contained holiday let, replacement roof with a front gable and 2 velux roof lights

19 2011/1528 Sluxton Farm, Rhossili, Swansea SA3 1JR APPROVE Agricultural building

20 2011/1538 Land adjoining Hillside, Wernffrwd, Llanmorlais, REFUSE Swansea, SA4 3UE Detached dwelling (outline)

21 2011/1591 2 Chestnut Cottages Marsh Road Llanmorlais Swansea REFUSE SA4 3TS Single storey rear extension, second floor rear extension and rear dormer

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE- 21ST FEBRUARY 2012 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1610 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land to the rear of Byways Lunnon Swansea SA3 2EJ Proposal: Retention of horticultural hardstanding with walled enclosure Applicant: Huw Morgan

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED to allow the agent to submit horticultural justification.

No information has been received to date.

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

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

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1610

Policy EC14 Agricultural developments requiring planning permission or prior approval should give proper consideration to the protection of natural heritage and the historic environment and be sympathetically sited, designed and landscaped. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/0573 Retention of horticultural hardstanding Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 13/06/2011

2007/1826 Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of detached dwelling, and extension of residential curtilage (outline) (Details of design, siting, external appearance and access) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 07/10/2008

2007/1829 Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of 5 detached dwellings (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 06/11/2007

2010/1713 Retention of horticultural hardstanding Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 03/02/2011

2011/0571 Retention of horticultural greenhouse Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 13/06/2011

2010/1671 Retention of horticultural greenhouse Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 31/01/2011

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised via direct neighbour consultation and via a site notice. No response.

Gower Society – Objects as follows

1. The structure was constructed without permission and retention has been refused and an appeal dismissed. 2. The applicant claims that the use of the land is horticultural. This we believe is questionable and appears to be a ploy to retain what has been constructed unlawfully. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1610

Highways - There are unlikely to be any highway safety implication with this proposal. I recommend no highway objections.

APPRAISAL

The application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to consider the policy implications of retaining the structure and to undertake a site visit if necessary.

This application seeks full planning permission for the retention of a Horticultural walled enclosure and hard standing at land adjoining Byways, located directly opposite Little Lunnon Farm, Lunnon, Gower. The application site forms part of the landholding associated with the former detached bungalow of Byways.

This application has been submitted following the refusal of application 2010/1671 on the 31/01/2011, the dismissal of appeal reference APP/B6855/C/10/2137209 on the 14/12/2010 and the refusal of 2011/0571 on 13/06/2011 .

The only difference between the previously refused application and the current application is the removal of the top PVC part of the structure.

The principal considerations are the acceptability of the proposal in terms of adopted development plan policy and its impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the village of Lunnon. The principal development plan policies against which the application needs to be considered are the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008) Policies EV1, EV2, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13 and EC14. There are in this instance no other matters arising for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Within AONBs, the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area, whilst having regard to the social and economic well being of the area. The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the AONB purposes (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), and the landscape and scenic beauty must be afforded the highest status of protection from inappropriate developments. Great weight must therefore be given to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB. In line with this guidance, the following policies of the extant Development Plan apply.

Within the Gower AONB, Policies EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) ensure that the primary objective of this designation is the protection and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. This is supported by national planning policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 (as amended 2011) which recognises that AONBs, whilst small in area, are of such a fine landscape quality that they are on a par with National Parks and there is a national as well as a local interest in keeping them so. Furthermore UDP Policy EV21 restricts development in the open countryside except where it is essential for the rural economy, or it can be demonstrated to meet the social or economic needs of the local community. Policies EC14 and EV21 require acceptable development to be in keeping with landscape and character of the area and not include any new building development which would either individually or cumulatively significantly harm the landscape. In addition to this Policy EC13 restricts development which would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1610

Policy EV1 seeks to ensure that proposed development accords with the objectives of good design and should be appropriate to its local context. Policy EV2 seeks to ensure that new development should give preference to the use of previously developed land over greenfield sites in order to ensure that proposals do not have a significant adverse impact on open spaces and landscapes.

Within the AONB the primary concern must be to preserve and enhance the intrinsic beauty of the countryside for its own sake and development will not be permitted in the open countryside except where essential for the rural economy, or in specific defined circumstances. Information has been submitted which claims that the site has had recent horticultural activity. However, no financial documentary evidence has been submitted in terms of the produce sold.

In support of the current application the applicant has submitted information that states that the proposal:-

“offers a modest additional facility to established horticultural fields to enable its increased usage and in particular the propagation of young plants and storage of hand implements used on the holding.”

It is noted from recent site visits by officers that there appeared to be no horticultural activity in operation or recently having been in operation within the walled enclosure. It is also not considered that such an enclosure would be suitable to propagate small plants or store hand implements.

Whilst the applicant states that the site is a thriving horticultural business, a recent site visit confirmed that the site does not appear to have been used recently and there was no business being carried out from the structure. At the time of the officer site visit, the site and associated fields in the applicant’s ownership had been left to grow with no obvious sign of management or maintenance of the recently planted trees. Whilst there were fruit trees on site, the majority appeared to be small. Previous site visits carried out by officers of this department over a period of the last few years do not substantiate any horticultural use being carried out on the site.

In addition the previous bungalow that once stood on the site has now been demolished. The structure does not appear to relate to any agricultural premises and appears as an isolated structure in the open countryside. No overriding economic need has been identified and no financial records have been submitted in support of the information submitted. The structure also lies outside the approved residential curtilage of the proposed dwelling (2010/0739 refers.)

In terms of its overall character and appearance, the settlement of Lunnon has changed significantly in recent years, but remains predominantly rural due to the dispersed form of development, and the close relationship with the adjoining countryside which wraps around the established buildings. Not only do these spaces act as important visual breaks in the overall form of the settlement but they represent an intrinsic part of the special character and form of this rural village.

The north west of the field abuts a small area of woodland (Willoxton Wood SAC) which provides some screening from this direction, but the proposed structure would be visible in the wider landscape from the public highway to the east and public vantage points to the south. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1610

The application site is characterised as a typical field within this part of the Gower AONB with a relatively flat topography and bounded by mature hedgerows around the periphery of the site.

The land presently forms part of field 5274 which is one of a patchwork of fields that wrap around the western limits of the village of Lunnon. As with application 2010/1714 and 2010/1671, the structure does not lie within the lawful curtilage of Byways.

Agricultural buildings are normally expected to be grouped together, whilst not always possible, in this case the applicant does not own established farm buildings in the area.

The Inspectors findings in the recent Appeal Ref:- APP/B6855/C/10/2137209 state that the structure was not in the lawful curtilage of Byways and that nothing other than its complete demolition would remedy the breach of planning control which has occurred. Further, since the applicant did not submit a detailed landscaping scheme in support of the appeal, the Inspector was not persuaded that the detrimental impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Gower AONB would be sufficiently mitigated.

Furthermore, it is considered that the development would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the AONB and the rural landscape.

However, turning to the impact on the neighbouring dwellings, the proposal is unlikely to have direct physical massing/overshadowing or loss of privacy impact on the neighbouring properties dwellings due the size of the proposal and the distances between buildings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is considered that the retention of the development results in a structure that has an unacceptable impact on the character of this rural AONB location without any overriding need being demonstrated or satisfactory agricultural or horticultural justification having been submitted. Overall therefore, it is not considered that the proposal complies with the Policies EV1, EV2, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13 and EC14 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008). Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The development represents an unjustified form of development within the countryside and Gower AONB for which no overriding economic, horticultural or agricultural need has been demonstrated and by virtue of its location and inappropriate design has a significantly harmful visual impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside and wider Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13 & EC14 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1610

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site plan, block plan, floor plan and elevations, received 25th November 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1568 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land adjoining Byways Lunnon Swansea SA3 2EJ Proposal: Retention of agricultural hardstanding and open sheep pen, feeds and implement store Applicant: Mr P Williams

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The application was reported to the Area 2 Development Control Committee on the 20th December 2011 and was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT to consider the proposed agricultural development in the context of the site and surrounding area.

The application was then reported to the Area 2 Development Control Committee on the 24th January 2012 and was DEFERRED to allow the agent to submit agricultural justification.

No information had been received to date.

POLICIES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1568

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/1714 Retention of agricultural hardstanding and open sheep pen, feeds and implement store Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 31/01/2011

2002/0432 Detached dwelling house (Outline) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 19/12/2002

2007/1829 Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of 5 detached dwellings (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 06/11/2007

2010/1671 Retention of horticultural greenhouse Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 31/01/2011

2011/0571 Retention of horticultural greenhouse Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 13/06/2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1568

2011/0573 Retention of horticultural hardstanding Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 13/06/2011

78/0109/03 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DWELLING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/04/1978

82/0807/03 EXTENSION TO BUNGALOW AND A CAR PORT Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 02/09/1982

84/0352/03 ERECTION OF GARAGE IN LIEU OF CAR PORT. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/04/1984

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised via direct neighbour consultation and via a site notice. No letters of objection have been received and are summarised as follows:-.

Gower Society - OBJECT on the following grounds:

1. Byways is subject to an appeal for retention to PINS and we fail to understand the thinking behind this application. 2. There is no agricultural justification for this structure. We understand that there was never an agricultural need or intention behind either this or the other two unlawful structures constructed on this property. 3. The land ownership is very small and can not justify such a large ‘agricultural’ development in the AONB.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to enable Committee to consider the policy implications and if necessary to undertake a site visit.

Full planning permission is sought for the retention of an agricultural hardstanding and open sheep pen at land adjoining Byways, located directly opposite Little Lunnon Farm, Lunnon, Gower. The application site forms part of the landholding associated with the former detached bungalow of Byways.

This application has been submitted following the refusal of application 2010/1714, and the dismissal of appeal reference APP/B6855/C/10/2137988 on the 14/12/2010. In support of the current application the applicant has submitted information that details the use of the sheep pen by a local farmer who is renting the field.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1568

The only difference between the previously refused application and the current application is the submission of information stating the hard standing and sheep pen is used by a local farmer. The agent also indicated that the structure would be screened by a landscaping scheme.

Issues

Within the Gower AONB, Policies EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) ensure that the primary objective of this designation is the protection and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. This is supported by national planning policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 which recognises that AONBs, whilst small in area, are of such a fine landscape quality that they are on a par with National Parks and there is a national as well as a local interest in keeping them so. Furthermore UDP Policy EV21 restricts development in the open countryside except where it is essential for the rural economy, or it can be demonstrated to meet the social or economic needs of the local community. Policies EC14 and EV21 require acceptable development to be in keeping with landscape and character of the area and not include any new building development which would either individually or cumulatively significantly harm the landscape. In addition to this Policy EC13 restricts development which would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Policy EV1 seeks to ensure that proposed development accords with the objectives of good design and should be appropriate to its local context. Policy EV2 seeks to ensure that new development should give preference to the use of previously developed land over greenfield sites in order to ensure that proposals do not have a significant adverse impact on open spaces and landscapes.

Justification

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1568

The applicant states that the agricultural hard standing and sheep pen is “being actively used as a feed and sheep pen enclosure by the tenant of the land adjoining Byways”.

Whilst the applicant states that the site is part of an agricultural business, a recent site visit confirmed that the site does not appear to have been used recently. Pictures attached to the application file demonstrate the lack of use of the site and suggest that there is no business taking place on the site. Previous site visits carried out by officers of this department over a period of the last few years do not substantiate any agricultural use being carried out on the site.

The hardstanding and sheep pen does not appear to relate to any agricultural premises and appears as an isolated structure in the open countryside. No overriding economic need has been identified and no financial records have been submitted in support of the information submitted.

Visual Amenity

The north west of the field abuts a small area of woodland (Willoxton Wood SAC) which provides some screening from this direction, but the proposed structure would be visible in the wider landscape from the public highway to the east and public vantage points to the south. The application site is characterised as a typical field within this part of the Gower AONB with a relatively flat topography and bounded by mature hedgerows around the periphery of the site.

The land presently forms part of field 5274 which is one of a patchwork of fields that wrap around the western limits of the village of Lunnon. In this case, the application site is located some 50m from the nearest residential property and incorporates part of a large field which clearly lies outside the existing built form of the village.

Farm buildings are normally expected to be grouped together, whilst not always possible, in this case the applicant does not own established farm buildings in the area. In addition, it is considered that the design and scale of the structure and the use of utilitarian materials for the walls of the structure are an unattractive feature in the AONB, the effect of which are not sufficiently mitigated by the adjoining trees and hedgerows. Furthermore, given that no overriding need or agricultural justification for the development has been given, it is considered that the development would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the AONB and the rural landscape.

Furthermore, despite the proposed lowering of the rear wall and landscaping scheme, it is considered that the development would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the AONB and the rural landscape. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1568

Other considerations

The inspectors findings in the recent Appeal Ref:- APP/B6855/C/10/2137988 state that no evidence was submitted to confirm that the site of the appeal was on agricultural land of less than 5ha and used for the purpose of trade or business. He also opined that the utilitarian materials of the walls of the structure are an unattractive feature in the AONB, the effect of which are not sufficiently mitigated by the adjoining trees and hedgerows. No persuasive evidence was submitted to argue that even the hardstanding was required for the purposes of agriculture.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is considered that the retention of the development results in a structure that has an unacceptable and intrusive impact on this rural location and seriously erodes a special and intrinsic part of the character and form of this landscape without any overriding need being demonstrated or agricultural justification. Overall therefore, it is not considered that the proposal complies with the Policies EV1, EV2, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13 and EC14 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008). Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The development represents an unjustified form of development within the countryside and Gower AONB for which no overriding economic or agricultural need has been demonstrated and by virtue of its scale and inappropriate design has a significantly harmful visual impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside and wider Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13 & EC14 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, GA/02 existing elevations, proposed elevations received 17th November 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1292 WARD: Bishopston Area 2

Location: 7 South Close Bishopston Swansea SA3 3ER Proposal: Two front dormers, one rear roof extension, single storey rear extension with side and rear roof extension to provide accommodation in the roof space Applicant: Mr Jason Prosser

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assessed 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 EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Four neighbouring properties were consulted individually. No response.

Bishopston Community Council: Have made the following observations:

Concern regarding overlooking to the side and rear needs to be considered.

Highways Observations - Have made the following observation:

These proposals will not impact upon current parking arrangements. Parking for at least 3 vehicles is available. There are no highway objections.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Keith Marsh to assess the visual impact of the proposal on the locality.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of two front dormer roof extensions, single storey rear extension with accommodation in the roof space and a wrap around side/rear dormer extension at first floor level at No.7 South Close, Bishopston. The property may be characterised as a modest detached dwelling located within a uniform street scene in an established residential area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1292

The proposed scheme would see a rear extension constructed off the rear elevation of the host property that would occupy approximately two thirds of its width and be fully integrated into the fabric of the host dwelling with ridge height to match. The extension would have a rearward projection of approximately 6.4 metres and a width of 7.2 metres. An existing garage would be demolished under this proposal with three parking spaces being retained to the side of the extant dwelling.

The property most likely to be physically impacted by the proposed development is No. 8 South Close, which is screened from the proposed development by virtue of an existing wall constructed on the common boundary of approximately 2.5 metres height.

Concerns relating to overlooking in respect of No.6 South Close and design were raised with the agent for the scheme and a revised proposal has been submitted seeking to address these issues. The principle revisions see the front dormers reduced in scale and the height of the rear/side dormer roof extension reduced.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to the provisions of Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development’. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider.

In terms of visual amenity the proposed scheme would see two dormer extensions constructed on the front roof plane. Whilst the proportions of these elements have been reduced relative to the scheme as originally submitted they remain at odds with the provisions of the Householder Extension Design Guide which states that front dormers will be discouraged where they are not a feature of the street scene. The remainder of the scheme as proposed would not be visible from public vantage points. However, whilst the proposed scheme would not be readily visible it is considered that the wrap around side/rear dormer roof extension over the entire width of the roof plane is in conflict with Section 5.6 of Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development’ which states the following:

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

Whilst it is acknowledged that there has been a reduction in the dimensions of the proposed dormer additions the very fact that the proposed rear roof dormer would occupy the majority of the width of the available roof plane, and would continue around the return created by the extension would bring the proposal into conflict with adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development 2008’.

It is considered given the absence of dormer roof additions in the immediate vicinity that the proposals do not reflect a prevailing local feature. In addition to which the combination of the proposed dormer additions to the front and rear are considered to constitute an overdevelopment of the roof plane that is detrimental to the character of the dwelling and the street scene to which it relates. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1292

Turning to impacts upon residential amenity no significant change in circumstance would arise in respect of the proposed rear extension. Whilst it has a rearward projection of approximately 6.4 metres it is set approximately 1.8 metres off the common boundary with No.8 South Close, in addition to which the common boundary is formed by way of a boundary wall of approximately 2.7 metres in height. When considered in conjunction with the orientation of the buildings relative to the passage of the sun, it is not considered that any negative impacts that may be considered such as overshadowing or overbearing in nature would arise in respect of the adjoining occupiers.

In respect of over looking given the orientation and outlook, it is not considered that the proposed front dormer additions would give rise to any additional overlooking that would be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining occupiers. Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development 2008’ indicates that a distance of 10.0 metres is required between a window serving a rear extension and a common boundary with an adjoining property. The rear facing dormer extension serving bedroom No.2 would be sufficient distance from the common boundary with the dwellings to the rear such that their current levels of privacy would not be adversely affected. The angled window serving the landing area at first floor would have a separation distance to the common boundary of approximately 10.5 metres with No.6 South Close which is considered sufficient to preserve residential amenity.

However, the proposed side facing first floor window serving bedroom No.4 would be orientated toward the rear amenity space associated with No.6 South Close and would have a separation distance of approximately 9.6 metres, as such it is considered that this proposal would introduce an increase in unacceptable overlooking relative to No.6 South Close.

Access & Highway Safety

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal, because the proposal will not impact on current parking arrangements and there will be at least 3 parking spaces available.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, in the light of the above considerations, the proposal is not considered to represent a satisfactory form of development, because it does not comply with current development plan Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development’. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 By virtue of its scale, massing and design the rear dormer roof additions would give rise to an overdevelopment of the rear roof plane to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development 2008.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1292

2 The window serving bedroom four would by virtue of its orientation and separation distance from the common boundary, introduce, an increase in overlooking detrimental to their residential amenities of the occupiers of No. 6 South Close contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development 2008.

3 The proposed front dormer extensions would introduce a visually incongruous form of development that would be detrimental to the character of the host property and the street scene in which it is located contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development 2008.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

JCP-SC-1 site location, block plan, existing elevations and floor plans, proposed elevations, JCP-SC-2 proposed floor plans and sections received 15th September, 2011 Amended plans: JCP-SC-1 Rev A, site location, block plan, existing elevations and floor plans, proposed elevations, JCP-SC-2 Rev A proposed floor plans and sections received 15th December 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1266 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: Awel-Y-Coed Blue Anchor Swansea SA4 3JB Proposal: Retention and completion of an increase in eaves height to provide accommodation in the roof space incorporating 3 no. front dormers, one single storey rear extension with accommodation in the roof space and one rear dormer and a front porch (amendment to planning application 2010/0944 granted 19th November 2010) Applicant: Mr Justin Ovens

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on the 24th January 2012 to view the impact upon the neighbouring property.

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 assessed in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/0944 Increase in ridge height to provide accommodation in the roof space incorporating 3 no. front dormers, one single storey rear extension with accommodation in the roof space and one rear dormer, a front porch and detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/11/2010

2002/1429 Insertion of two dormer windows on front elevation Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 27/09/2002

2009/1730 Increase in ridge height to provide first floor living accommodation incorporating two front dormers and one rear dormer, two storey front extension, two storey rear extension, single storey rear extension and detached garage Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 05/01/2010 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1266

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The neighbouring properties were consulted individually. ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION has been received its content is summarised below.

• The consent granted under application Ref 2010/0944 indicated a different design and configuration. • The proposal is being constructed higher than the consent the ridge has been raised and the eaves have also been raised. • The proposal fails to comply with the 45 degree code and is in conflict with Policies EV1 and HC7 of the UDP. • The scale and design of the rear extension will result in overbearing and overshadowing impacts upon my property. • The garage has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

AMENDED SCHEME (Illustrating the reduction in eaves height of the rearward projecting extension to replicate the eaves height previously approved under application Ref: 2010/0944)

ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION was received indicating that the previous objections still stand

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Tucker in order to assess the visual and residential impacts.

Full planning permission is sought for retention and completion of an increase in ridge height and associated increase in eaves height to provide first floor living accommodation incorporating three front dormers, one rear dormer, a single storey front porch extension, a single storey rear extension with accommodation in the roof space at Awel y Coed, Blue Anchor. The detached garage does not form part of the application as submitted and it is recommended that this is reported to enforcement and considered as a separate matter.

The property is characterised as a detached bungalow in a large plot. The property is located centrally within a run of bungalows at this location a number of which have accommodation at first floor level which is more evident when viewed from the rear aspect.

This application is submitted in attempt to regularise discrepancies between the development as implemented and that which was granted consent under application Ref: 2010/0944. The principle differences are an increase in eaves height of the host property by approximately 0.6 metres and an increase in porch size of the host property.

The proposal sees the ridge height increased from approximately 6.0 metres to 6.7 metres as previously approved under application Ref: 2010/0944, however, the eaves of the host property are higher than those originally granted consent. The single storey front porch extension would have a maximum height of approximately 3.7 metres and be centrally located and it will be approximately 1.2 metres wider than the previous consent. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1266

The roof design of the dwelling has also been altered to form a gabled roof as opposed to the original hipped roof design with three dormer extensions to the front elevation and one to the rear.

The single storey rear extension with accommodation in the roof space would be positioned at the western corner of the building and finish flush to the side elevation. The single storey extension as originally submitted included an eaves height to match that of the host property as constructed, however following discussions with the agent revised plans have been submitted that reflect an eaves height of the extension that was previously approved under application Ref: 2010/0944.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application is the impact of the alterations on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and upon the character of the surrounding area having regard to Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

With regard to visual impact, the scheme as constructed maintains the same ridge height as that previously approved under Ref: 2010/0944. It is considered that the revised scheme in terms of scale and design is more respectful of the character of the original dwelling by virtue of reducing the size of the roof plane when measured in the vertical axis.

The proposal currently before the authority sees the height of the rear wing retained as previously approved and located on the previously approved footprint. The rear addition will comprise a ground floor rear extension that has accommodation in the roofspace. This element of the proposed scheme would not be visible from public vantage points and, on balance this element of the proposal is considered acceptable in design terms.

The proposed porch and rear facing dormer addition are both of very modest proportions and sympathetic design and would be in keeping with the overall design of the scheme.

Turning to residential amenity, it was previously noted, in respect of planning application Ref:2010/0944 that the property most likely impacted by the proposed rear extension, Hala Carr, had a rear outbuilding along the common boundary with the application site. Whilst there was a transgression of the 45 degree code as set out in the householder extension design guide, this was mitigated in part by the fact that the proposal was single storey in nature, set approximately 1.0 metre off the common boundary and the roof of the rear addition would be raked away from the common boundary. As such, it was not considered that the proposed development would result in a significant worsening of the extant situation that was sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal on this basis alone.

Since the original grant of planning permission and implementation of the consent, the outbuildings have been demolished at Hala Carr by the owner of that property. As a result of the demolition of the outbuildings, the side elevation of the proposed extension is more visible to the neighbouring property. The rear extension proposed under this application is identical to the one approved under permission 2010/0944. As such it is considered that the rear extension would not have a harmful impact on the neighbouring dwelling AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1266

Given the south west facing aspect of the rear elevations it is considered that any additional overshadowing impacts that would be experienced would accrue in the early part of the day and would not differ significantly from those that would have been experienced had the development been implemented in accordance with the scheme as previously approved.

Issues that relate to overlooking impacts are not considered to differ significantly from the previous grant of consent and as such it is not considered that any unreasonable increase in overlooking would arise over and above that considered typical in a residential setting.

Access & Highway Safety The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal.

Objections The objections raised that are considered to be material planning considerations have been addressed in the main body of the report above.

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

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following condition:

1 The development shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To 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.

INFORMATIVES

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

3 The detached garage is specifically excluded from this decision.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1266

PLANS

Site location plan, existing floor plans and elevations, proposed floor plans and elevations received 9th September 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760 WARD: Newton Area 2

Location: Land at Picket Mead House Murton Lane Newton Swansea Proposal: Construction of 4 detached dwellings Applicant: Carrington Moore Estates Ltd

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 EV29 Common land will be protected from development in recognition of its importance for agriculture, natural heritage, the historic environment and as an informal recreation resource. (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 EV30 Protection and improved management of woodlands, trees and hedgerows which are important for their visual amenity, historic environment, natural heritage, and/or recreation value will be encouraged. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/0766 Demolition of outbuildings within the residential curtilage and partial demolition of the North Elevation of existing Picket Mead House (application for Conservation Area consent) Decision: Officer Consideration Decision Date: 02/02/2012

2009/1226 Construction of 5 detached dwellings, 2 with detached garages and 4 detached carports and associated works Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 23/07/2010

2009/1264 Detached bungalow Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 14/04/2010

2010/0724 Demolition of outbuildings (application for Conservation Area Consent) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 26/07/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS:

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and in the press as development within a Conservation Area. In addition to this, all adjoining neighbouring dwellings and previous objectors were individually consulted. 196 letters of Objection and petitions of 544 and 117 objectors were received which are summarised below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

1. The proposal will not enhance or preserve views. 2. Proposal has a poor relationship with existing buildings. 3. Proposed design is industrial in nature and will not complement the area. 4. The area is a Conservation Zone and the properties need to be more in keeping with the older stone built dwellings and with Picket Mead House itself. 5. Overlooking. 6. Level of glazing increases overlooking. 7. Aluminium roof will cause glare. 8. Access across the Green will spoil the village atmosphere. 9. Dwellings are too large. 10. Materials inappropriate. 11. Proposal is at odds with Policy EV9 as it does not preserve or enhance the Newton Conservation Area. 12. Appeal Inspectors conclusions have not been addressed in this latest application. 13. Surface water issues. 14. Ecological concerns. 15. Major development like this should not be considered given it is within a Conservation Area. 16. Extra traffic raises concern. 17. The Mead is a Common grazing area. 18. Highway safety concerns. 19. Majority of residents are opposed to the scheme. 20. Proposal will have an unacceptable impact upon the Mead. 21. Any change or constructional alteration to the appearance of the Mead would be detrimental as it would alter the whole character of Pickets Mead for ever more. 22. If this application goes ahead it will open the door for the next application which would be to develop Pickets Mead itself. 23. Loss of light. 24. Loss of privacy due to balcony. 25. Flat roofs will make proposal obtrusive to Picket Mead and the Conservation Area. 26. There will be a continuous roof line visible on the skyline of Picket Mead. 27. The scheme is an attempt to maximise profit whilst demonstrating an unscrupulous attitude to those living in the area and who had met to help the applicant in good faith with a sensible solution to the earlier refusals. 28. Drainage problems. 29. Inspector emphasised that the Conservation Area constituted a number of attractive terraced houses in the village of Newton accompanied by a few large houses set in their own grounds and went on to describe it as “one of Newton’s finest buildings”. 30. Loss of open area. 31. Damage to the Mead by Lorries and utility companies. 32. Proposal blatantly contrary to Policy EV1. 33. Plots 1 and 2 would result in the suburbanisation of the Common. 34. PPW 2011 only permits infill development if the character of the surrounding area is respected in terms of appropriate scale and design. 35. Four ultra modern dwellings are proposed around a Victorian House with a Gothic façade in a Conservation Area on sloping land near a row of bungalows. 36. Part of the perimeter wall and front main façade is to be removed which look in good condition. 37. Surface water run-off. 38. Impact upon trees. 39. A number of residents have stated that they did not state they supported the application as claimed in the applicant’s appendices. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

40. Proposal could be copied all around Newton and the district. 41. Unacceptable palette of materials. 42. Flooding issues. 43. Loss of community facilities. 44. Proposal is contrary to TAN15 – development and flood risk, PPW 2011 and the UDP.

LETTERS OF SUPPORT were received which are summarised below:

1. The planning around this site has been carefully thought through, with the retention of the trees and keeping the Common in tact. Mumbles needs development like this to attract executive homes that will inevitably support the local businesses. 2. The area needs high quality development such as this. 3. Proposal will be a vast improvement to what is there now. 4. Quality development such as this will boost the economy. 5. Local jobs will be created. 6. Lack of investment and inspiration has resulted in the deterioration of the village. 7. I am concerned that the current application will be refused like the previous in that political considerations by Local Members and widespread misinformation is adversely affecting local householders views on the development. 8. The approval of the current application will ensure that the existing Picket Mead House is fully restored and will stand in perpetuity, rather than be demolished. Further delay will jeopardise the future of this building. 9. All existing trees will remain and the development will be contained within the site and not on the Mead as being raised by objectors. 10. The proposal is tastefully designed and is sympathetic to the Conservation Area. 11. There will be no long term impact upon the Mead. 12. Proposal will not conflict with Policy EV9. 13. Picket Mead House will now retain a large garden around it. 14. The proposed development would make better and more effective use of the land. 15. Development is within the settlement limits. 16. The designs are of a very high standard and architectural merit. 17. The site is currently run down and squatters at the site have resulted in unsociable behaviour being generated from the site. 18. The applicant has amended the scheme and will have a reduced impact on our property. 19. Proposal will preserve and enhance the character of the area.

Mumbles Community Council: We object. Visual impact on Picket Mead House, out of character with Newton Conservation Area, Support local residents objections, turning space being imposed on the common land.

Gower Society: The Gower Society has re-examined this application and notes that this proposal has had a previous amendment.

There is little in this revised application save the reduction in number of houses to cause us to alter our view that this seems to be over-development of the site; it will compromise the existing house.

It wishes its comments in its letters of 29th September 2009 and 24th March 2010 to remain. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

Gower Society: We note that access to this development would be over Common Land. In Wales, the Commons Act 2006 has not yet been introduced, so any works on Common Land are still governed by Section 194 LPA 1925.

Concrete or tarmac roads are inappropriate on common land, and we suggest that if permission were to be granted for any development at this site, that the access over common land should be of gravel or similar material.

Martin Caton MP: After receiving strong representations from constituents living in Newton, I write to object to the above applications.

I believe that the proposed development would be completely out of character with surrounding area and would have a negative impact on the neighbourhood. There is clearly a drainage problem in this area and residents in properties lower-lying than Picket Mead understandably believe that the proposed soakaway channelling surface and rainwater will increase the risk of flooding at their homes and gardens.

I understand that the application will involve constructing a driveway over registered common land and works underneath the common. Would this be legal under Section 194 of the Law and Property Act 1925?

In any case this an important piece of green open space in a residential area providing a valuable amenity to local people. It should be protected, not suburbanised.

The Open Space Society: We are deeply concerned that the fact the development will also affect Common Registered Land has not been highlighted in the application. We submit that it would be illegal to construct an access across this common. Furthermore it would be illegal to construct an access across this common. Because the land is in the former County Borough of Swansea, it is subject to section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and therefore, not only does the public have right to walk and ride horses over the whole area, but also it is illegal to drive a vehicle anywhere on the common (see section 193(1)(c)). We are surprised that your Council, as landowner, is not aware of this.

We note that the applicants have applied to the Welsh Government for consent for works on this common, but these are only in relation to the underground cables and do not mention the proposed access.

This is an important piece of green space in a residential area, which is much enjoyed by local people and it would be an outrage if it were to be degraded by this development. The proposed dwellings will suburbanise it. We therefore trust that you will reject it, we trust you will inform the applicants that the driveway on the common would be unlawful without the consent of the Welsh Assembly Government under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

For all these reasons we trust you will reject this application.

Highways: This is a resubmission of an application that was previously refused on planning grounds. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

This proposal is for the development of 4 additional houses within the grounds of Picket Mead House. Access is indicated from Murton Lane across open land, the existing lane currently serves Picket Mead House and appears to provide rear access to a few other properties.

The development will result in the existing unadopted lane access serving as principle means of access to the 5 dwellings, which is one fewer than previously considered. The access width is generous at the junction with Murton Lane and will accommodate the passing of vehicles should they need to pass at that point. The lane width does reduce further towards the site and then is shown to widen again. Two accesses are proposed with this current application. One serving two new properties directly from the end of the lane as it reached Picket Mead House and another by extending the lane in a westerly direction to serve another two new dwellings and the existing property. The western access is double width however the eastern access to two of the properties is single width over a short length but widens out providing passing place either side. This is an acceptable layout which accords with adopted guidelines for shared use in such locations.

The site layout itself indicates adequate parking for each of the new dwellings with double garages and drive parking providing at least 4 spaces for each dwelling and the applicant has submitted details of vehicle tracking to show that the proposed access drives will accommodate the necessary movements. Picket Mead House is indicated to retain only 2 parking spaces and the recommended requirement would be for 3 spaces. A suitable condition can be imposed requiring the additional space, for which room exists. Each access drive is of a sufficient standard to accommodate visitor parking and there is indication of 2 dedicated visitor bays on the western part of the site. The access road and drives will remain privately maintained.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the following;

1. The internal access road shall be completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling within the site

2. Picket Mead House shall be provided with 3 parking spaces prior to occupation. Such parking shall be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed.

Dwr/CymruWelsh Water: We would request that if you are minded to grant Planning Consent for the above development that the Conditions and Advisory Notes listed below are included within the consent to ensure no detriment to existing residents or the environment and to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s assets.

Design Commission for Wales: We welcome the architectural language and the contemporary design approach, and we think that minor issues remain to be resolved. In summary:

• The building design and site layout is a good response to the context and respects Picket Mead as the dominant building on the site. • Landscape and separation distances are well considered and walls and railings are used intelligently to protect private spaces while encouraging visual connection and social interaction across the site. • We are pleased to note the retention and reinforcement of the planted boundary, and the maintenance and repair of the existing stone wall. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

• We think that the view from the north and the relationship of House 1 with the stone wall has been well justified. • We have concerns about the impact of Houses 3 and 4 in terms of size, form and materials. • We think that the use of anthrazinc cladding and its impact on the conservation area context has not been fully justified and suggest that the LPA be provided with a material sample. • Issues concerning the internal layout and fenestration need to be reconsidered in terms of consistency across the site and daylighting. • We thought that a scheme of this status should be setting sustainability standards that are higher than the statutory minimum and we would urge the client to commit to Code Level 4. • We welcomed the built-in flexibility of the design but urged the developer to ensure that the necessary information was passed on to future residents. • We suggest that the architects are retained beyond RIBA Stage D, to ensure that the required quality of detailing is realised in the finished buildings.

The panel appreciated the sensitive landscape treatment, the retention and repair of the existing stone walls, and cultivation of the sense of an ‘internal world’, which still maximises views to the south and across the site. We think that the general arrangement of the site around two courtyards and the contemporary design approach, works well in this setting and does not detract from the quality of the conservation area.

The house on plot 1 sets the architectural language and dominates the important view from the north across the common. We had some initial concern about the height of this elevation and the impact of the dark coloured cladding on the north and east elevations. After some discussion we accepted that, with the width of the building reduced, the extent of metal cladding limited, and the development of a more layered façade with some vertical timber elements, these elevations are appropriate.

With regard to houses 3 and 4 to the east of the site, these appear as very large blocks and the Panel thought that their impact would be increased by the proposed dull black finish and the monopitched roofs. It was accepted that the dark cladding on the long elevations was generally used in conjunction with large expanses of glass and/or timber, allowing the elevations to become lighter and more transparent. The architect stated that they have used anthrazinc materials previously, on Pennard House and were very satisfied. Although we acknowledged that views into the site from the south and east were very limited and that planting on the south boundary would be reinforced any deciduous screening would be much less effective in the winter.

The Panel questioned the arrangement and relationship of the master bedroom with windows and corridors, which established a certain pattern for the first two plots, but was not carried through to plots 3 and 4. In some places this leads to rather narrow corridors. The architect explained their aim was to create ‘accidental’ undetermined spaces, such as window seats within corridors and to establish different identities for each of the bespoke dwellings. Nevertheless, we thought that for houses of this size and prestige, all WCs should have openable windows and we noted that the study/office area was not well daylit. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

The view out of the master bedroom appeared to be obstructed by the raised upstand which provides a greater height internally and facilitates future flexibility. In fact this upstand will be obscured by an opaque wall at lower level.

The Panel welcomed the passive approach to low carbon design, and the commitment to maximise fabric performance. We thought that insulation levels could be enhanced even further, and urged the team to consider the space implications of a Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) system. The Panel urge the client to commit to achieving Code Level 4, which we thought would enhance the market value of the properties.

Provision should be made for future renewable installations such as solar thermal or electric panels, but these would be unlikely to be building-mounted given that the monopitch roofs all face north. The architect explained the intention to open up the building to the south and lower the roofs to respect the existing house and public open space to the north. The LPA officer pointed out that in view of the nature of the site, permitted development rights for micro-generation would be removed.

Fenestration to the north is very limited and, given the current availability of very energy- efficient glazing systems, it will be important to optimise daylighting for north facing rooms, particularly the office space.

In terms of the potential for future adaption of the houses, which is presented as a major design driver and presumably a marketing benefit, it will be important to ensure that sufficient and accurate information is provided to occupiers in such a way that it will be available and understandable to future inhabitants.

The Panel suggested that alternatives to grasscrete should be explored, as a permeable surface treatment.

FOLLOWING CONCERNS RAISED BY THE LPA AND THE DCFW AMENDED PLANS WERE SUBMITTED WHICH INCORPORATED THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:

1. Overall length of Plot 1 reduced at 1st floor level by 1m. 2. Area of zinc cladding on vertical face of North elevation of Plot 1 omitted and replaced with vertical timber cladding. 3. Overall length of first floor of Plot 2 reduced by 0.5m. 4. Area of zinc cladding on vertical face to North elevation of Plot’s 2, 3 and 4 reduced and replaced with vertical timber cladding. 5. Addition of obscurely glazed windows to bedroom 2 en-suite bathrooms, of Plots 1, 2, 3 and 4. 6. Additional ground floor obscurely glazed window to WC of Plot 1. 7. Additional reduction of zinc to north elevation and replaced with Timber cladding of Plot 2. 8. Additional obscurely glazed rooflight added over bathroom at ground floor of Plot 2. 9. Additional internal glazing added in Plot 2 between bathrooms & bedrooms at first floor for increased natural daylight. 10. Vanity desk & storage within bedrooms 3 & 4 flipped on first floor plan. 11. Submission of Pre-Assessment Report indicating the proposal can reach Code Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes 2010. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

All adjoining neighbouring dwellings, previous objectors and statutory consultees were individually consulted and the following letters of response were received:

Neighbours: 31 letters of OBJECTION, and a 712 signed petition of objection were received which are summarised below:

1. The proposal is not a suitable type of architecture. 2. Out of keeping with the Conservation Area. 3. Proposal has not addressed refusal or appeal decision. 4. Size of properties out of keeping. 5. Unacceptable impact upon Picket Mead house. 6. Commoners Rights exist on the Mead. 7. Concern in relation to the redevelopment of the Mead. 8. Drainage issues. 9. Access concerns. 10. Proposal conflicts with the UDP. 11. Proposal will result in the loss of a strip of Common Land. 12. Increase in traffic. 13. Inconvenience associated with development. 14. Proposal would result in the partial demolition of the dwelling. 15. Impact on the TPOs. 16. Increased risk of flooding. 17. PD rights should be removed. 18. The road would go through Common Land. 19. Proposal will increase surface water run-off issues. 20. Concern over who will pay for upkeep of the road

Mumbles Community Council: Visual impact on Picket Mead House. Out of character with Newton Conservation Area, support local residents objections. Turning space being imposed on Common Land. Concern over loss of trees.

Gower Society: The Gower Society has inspected the revised application. The alterations are insufficient for us to revise our original comments that were made in our previous letters, the last one sent on 27th July 2011.

APPRAISAL

This application is called to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Miles Thomas.

Description

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of four detached dwellings at Picket Mead House, Newton, Swansea. The site comprises Picket Mead House which is an unlisted detached two storey dwelling of character, a number of mature trees that are subject to Tree Preservation Orders and a large garden area enclosed by a stone wall. The site is situated within the urban area and the Newton Conservation Area. The site’s southern, eastern and north eastern boundaries are defined by the existing residential development along Summerland Lane and Newton Road. These properties comprise a mix of large detached and semi-detached dwellings and bungalows. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

There is a mix of differing house designs and styles. The site’s northern boundary, beyond the existing Picket Mead property is defined by existing Common Land. The site’s western boundary is defined by the rear gardens of the dwellings situated along Summerland Lane.

The scheme comprises of 4 bespoke contemporary detached dwellings and each dwelling is summarised below:

Dwelling 1 – Dwelling 1 is a two storey 4 bedroom detached dwelling incorporating a basement. The dwelling will be sited in the northwest corner of the plot and incorporates the existing boundary wall of Pickets Mead as its outer wall, which creates a single storey side element to the dwelling. The dwelling incorporates an ‘L’ shaped design with 1st floor accommodation on the northern element of the building which subsequently incorporates large elements of glazing to the south in order to maximise sunlight and the outlook into the plot. The dwelling incorporates a cinema and games room/gym/ plant in the basement, family room, utility room, w/c, bathroom, bedrooms 3 and 4 and carport on the ground floor of the primary façade and dining room/kitchen, study and living room on the rear single storey wing. The 1st floor incorporates the larger master bedroom (ensuite and dressing room) and bedroom No 2 (including en-suite) with external roof terrace. The 1st floor element incorporates a mono pitched roof with a maximum height of approx 6.3m and a minimum height of approx 5.2m, a width of 6.5m and a depth of 11.9m. The primary façade has a maximum length of 23.5m (inc carport), a width of 6.5m and a height of predominately 2.8m. The dwelling also incorporates a rear wing measuring a depth of 10.4m and a maximum width up to the boundary wall of 7.5m.

Dwelling 2 – Dwelling 2 is a two storey 4 bedroom dwelling. The dwelling has a similar design to plot one, however it differs in terms of its layout in order to maximise its south facing rear aspect. The dwelling will be situated in the south west corner of the site. The dwelling is laid out at ground floor in an ‘L’ shaped format and incorporates a 1st floor on the north facing primary façade. The dwelling incorporates a games room/plant/gym/cinema in the basement, the carport, kitchen/dining room, living room and utility room towards the front element of the ground floor aspect and coat room, w/c, bedrooms 3 and 4, bathroom and family room in the rear single storey wing. The 1st floor element hosts the larger master bedroom (dressing room and en-suite and bedroom No 2 (and ensuite). The primary two storey primary north facing façade measure approximately 17.5m in width, 7.1m in depth and a maximum height of measures approximately 8.52m in height, has a length of approximately 8m with a projecting half gable which measures an additional 0.5m and a width of 12.6m. The dwelling also incorporates a part two storey part single storey rear wing which measures approximately 4m at two storey level and a maximum of 7.2m at ground floor level with a mono-pitched roof. The dwelling has a rear facing dormer and a detached carport.

Dwelling 3 – Dwelling 3 is rectangular in shape and will bear a close relationship to Plot 4. The dwelling will be sited in the south-eastern part of the plot. The dwelling incorporates a mono-pitched roof which measures approximately 4.6m in height towards the front, rising to 5.7m towards the area. The dwelling has a subservient basement area which incorporates a plant room/gym and cinema, the ground floor which incorporates the car port, family room, study, bathroom, living room, dining room and kitchen/utility room and the 1st floor which incorporates bedrooms 2, 3 and 4, bathroom, en-suite and master bedroom. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

The ground floor measures approximately 24m in width and a depth of some 5.5m. The 1st floor element is slightly staggered above the ground floor and measures approximately 19.6m in width and 6.8m in depth. The dwelling has large areas of glazing in its rear elevation which maximise its south facing rear aspect.

Dwelling 4 – Dwelling 4 incorporates a similar designed dwelling to plot 3 and will be situated in the eastern corner of the site at a lower level. The dwelling is a contemporary designed dwelling and incorporates a mono-pitched roof which measures approximately 5.1m in height towards the front and a maximum height of 6.2m towards the rear. The dwelling has a subordinate single storey element. The dwelling has a subservient basement area which incorporates a plant room, gym and cinema, the ground floor which incorporates the carport, bedrooms 2, 3 and 4, bathroom, en-suite and family room and the 1st floor which incorporates the master bedroom, study, bathroom, living room, dining room and kitchen with a recessed balcony area. The ground floor measures approximately 24.9m in width (including carport) and a depth of some 5.5m. The 1st floor element is slightly staggered above the ground floor and measures approximately 21.1m in width and 6.9m in depth. The dwelling has large areas of glazing in its rear elevation which maximise its south facing rear aspect.

Site History

Planning permission was previously submitted for 5 detached two-storey dwellings 2 with detached garages and 4 detached carports and associated works (Ref: 2009/1266), and Conservation Area Consent was sought simultaneously for the Demolition of outbuildings (Ref: 2010/0724). The applications were reported to Committee with Officer recommendation’s of Approval and subsequently refused by Members for the following reasons:

2009/1266

1. The proposed development by virtue of its density, scale and massing, design and layout would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Newton Conservation Area contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

2. The proposed development by virtue of its density, scale and massing, design and layout would be detrimental to the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers contrary to Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

2010/0724

1. In the absence of an approved scheme for the redevelopment of the site, the demolition of the outbuildings would result in an unacceptable loss of visual amenity and would be detrimental to the character of the Newton Conservation Area. As such the demolition would be contrary to Policy EV10 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

The applications were subsequently appealed to the Welsh Assembly Government where the Inspector resolved to dismiss the Appeals. However the Inspector did not conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring residents. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

The Inspector concluded that although parts of the Conservation Area are characterised by large semi-detached and detached dwellings occupying individual plots which are attractive, they are more in common with the type of suburban development that was common and widespread in the 20th century and as such do not make the greatest contribution to Newton’s character or appearance. The contrast between the fine individual buildings in large grounds and the dense terraces at the centre of the village, was considered to reflect Newton’s history and early development, and thus contributes most greatly to its distinctive character and special interest. The Inspector concluded that Picket Mead House is one of the best examples of the fine houses in large grounds in Newton and therefore makes a particularly important contribution to the distinctive character of the Conservation Area, and thus to its special interest.

The density of the proposed development was considered to be generally in keeping with those parts of the Conservation Area which are characterised by large semi-detached and detached dwellings occupying individual plots. It was, however, considered that the proposal did not reflect the density of the parts of the Conservation Area that make the greatest contribution to its distinctive character. The Inspector was particularly concerned that the proposed houses would be almost as tall, and of similar scale to Picket Mead House, and that the space around Picket Mead House would be substantially reduced. The status of Picket Mead House as a fine house in large grounds, and therefore its contribution to the special interest of the Conservation Area, would thus be greatly diminished if this development were allowed. Furthermore, the proposed houses would be arranged loosely on one side of a shared access drive around Picket Mead House and was considered that such a layout would have little precedent in the Conservation Area, which is generally characterised by houses that are more formally arranged within their individual plots and in relation to streets or other buildings.

Although the boundary wall would be largely retained or rebuilt and incorporated into the fabric of one of the proposed units, much of the proposed development would be apparent from public viewpoints on Picket Mead. The Inspector concluded for these reasons that the proposed development would be harmful to the distinctive character and special interest of the Conservation Area. Although it was considered that great care had been taken in the design of the individual houses and layout, and whilst it was considered the proposed development would be attractive in its own right, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would not have sufficient architectural or other merit to outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area, and the Appeal was subsequently dismissed.

The new application seeks to address the Inspector’s comments, and proposes a contemporary approach. In this regard an innovative design is promoted in the amplification to policy EV1:

“….In the majority of cases however, modern, innovative, sensitive designs are encouraged in preference to imitations of historical styles, so long as they are sympathetic and appropriate to their surroundings” (paragraph 1.3.2)

Given that the site lies within the Newton Conservation, the test is whether the proposals preserve or enhance the quality of the area. In this regard, paragraph 30 of Circular 61/96 is clear that:

“…..What is important is not that new buildings should directly imitate earlier styles, but that they should be designed with respect for their context, as part of a larger whole which has a well-established character and appearance of its own.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

Therefore the main issue to be addressed in the previous Inspector’s decision will be whether the new dwellings preserve the setting of Pickets Mead house as a fine house in large grounds and whether in their own right the proposed houses respect the context as part of a high quality design approach.

Principle of Development

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) requires all planning applications to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the area comprises the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which was adopted in November 2008.

The application site is identified as falling within the urban area for Newton as identified on the UDP Proposals Map for the area. Policy HC2 of the UDP allows for small infill plots within the urban area. The site is essentially an infill site within the urban area and subject to conformity with other policies of the plan the principal of residential development on the site is considered acceptable.

Issues

The main issues for consideration with regard the determination of this application are whether the scheme has addressed the Inspector’s decision and whether the scheme:

• Relates appropriately to its local context in terms of scale, height, massing, elevational treatment, materials and detailing layout, form, mix and density, • Integrates effectively with adjacent spaces and the public realm to create good quality townscape, • Does not result in a significant detrimental impact on local amenity in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy, disturbance and traffic movements • Preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, • Is acceptable in terms of highway safety, access and the Councils parking requirements, • Has an acceptable impact on the Ecology of the area, • Impact upon the protected Trees. • Drainage implications. • Impact upon Common Land.

Regard must be had for the site history and Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV9, EV30, EV33, EV35, EV29 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP. There are not considered to be any overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the area

Policy EV1 of the UDP is an ‘all embracing’ policy which amongst other things seeks to ensure that new development is appropriate to its local context and have regard to the setting of any listed building. Policy EV2 on the other hand requires new development to have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings and have regard to existing features including buildings, trees and hedgerows and the historic environment. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

Policy HC2 of the UDP supports proposals for housing development within the urban area provided that amongst other things the proposal does not have a significantly adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The site is situated within the Newton Conservation Area and as such under Policy EV9 new development must conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.

Policy EV30 of the UDP encourages the protection of trees and hedgerows where they are important for their visual amenity. Policies EV33 and EV35 focus upon sewage disposal and surface water runoff respectively.

The site comprises Picket Mead House which is an unlisted detached two storey dwelling of character, a number of mature trees that are subject to Tree Preservation Orders and a large garden area enclosed by a stone wall. The site lies in the Newton Conservation Area and forms the backdrop to an open space area of common land. The area around the site comprises a variety of houses of different size, age and style. This variety is reflected in the Conservation Area note:

“….the special character of Newton comprises the mixed use core of the village, its narrow streets fronted by picturesque natural stone boundary walls and many excellent terraced cottages. This interspersed with some fine individual buildings and beautiful mature trees.”

This part of the Conservation Area also comprises undistinguished two storey semi detached dwellings adjacent to the site, whilst to the north, west and south (outside the Conservation Area) are estates of modern two storey detached dwellings and bungalows that lack local distinctiveness. The Inspector previously concluded that these modern semi-detached dwellings made the least contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. The sites northern boundary is defined by open Common Land.

The revised scheme has sought to address the Inspector’s concerns by reducing the number of dwellings from five to four, by replacing the traditional pitched roofs with lower contemporary style mono pitch roofs, and by arranging the houses as pairs around courtyards, whilst retaining a much larger garden to Picket Mead House. The layout retains Pickets Mead house and the main trees are incorporated into the layout. Therefore there is no objection to the principle of developing this large garden in the Conservation Area.

The layout concept is welcomed. The pairs of houses are arranged around courtyards which draw inspiration from some of the traditional courtyards found elsewhere in the Conservation Area. This arrangement also leaves the full north-south length of the garden to Pickets Mead in tact which retains a suitable (albeit reduced) scale of setting for this fine individual house.

However, in order to access the courtyard serving houses 3 and 4, it is proposed to demolish the single storey gable fronted projection to Picket Mead house. The element in question is part of a ‘double gable’ arrangement which creates a highly distinctive layered arrangement to the main façade with prominent gothic windows. Therefore, in order to retain this element and the character of Picket Mead House amended plans were requested in order to re-instate this gable feature, all be it at a reduced depth in order to facilitate the access. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

The ground floor side elevation of Plot 1 is proposed to be integrated with the existing stone wall to form the backdrop to the common, with the first floor set in a minimum of 1.5m from the outer wall. The depth of the two storey element has been reduced to ensure that the dwelling does not compete with Pickets Mead House. Plot 1 has been carefully designed to ensure that it remains subservient to Picket Mead House, when viewed from wider public vantage points along the Common. The wall contributes significantly to the historical character of the common land and its retention and use will preserve the historic integrity of the site whilst also contributing to the character and appearance of Plot 1. Plot 2 has also been reduced in width in order to achieve a larger visual gap between Plots 1 and 2 when viewed head on from the common. Whilst the proposal will change the backdrop to the common, it is considered that the visible elements of the scheme given the proposed dwellings reductions in both height and size will not appear overly dominant when viewed from the wider vantage points and will it is considered enhance the area, whilst providing additional natural surveillance. Therefore, in visual terms from the primary vantage point from across the Common, the proposal is considered to be visually acceptable.

The proposal is for two contemporary building types either side of Pickets Mead House:

To the east are a pair of linear two storey houses arranged on the ‘grid’ of the kitchen garden To the west is a pair of L shaped houses with first floor ‘box’.

A key feature of both house types is zinc clad first floor areas with shallow mono pitch roof slopes. Whilst the mono pitch roofs are proposed to make reference to out buildings in the area, the proposal is for much large scale roofs with a considerably reduced pitch. Therefore, the question is whether the contextual references have been abstracted to the extent that they no longer relate positively to the Conservation Area. This raises the question of whether the roof form should be a traditional dual pitch with contemporary materials and detailing.

The mono pitch roofs are now 1.8 - 2.7m lower than the pitched roofs dismissed at appeal, and are 1.7m – 4m lower than the ridge of Picket Mead House. Therefore, in terms of scale, the proposal is clearly subservient to the main house.

The proposed use of zinc sheets for vertical faces has been reduced following concerns raised by the LPA and replaced with vertical timber cladding. Whilst the use of zinc as a roofing material may be a high quality contemporary reference to traditional slate, it should be noted that Pickets Mead house is currently roofed in red/orange clay tiles and although slate is found elsewhere in the Conservation Area, the site is not viewed in the context of any slate roofs. Furthermore the use of zinc as a walling material on vertical faces is considered inappropriate and the applicant has not provided any contextual examples of vertical slate hanging in the Conservation Area to support its use in this manner. The use of zinc to clad prominent first floor areas and the lack of windows in the prominent north facing elevations may give rise to a monolithic and alien appearance which is not acceptable in the Conservation Area where richness of detail is prevalent. Therefore, whilst zinc may be acceptable for roofing and possibly the short side elevations to form a zinc ‘wrapper’ (subject to the applicant providing further justification), a different material and additional windows in the north facing first floor areas should be considered; for example the first floors of houses 3 and 4 where timber cladding and additional windows are set into the zinc shell. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

Flat roofs are not characteristic of the Conservation Area, however they are an integral element of the proposed contemporary design concept. In order to be acceptable, any flat roof element must be a high quality feature and in this regard they should be covered by a growing green roof finish. It will be important to ensure that these flat roof areas are not used as roof terraces as this could severely impact on the amenity of surrounding residents.

The courtyard concept is fundamental to this scheme. Therefore, stone walls should be used to link the houses and strongly define the space. The courtyards should be uncluttered and in this regard the fence between the parking spaces for plot 1 and the visitor parking spaces should be removed.

There is a significant amount of new stone work proposed and this needs to be of the correct stone to relate the scheme to its context. Whilst, no local quarries are producing the appropriate ‘Mumbles limestone’, there are quarries in the Neath area and in the Vale of Glamorgan producing very similar stone and in this regard, the final stone selection will need to be controlled by means of a sample panel condition.

In terms of sustainability, the revised Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment confirms that the scheme will achieve level 4 which exceeds the mandatory Code level 3 set by the Welsh Government and this represents a 25% reduction in carbon dioxide production over current 2010 Building Regulations. The Code 4 compliance should be required by condition. These higher levels of sustainability are proposed to be achieved through upgraded building fabric and maximum use of solar gain through the southern aspect.

In terms of addressing the Design Commission for Wales comments, in relation to the impact of houses 3 and 4, the information provided did not show how these houses would be concealed by intervening boundaries and vegetation. The Final visualisation 03 from the common demonstrates how these houses are not widely visible.

Furthermore a sample of the zinc cladding has been provided and whilst this appears acceptable in principle as a contrast to the main house, referencing outbuildings, the final detail needs to be controlled via a condition requiring a sample panel of all materials on site.

The issues raised regarding internal layout and information for future residents are not planning concerns. Whilst the retention of the current architects is also not a planning concern, it should be noted that the overall quality and detail is fundamental to the design. Therefore a number of detailed conditions will be attached.

The applicants provided a revised Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment which confirms that the scheme will exceed the minimum sustainable building standards and achieve Code level 4. As such the proposal has addressed much of the concerns raised by the Design Commission for Wales.

Mature and established trees help define the perimeter of the site and the proposal involves the retention of the majority of these trees where possible which will help to break up the visual impact of the proposed dwellings upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The landscaped access road provides a pleasant environment whilst the siting of the dwellings will provide natural surveillance over the entire site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

A number of concerns have been raised by third parties with regard to the design of the proposal, the materials proposed and the development’s resultant relationship with the Conservation Area, and the assertion that more traditional references should be sought. Whilst it is acknowledged that Planning Policy Wales and the Swansea UDP acknowledge the importance of conserving the historic environment, PPW goes onto say that whilst the character or appearance of conservation areas must be a major consideration, it cannot prevent all new development. Indeed the proposal will be subservient and will not compete with the historic Picket Mead House. The re-development of the site would introduce a high quality development which would complement the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and furthermore it should be noted that good design is encouraged in local and national planning policies and the special interest of the conservation area does not depend on uniformity of design.

In light of the above it is considered that in terms of the design, the proposal has addressed the previous reasons for refusal and Inspector’s decision and would conserve and enhance the character of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy EV9 of the Unitary Development Plan as well as Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 in visual terms.

Impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties

Dwelling 1 – As stated previously, Dwelling 1 is situated in the northwest corner of the application site. The property will be sited to the north of No’s 36 and 38 Summerland Lane. The two storey element would be in excess of 16m from the boundaries of No’s 36 and 38 and as such given Dwelling 1’s minimal height and orientation to the north coupled with its distance from the boundaries with No 36 and 38 it is not considered that it would give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impacts. In terms of overlooking, there are two large bedroom windows and a roof terrace which would enjoy views towards Summerland Lane, however these bedroom windows and terraced area would be sited some 14m from the boundary which is considered sufficient in order to ensure that the privacy enjoyed by these dwellings is maintained.

Picket Mead would be sited approx. 14m to the immediate east of Dwelling 1 and as such given its separation distance, orientation and minimal height it would not give rise to unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing. In terms of overlooking, there are no windows at 1st floor level which would face Picket Mead House.

Dwelling 2 – Dwelling 2 is situated to the immediate north of No 34 Summerland Lane (single storey element approx. 5m and 2 storey element in excess of 19m), the east of the residential curtilage of No 36 Summerland Lane (single storey element approx. 7m and 2 storey element in excess of 12m), the south of Picket Mead House and the east of Picket Mead House residential curtilage. Given its orientation, siting and minimal height set well within the boundaries of the plot it is not considered that this dwelling would give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impacts upon the residential amenities of the aforementioned properties and as such in terms of its physical impact it is considered acceptable. Turning to overlooking, ground floor overlooking is mitigated against by the proposed boundary screening. 1st floor windows to the South are sited in excess of 19m from the boundaries with the dwellings situated along Summerland Lane which is considered a sufficient enough distance in order to overcoming issues relating to privacy. There is also a bathroom window at 1st floor level in the West elevation, however this is in excess of 10m from the boundary with No 36 Summerland Lane which is a sufficient distance to ensure the level of amenity enjoyed by this property is maintained. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

In terms of the impact upon Picket Mead House, there are no 1st floor habitable room windows facing Picket Mead House and given the separation distances and minimal height of the proposed dwelling it is considered that the proposal will not raise unacceptable issues relating to residential amenities.

Dwelling 3 – Dwelling 3 is sited in the south-eastern part of the site approx. 10m to the immediate north of No’s 28 and 30 Summerland Lane, the south-east of Picket Mead House and the south west of Dwelling No 4.

The two storey element of Dwelling 3 will be sited approximately 10m from the boundaries with No’s 28 and 30 Summerland Lane and as such the dwelling would not give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impacts in terms of these properties. Unacceptable overlooking can be mitigated against at ground floor level by agreeing boundary treatment. The 1st floor windows will be sited approximately 10m from the boundaries with these properties along Summerland Lane. At these distances, together with the presence of extensive tree coverage at the boundaries, and the fact that both No. 32 and No. 34 are bungalows, it is not considered that unacceptable overlooking of these properties would occur. Dwelling 3 should be read in the context with Dwelling 4 and are sited parallel to one another creating a courtyard feature. The dwelling is slightly staggered behind Dwelling 4 and as such it will not prove overbearing or overshadowing upon this property. In terms of overlooking towards Dwelling 4, again an agreed level of boundary treatment can overcome overlooking at ground floor level and at 1st floor level there are no habitable room windows in the front elevation which would overlook Dwelling 4. The windows in the primary front elevation would look towards the courtyard area which would be within the public domain and as such are considered acceptable.

The flank window serving bedroom 3 is in excess of 10m to the boundary with dwelling 4 and as such this would not cause unacceptable overlooking which could warrant the refusal of this application.

In terms of the impact upon Picket Mead, Dwelling 3 is sited in excess of 11m from the rear of the Mead at an obtuse angle which given the dwellings minimal height is considered sufficient in order to ensure the proposal will not give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing. In terms of overlooking there are no habitable room which will overlook the direction of the Mead and as such the proposal will achieve a satisfactory level of privacy for this property.

Dwelling 4 – Dwelling 4 is sited in the eastern side of the application site and is almost identical to Dwelling 3. Dwelling 4 is situated a minimum of 14m from the boundaries with No’s. 20 and 22 Summerland Lane, and this coupled with the retention of the landscaping on the boundary coupled with its minimal height and orientation to the north of the neighbouring dwellings it is considered the proposal would not be harmfully overbearing or overshadowing.

In terms of overlooking in this direction, given there are habitable rooms in the first floor with a balcony area it is not disputed that there will be an element of overlooking in this direction which will impact upon the level of privacy enjoyed by No’s 22 and 20 Summerland Lane, however given the first floor windows will be sited a minimum of 14m from the boundary with No 22 it is considered that this level of separation is considered sufficient and as such the Local Planning Authority could not justify a reason for refusal in this respect. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

Dwelling 4 will be sited some 12m from the side of Picket Mead House to the immediate east and as such it is considered that given this separation coupled with the dwellings minimal height and orientation it will not prove unacceptably overbearing or overshadowing. In terms of overlooking there are no habitable room windows in the side elevation which will overlook Pickets Mead House and as such will not result in unacceptable overlooking.

Dwelling 4 will be sited approximately 9m to the immediate north-east of Dwelling 3 and as such will not result in overshadowing or overbearing upon this property. The staggered nature of the properties will ensure the proposal will not give rise to unacceptable overlooking and as such will not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

Ground floor overlooking can be mitigated against by agreeing a level of boundary treatment.

The single storey element of this property will be situated a minimum of 1.8m from the boundary of the curtilage of No 175 Newton Road (to its immediate south), however the actual dwelling (175 Newton Road) would be sited in excess of 30m from the proposed dwelling and as such it is not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing to this property. The rear part of the garden is not used as garden area incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and the dwellings minimal height will ensure the proposal will not prove unacceptably overbearding and overshadowing upon the curtilage of this neighbouring property could not warrant the refusal of this application.

No. 169 and 171 Newton Road are located to the east of dwelling No. 4 but are considered to be sufficiently far away from this dwelling so as not to be significantly adversely affected by it in overshadowing, overbearing or overlooking terms.

Drainage

The application proposes the use of mains drainage. Policy EV33 of the UDP suggests that planning permission will only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer. Dwr Cymru/ Welsh Water have been consulted and they have not objected in terms of connecting to the sewer.

Concern has been raised by a number of residents with regard surface water issues in the area. The issue was raised with the applicant and additional drainage information was provided. The applicant has indicated that a rainwater harvesting system will be installed on each house, the roof water stored and recycled for flushing W.Cs, washing machines and outside taps. The tap water use will use water on site (washing cars, watering plants etc) but this will be when it is not raining and the ground can readily absorb the water. The other measures will result in a saving in metered water (and a reduced load on the infrastructure) and by discharging the recycled water as foul waste to the sewer, there will be an overall hydraulic reduction on this site, as a result of the development by use of this ‘SUDS’ measure.

Rainfall will remain unaffected by this development, so the only effect will be to introduce impermeable surfaces like roofs and drives which will prevent rain soaking into the ground where it falls. There should be little wasted roof-water from the harvesting tanks and the residual waste can be dealt with by a modest pit soakaway after each tank. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

Drives, paths and footways are indicated as being permeable and will be conditioned accordingly, which will allow the rain to soak away locally. The applicant has indicated that in extreme storm conditions if the pit soakaways overfill and overflow, it is “unpolluted” water which runs onto the ground just as it would have done without the development having taken place, and generally it will all disappear within a few minutes. The drainage information has been assessed by Building Control and they have raised no objection to the proposed drainage solution to the site.

Consultation was not deemed necessary with the Environment Agency as the proposal does not involve the creation of non-mains drainage and there are no known flooding risks in the locality.

Trees

Having consulted the Councils Tree Preservation Officer it is considered that the tree report written by EDP (The Environmental Dimension Partnership) provides the required information to assess the impact from this proposed scheme. Within the report an additional tree protection plan is provided to illustrate the position of tree protection methods. Most of the retained trees of quality on this site are given suitable protection to ensure no adverse impact would occur from construction work. Insufficient protection of trees identified as 1, 2 and 3 on the submitted plan is provided. It is necessary that an additional condition be included to protect these trees.

The tree report also identifies 2 trees to be removed that are covered under Tree Preservation Order 546. Both these trees (Birch Tree -T8 on the submitted plans) and (Weeping Ash tree - T15 on the submitted plans) have been assessed by EDP to be of a low (C) quality under the British Standard 5837: Trees in relation to construction. It is felt that both these trees were more worthy of moderate (B) quality. Even with this change in classification it is assessed that their loss would be acceptable with suitable replacement trees planted. This would ensure that no loss in amenity to the area would be incurred.

Overall this development design gives the larger trees of value suitable space. With the detailed tree protection plan in place and additional planning conditions it is concluded that no adverse impact would be incurred onto the trees to be retained on this site.

With the above in mind the conditions must be attached to any consent to ensure no adverse impact occurs onto the retained trees within or adjacent to this site. It is not considered, therefore, that the proposal would have any adverse impact upon the important protected trees within the Conservation Area.

Ecology

A protected species survey has been submitted for the outbuildings and following consideration with the Council’s Ecologist no evidence of bat activity was found. However the surveyor did note that there may be something found during demolition and as such a bat informative is required to be attached to any permission. In terms of the wildlife impact the Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that subject to the retention of trees on the site there would no adverse impact upon the ecology of the area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

Highway Safety

Policy EV1 and HC2 of the UDP require new development to not result in significant harm to highway safety.

This is a resubmission of an application that was previously refused on visual amenity grounds.

Subject to Conditions there are no highway objections to the proposed scheme and the proposal is considered to comply with Policies EV1 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above 235 individual letters and a petitions of 1373 objections were received raising the following concerns; the impact upon the protected trees, the proposal being out of keeping with the bungalows along Summerland Lane, the impact upon the setting of Picket Mead House and the boundary wall, out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area, proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Swansea UDP, density of the dwellings, failure to overcome inspectors conclusions, overdevelopment of the site, loss of the historic village core, flooding, contrary to PPW and other national guidance, impact upon the skyline, loss of greenspace, flooding, principle of development, overlooking, overbearing, access issues, surface water issues, traffic implications, lack of parking, lack of capacity in the local infrastructure, materials, pedestrian safety, drainage issues, ecological implications, design of the dwellings, loss of open space and loss of light. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed in the main body of my report. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

Other issues

Concern has been expressed that the development would represent an over development of the site, however, it is considered that, the site is large enough to be more than capable of accommodating the proposal without appearing over intensive for the site or the area.

The setting of a precedent and other similar history in the vicinity of the site are not considered to give rise to overriding concerns given that it is incumbent that the application is considered on its own merits.

The proposal does not involve development upon Picket Mead Green, however it will involve the creation of a new access point which will serve dwellings 3 and 4. Whilst the Council is aware that this would require a small amount of development on an area which is registered common land any subsequent works carried out would require consent from the Welsh Government and as such is a separate matter from the consideration of this planning application. Issues relating to legality of access is covered under separate legislation.

Concern has been raised that allowing this contemporary form of development would set a precedent for further modern forms of development, however this is not a material planning consideration as each planning application should be considered on the basis of their own individual merit.

Issues which arise during construction are a temporary inconvenience and as such do not form a valid material consideration during the determination of this application. Issues which persist are a matter for the police.

Conclusion

In light of the above appraisal it is considered that the proposal has addressed the previous reasons for refusal and the Inspectors decision and would be acceptable in terms of its impact upon visual and residential amenity and the protected trees and would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Newton Conservation Area at this location. Furthermore the submission has demonstrated that the proposal has an acceptable impact upon highway safety and as such the proposal is considered to comply with Policies HC2, EV1, EV9, EV2, EV3, HC2, EV29, EV33, EV35 and EV30 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and a recommendation of approval is justified.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

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

3 The approved access drive and driveways shall be constructed from a permeable surface the details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

4 Prior to the dwellings being brought into beneficial use, the internal access road shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

5 Prior to the dwellings being brought into beneficial use, revised details of the parking layout for Picket Mead House shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The additional information shall provide a further parking space to serve this dwelling and shall be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

6 Samples of all external finishes and a sample panel showing the interfaces between all materials plus corner and reveal details shall be submitted to and/or constructed on site and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

7 The roofs of the dwellings hereby approved shall not be used as an amenity area or roof garden. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

9 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 Level 4 and 3 credits under Ene1 (November 2010) have been achieved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Certificate has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

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

11 No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Prior to the commencement of development, a schedule of proposed tree surgery works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any tree surgery work approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard [3998:2010 - BS3998: Recommendations for tree work] Reason: To ensure the retention of the protected trees and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

12 If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the retention of the protected trees and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

13 The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Plan 2 ‘Tree Protection Plan’ of EDP’s Arboricultural report (ref : T_EDP964/01d_Arboricultural Assessment_DM/cm) . All protection measures will be implemented before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the retention of the protected trees and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

14 No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement (CMS), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA, detailing the tree protection measures to be taken to avoid damage to retained trees T1, T2 and T3. Reason: To ensure the retention of the protected trees and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

15 No development shall commence until all tree protection measures have been implemented, inspected and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the retention of the protected trees and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

16 Details of the replacement trees to be planted are to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

17 The first floor windows in the front elevations serving the bathrooms shall be obscurely glazed and unopenable except for a fan light and shall be maintained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

INFORMATIVES

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

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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

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

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

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

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

The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer with the approximate position being marked on the attached Statutory Public Sewer Record. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No part of the building will be permitted within 3m either side of the centrelines of the public sewer. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewer and avoid damage thereto.

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.

The developer is advised to contact our New Connections Design Department, Players Industrial Estate, Swansea, SA6 5BQ to discuss this prior to the commencement of any site work. Telephone 0800 9172652 for further information on this matter.

A water supply can be made available to serve this proposed development. The developer may be required to contribute, under sections 40-41 of the Water Industry Act 1991, towards the provision of new off-site and/or on-site watermains and associated infrastructure. The level of contribution can be calculated upon receipt of detailed site layout plans which should be sent to New Connections Design Department.

6 You are advised that part of the development site is registered Common Land (register CL4 - Picket Mead). Please note that any proposed works on this land may require consent from the Welsh Assembly under Section 194 of Law of Property 1925. Any works carried out without such consent will be unlawful.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0760

PLANS

1054MDN2_P101 existing site survey, 1054MDN2_P105 sections BB, 1054MDN2_P106 sections CC, received 23rd May 2011. Amended plans 1054MDN2_P100A site location and site plan, 1054MDN2_P103B contextual street elevation,. 1054MDN2_P104A sections A_A, 1054MDN2_P200B proposed plans for plot 1, 1054MDN2_P201B proposed plans for plot 2, received 7th November 2011 Amended plans 1054MDN2_P102C proposed site layout plan, 1054MDN2_P202B proposed plans for plot 3, 1054MDN2_P203C proposed plans for plot 4 received 23rd December 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0766 WARD: Newton Area 2

Location: Land at Picket Mead House Murton Lane Newton Swansea Proposal: Demolition of outbuildings within the residential curtilage and partial demolition of the North Elevation of existing Picket Mead House (application for Conservation Area consent) Applicant: Carrington Moore Estates Ltd

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/0724 Demolition of outbuildings (application for Conservation Area Consent) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 26/07/2010

2009/1226 Construction of 5 detached dwellings, 2 with detached garages and 4 detached carports and associated works Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 23/07/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: All previous objectors and adjoining neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted and the application was advertised on site and in the press as Demolition of existing outbuildings in a Conservation Area. 196 LETTERS OF OBJECTION and petitions with 1373 signatures were received which are summarised below:

2. Object to the demolition taking place. 3. Outbuildings and Picket Mead House are part of the historic fabric of the area. 4. The dwelling is within a Conservation and needs to be conserved. 5. Proposal has not overcome previous reasons for refusal. 6. Concern regarding site drainage. 7. Village Green would be disturbed. 8. Trees will have to be felled and boundary wall removed. 9. Setting of Picket Mead would be totally destroyed. 10. Basement areas could affect foundations of neighbouring properties. 11. The Law and Property Act 1925 prevents development on Common Land. 12. Proposal is entirely for Commercial gain. 13. Impact on infrastructure. 14. Approval of this application would open the door for development on the Mead. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0766

15. The proposal is not an appropriate design. 16. Concern in relation to the proposed materials. 17. Flooding concerns. 18. Proposal contrary to National and Local Policies. 19. No material change to conclusions of Mr Poulter (Inspector). 20. Proposal will suburbanise the common. 21. Impact on biodiversity. 22. Highway and access concerns. 23. Concern in relation to additional traffic and safety. 24. Negative impact on the skyline. 25. Loss of recreation area. 26. Proposal out of scale with the area. 27. Proposal has not addressed the Design Commission for Wales concerns.

10 LETTERS OF SUPPORT were received which are summarised below:

1. Development is totally within the grounds of Picket Mead House. 2. Neighbours have been consulted and considered in the design process. 3. The development does not involve development on the Mead as some objectors are stating. 4. Trees are to be maintained. 5. Proposal has been designed to accord with the Conservation Area. 6. Development is within the settlement limits. 7. Development will boost the local community. 8. Proposal offers a good relationship to the surrounding areas including the Common. 9. Design is of a very high standard and architectural merit. 10. Proposal would raise no access issues. 11. Proposal will enhance the character of the Conservation Area. 12. Proposal will comply with Policy EV9. 13. Proposal is sustainable and should be encouraged. 14. The area has deteriorated overtime due to lack of investment. 15. Proposal will create jobs. 16. Site is currently an underutilised site. 17. Impact on Picket Mead House. 18. High quality scheme which could drive up standards. 19. Proposal will improve the visual qualities of the area. 20. Approval would help the areas economic recovery.

Mumbles Community Council: Removal of original stone boundary wall and part of the façade of Picket Mead House be would irrevocably detrimental to the character of this Conservation Area.

Martin Caton MP: After receiving strong representations from constituents living in Newton, I write to object to the above applications.

I believe that the proposed development would be completely out of character with the surrounding area and would have a negative impact on the neighbourhood. There is clearly a drainage problem in this area and residents in properties lower-lying than Picket Mead understandably believe that the proposed soakaway channelling surface and rainwater will increase the risk of flooding at their homes and gardens. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0766

In any case this an important piece of green open space in a residential area providing a valuable amenity to local people. It should be protected, not suburbanised.

APPRAISAL

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

Description

Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of the existing outbuildings and partial demolition of the north elevation of Picket Mead House at Picket Mead House, Newton, Swansea.

Site History

Planning permission was previously submitted for 5 detached two-storey dwellings 2 with detached garages and 4 detached carports and associated works (Ref: 2009/1266) and Conservation Area Consent was sought simultaneously for the Demolition of outbuildings (Ref: 2010/0724). The applications were reported to Committee with Officer recommendation’s of Approval and subsequently refused by Members for the following reasons:

2009/1266

3. The proposed development by virtue of its density, scale and massing, design and layout would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Newton Conservation Area contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

4. The proposed development by virtue of its density, scale and massing, design and layout would be detrimental to the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers contrary to Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0766

2010/0724

The applications were subsequently appealed to the Welsh Assembly Government where the Inspector resolved to dismiss the Appeals, however the Inspector did not conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring residents. The Inspector concluded that although parts of the Conservation Area are characterised by large semi-detached and detached dwellings occupying individual plots which are attractive, they are more in common with the type of suburban development that was common and widespread in the 20th century and as such do not make the greatest contribution to Newton’s character or appearance. The contrast between the fine individual buildings in large grounds and the dense terraces at the centre of the village, was considered to reflect Newton’s history and early development, and thus contributes most greatly to its distinctive character and special interest. The Inspector concluded that Picket Mead House is one of the best examples of the fine houses in large grounds in Newton and therefore makes a particularly important contribution to the distinctive character of the Conservation Area, and thus to its special interest.

The density of the proposed development was considered to be generally in keeping with those parts of the Conservation Area which are characterised by large semi-detached and detached dwellings occupying individual plots. It was however considered that the proposal did not reflect the density of the parts of the Conservation Area that make the greatest contribution to its distinctive character. The Inspector was particularly concerned that the proposed houses would be almost as tall, and of similar scale to Picket Mead House, and that the space around Picket Mead House would be substantially reduced. The status of Picket Mead House as a fine house in large grounds, and therefore its contribution to the special interest of the Conservation Area, would thus be greatly diminished if this development were allowed. Furthermore, the proposed houses would be arranged loosely on one side of a shared access drive around Picket Mead House and was considered that such a layout would have little precedent in the Conservation Area, which is generally characterised by houses that are more formally arranged within their individual plots and in relation to streets or other buildings.

In light of the above and given there was not an acceptable scheme approved for the redevelopment of the site, in accordance with UDP Policy EV10, the Inspector dismissed the appeal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0766

Therefore the main issues to overcome from the previous Inspector’s decision will be whether there is an acceptable scheme for the redevelopment of this site and in this instance, whether the impact of demolition upon the character and appearance of the Horton Conservation Area is acceptable. This is having regard to the site history and the prevailing policies of the Development Plan, and recent National Planning Policy Guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2011. There are considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Policy EV10 of the Unitary Development Plan seeks to resist the demolition of unlisted buildings that contribute to the character or appearance of a Conservation Area unless fully justified.

The pairs of houses are arranged around courtyards, however, in order to access the courtyard serving houses 3 and 4, it is proposed to demolish the single storey gable fronted projection to Picket Mead house. The element in question is part of a ‘double gable’ arrangement which creates a highly distinctive layered arrangement to the main façade with prominent gothic windows. Therefore, in order to retain this element and the character of Picket Mead House amended plans were requested in order to re-instate this gable feature, all be it at a reduced depth in order to facilitate the access. Given the gable feature is to be reinstated and from a visual perspective the differences would not be easily detected, the demolition of this small element of the building and its replacement, on balance, are considered to preserve the character and appearance of Picket Mead House.

In terms of the outbuildings, the current out buildings are not listed and are not considered to be of any particular architectural merit. Only one of the buildings is readily visible from public vantage points outside the site given that the walled garden hides their views. The group of buildings, which all adjoin one another comprise of a shed, garage, greenhouse and brick outbuilding. It is the latter that is visible from further afield, albeit it is not considered to be a building of character. The buildings are in a dilapidated state of repair and it is considered that their demolition and the introduction of a development of substance would have a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and as such demolition and redevelopment would enhance the character appearance of the protected area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0766

Given that the buildings are of no architectural merit it is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy EV10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Planning Application Ref: 2011/0760 to be considered by Committee, is a detailed proposal for the redevelopment of the site with 4 detached dwellings, which incorporates a contemporary response to the redevelopment of this site. This new development would be sited within the complex of Picket Mead House and it has been carefully designed to respect the scale, character and form of the conservation area. The proposed redevelopment is considered acceptable at this location and would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

It is considered necessary, to impose a condition regarding the commencement of demolition in relation to redevelopment in order to ensure the character and appearance of the Conservation Area remains protected.

Residential Amenity

There are no issues in relation to residential amenity.

Ecology

A protected species survey has been carried out and the Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that there are no ecological implications with the proposed demolition.

Response to Consultation

Notwithstanding the above, 10 letters of support and 1572 letters of objection (including petitions) have been received largely raising concerns/support relating to the impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and wider Gower AONB and the amenities of adjoining occupiers. However, the majority of these concerns/support, apart from those associated with the impact of the demolition upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area are not material to this application for Conservation Area Consent because they relate largely to and are addressed as part of the replacement dwelling application (Ref: 2011/0760).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the existing outbuildings are not important to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the replacement of the gable feature has preserved the character and appearance of Picket Mead House therefore their demolition would not unduly impact upon the visual amenities of the Newton Conservation Area and as such the proposal complies with the principles of Policy EV10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0766

1 The developer shall not commence any works for the demolition of the buildings before a contract for the carrying out of the works for the redevelopment of the site has been signed and planning permission granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides and a date for the commencement of these works agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the character and appearance of the area is not detrimentally affected by the demolition works.

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

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

1054MDN2_P107 Site location & block plan, 1054MDN2_P108 existing topographical survey, 1054MDN2_P109 existing elevations received 23rd May 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2012/0083 WARD: Newton Area 2

Location: 20 Moorland Avenue Newton Swansea SA3 4UA Proposal: Retention of replacement vehicular and pedestrian gates, pillars and wall on front boundary up to a maximum of 1.8m high Applicant: Mr and Mrs J Straw

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/1747 Retention and replacement of vehicular and pedestrian gates, pillars and part of wall on front boundary up to a maximum of 1.8m Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 19/01/2012

2007/0909 Increase in ridge height by 0.5m to create two storey dwelling house, new pitched roof to existing attached garage and new front porch Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 05/06/2007

CONSULTATIONS

TEN PROPERTIES have been individually consulted on this application. No responses have been received to date as a result of this exercise. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0083

ONE LETTER OF COMMENT has been received regarding access to the gated driveway for which retention is sought. It is stated that this access is over land forming the footpath and highway and that part of this land has been owned by persons other than the applicants since 1964.

Highway Observations - There are no highway safety implications with the indicated gates and pillars. The Head of Transportation and Engineering Services recommends no highway objection.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision as the application is made by Mr and Mrs Straw, the Chief Executive of the Council, and his wife.

Full planning permission is sought for the retention of replacement vehicular and pedestrian gates, pillars and wall up to maximum height of 1.8m, on the front boundary of No.20 Moorlands Avenue, Newton. The application property is situated on the north- eastern side of the road, at a point which previously formed a turning head to the cul-de- sac which comprised Moorlands Avenue. The land to the west has been developed and Moorland Avenue extended to provide access.

The new vehicular gates are of a galvanised finish and measure 3.4m wide and reach a height of 1.8m at their centre point. A similarly designed pedestrian gate, measuring 1.1m wide by 1.25m high, replaces that originally on site. Concrete block pillars with coping stones are sited either side of the pedestrian gate and the southern part of the vehicular gate, measuring 1.3m, 1.4m and 1.5m respectively (south to north); while the northernmost part of the vehicular gate is supported by a galvanised pillar measuring 1.7m in height. That part of the boundary between the respective concrete block gate pillars consists of a matching concrete block wall, to a maximum height of 1.25m.

In terms of visual amenity, the galvanized steel gates compliment those present at the property, situated towards the southern end of the site and providing vehicular access to the integral garage. Similarly, the concrete block wall and pillars which have been added are similar in design and height to those surrounding the western perimeter of the site and adjacent to what was previously the turning head for the cul-de-sac.

The works to be retained are considered to relate satisfactorily to the character and appearance of other boundary treatments in the street, and accord with the height, materials and type of boundary treatments used on several other properties in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the size, design and positioning of the works do not obstruct views of the house from the street nor prevent natural surveillance of the public realm from the house, in line with the Key Design Principles outlined in paragraph 9.3 of `A Design Guide for Householder Development' (2008), and do not have an adverse visual impact upon the streetscene at this location.

There are no highway safety implications with the indicated gates and pillars and the Head of Transportation and Engineering Services recommends no highway objection to the proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2012/0083

The application was made following the investigation of a complaint concerning land ownership and boundary treatment. Whilst the ownership issue and the matter referred to in the letter of comment are civil matters, and not relevant to the consideration of this application, the applicant has provided proof of title of the land which the wall and gates front. However, the land referred to in the letter of comment is outside of the applicant’s curtilage and falls within the highway, which has yet to be offered for adoption by the Highway Authority. This has no material bearing on the application.

In conclusion, therefore, and having regard to all material planning considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of development, complying with the criteria of Policies EV1, EV2, AS6 and HC7 of the adopted City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the guidance contained in Sections 8 and 9 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance document `A Design Guide for Householder Development' (2008).

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, unconditionally.

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 and HC7 of the adopted City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008, and the guidance provided at Sections 8 and 9 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance document `A Design Guide for Householder Development' (2008).

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

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, photograph 1 (scale 1:50), photograph 2, photograph 3 received 17th January 2012

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Field 0726 and 1229 Nicholaston Farm Penmaen Swansea SA3 2HL Proposal: Retention of mixed use of field for agriculture and tented camping from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October in any year Applicant: Mr Tom Beynon

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

Policy EC11 Appropriate small scale rural business development or home based employment within, and in exceptional circumstances adjoining, existing villages or closely associated with suitable groupings of farm buildings will be permitted subject to a defined set of criteria including loss of amenity, transportation considerations, impact on landscape and village scene, and natural heritage and historic environment etc. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal A00/0693 USE OF LAND FOR SITING OF 10 NO. LOG CABINS AND A COMMUNAL BUILDING FOR HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 25/07/2000

2001/1276 Use of land for the siting of 10 log cabins, 6 static caravans and the erection of a multi purpose communal building Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 06/09/2001

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS:

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and in the press as Development which affects a public right of way. 21 letters of support and no letters of objection were received. The letters of support are summarised below:

SUPPORT:

1. Camping is required on Gower. 2. Supports the local economy. 3. Gower has lost a number of jobs from agriculture and tourism should be supported. 4. Proposal is temporary in use and will not result in lasting development. 5. Proposal is better than a static site. 6. The mixed use is ideal within the AONB. 7. Camping has existed at Nicholaston for 50 yrs. 8. The site is very well run. 9. The site is close to the beach and has good amenities. 10. Campsite provides knock on jobs. 11. Tented camping has minimal impact on the landscape and should be supported. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

12. Applicant has run a successful agricultural/tourism business and should be supported. 13. The site currently is visible from my property and harms my visual amenity, however having discussed this with the applicant the hedgerow will be allowed to grow thus providing screening which would make the development acceptable. I believe that the additional diversification of the use of the farm is appropriate to the economy of the Gower and assists in bringing vitality to the area. 14. The area is suffering from illegal camping which causes issues in relation to littering.

Gower Society: Following observations:

1. We are aware that fields 0726 and 1229 are in fact a single area because the dividing hedge was removed some years ago. 2. These fields were part of the ‘pick your own’ operation until relatively recently. 3. A planning Appeal hearing against enforcement has been postponed following the submission of this application 2009/1506. 4. Since the dismissal in 2003 of a Planning Appeal relating to a nearby field on the same farm, the applicants have continued to ignore the ruling and in fact have increased their activity into both the adjacent and these two fields on the farm. 5. We accept that the site owners run a very efficient farm-orientated business, but the fact remains that these fields have been used illegally for camping/caravanning for a number of years. 6. These two fields are however less conspicuous than 2038 and 2839 – but we deplore the removal of hedges. Whatever the outcome of this application, all hedges should be replaced and restored to a high standard. This would screen any future activity. 7. Any use of this site should be strictly confined to tents only, with a strict enforcement of numbers to prevent visual intrusion, noise and access problems. 8. We are well aware that any substantial increase of the existing site would be contrary to the UDP.

The society asks that you take the above points into consideration when arriving at your decision.

Countryside Council for Wales: CCW does no object to the proposal.

Environment Agency: No objection subject to standard advice notes.

Ilston Community Council: The Council does not object in principle, provided there are certain safeguards i.e no caravans, buildings such as toilet blocks and infrastructures such as hook-ups and access routes and this would best be achieved by asking the applicants to enter into a 106 agreement.

The Council, however does question the necessity of 5m high hedges which seems to be quite excessive and which could radically change the landscape.

Agricultural Consultant: The Council consulted Richard Anstis (Agricultural Consultant) in relation to the submitted information in order to ascertain whether on the basis of the information submitted the scheme warranted acceptable farm diversification. The following summary was provided:

1. All 47 ha (116 acres) is owned within the family under the control of the applicant. 2. Many of the buildings have been converted to other uses, but some of the buildings in the yard are still dedicated to agricultural uses. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

3. The holding extends to 47 ha (116 acres), of which 3 ha are dedicated to arable, 10 to pick-your-own fruit and potatoes and the rest is mainly permanent grass. 4. The applicant sells 10ha of pick-your-own fruit and potatoes, 3 ha of barley is grown for sale and another’s sheep are kept on tack on some of the grass, with the small remainder dedicated to hay and silage. Some of the buildings are used for agriculture, the remainder have been adapted for non-agricultural uses. For 5 months of the year, albeit between November and March, outside the principal growing season, the grass under the proposed camping ground would be available for grazing. 3.7.1 When considering planning applications for farm diversification projects, planning authorities should consider the nature and scale of activity taking a proportionate approach to the availability of public transport and the need for improvements to the local highway network. While initial consideration should be given to converting existing buildings for employment use, sensitively located and designed new buildings will also often be appropriate. 3.7.2 Many economic activities can be sustainably located on farms. Small on-farm operations such as food and timber processing and food packing, together with services (e.g. offices, workshop facilities, equipment hire and maintenance), sports and recreation services, and the production of non-food crops and renewable energy, are likely to be appropriate uses. 5. The first question is whether the proposal is indeed a farm diversification project. For that to be the case, the majority enterprise should be agriculture. We have examined the functional and financial elements of the whole farm to make this assessment

Labour – time and number:

There are 3 full time and 10 part time employees. This would not change. The three full time employees are the applicant parents and son. All 7 of the part-time employees are hired for assisting with the diversified business during the peak holiday period. The remaining 3 are employed casually for a short season for picking the fruit. It is fair to say that the majority of labour, both in terms of hours and numbers of employees, are engaged in diversified businesses on the holding outside agriculture.

Area used:

Field numbers 1229 and 0726, making the application site of 1.32ha. 2038 and 2839 make up 1.78ha and 333 and 3224 have established use certificates. Even taking all of this area and assuming it were all permitted for non-agricultural use (between 10% and 15% of the whole), the majority of the land will still be physically available for agriculture. However, we cannot accept entirely the claim that since the application is only for part of the year, the land will be available for agriculture for the remainder. The growing and main grazing season is exactly during the time when the land would be used for non-agricultural activity, so, after recovery time there would be very little agricultural benefit to be derived from the land.

Financial:

37% of existing and predicted sales are from agriculture. The rest is from non-farming activity. From the forecast figures, this pattern would continue, but with a further lean towards non-agricultural financial activity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

6. In conclusion, although the physical area of the non-farming land will still only represent a minority of the whole, in all other aspects the proposal would result in the non-farming element being the major use of the holding. In our opinion, this would not therefore be a farm diversification business, but a recreation and tourism business with an agricultural element. Although farm diversification is indeed encouraged as a minor aspect of farming businesses, we believe this proposal to exceed the level envisaged under the policy guidance.

Following Richard Anstis’s Report significant discussions between the Applicants, Agent and LPA took place. A site visit was conducted involving the Applicant, Agent, LPA and Richard Anstis. Significant supporting information was submitted in order to demonstrate that the proposal was indeed acceptable Farm Diversification and Richard Anstis was re-consulted. His comments are summarised below:

1. Our earlier report should be corrected. The holding extends to 43 ha, not 47 ha (as stated in the supporting report of September 2009) and is owned within the family under the control of the applicant. 2. Many of the buildings have been converted to other uses, but some of the buildings in the yard are still dedicated to agricultural uses. The agent maintains that the majority of the buildings are in agricultural use. It is accepted that the majority of buildings remain capable of being so used. 3. 3 ha are dedicated to arable, 10 ha to pick-your-own fruit and potatoes and the rest is mainly grass predominant leys. 4. The applicant sells 10ha of pick-your-own fruit and potatoes, 3 ha of barley is grown for sale and another’s sheep are kept on tack on some of the grass, with the small remainder dedicated to hay and silage. Some of the buildings are used for agriculture, the remainder have been adapted for non-agricultural uses. For 5 months of the year, albeit between November and March, outside the principal growing season, the grass under the proposed camping ground would be available for grazing. It is accepted that this winter grazing is agriculturally significant. 5. In the earlier assessment, the principle issue examined was whether the proportion of farming activity as opposed to non-farming activity was sufficient to allow the proposal to be assessed as diversification. The proportion of labour, area and financial factors were analysed to assess whether this was a farm, from which the existing and proposed camping formed a diversification. The applicant agent has presented further evidence on those three sub-headings and has provided an alternative approach to define diversification.

Labour – time and number:

The earlier assessment highlighted that there are 3 full time, 7 part time and 3 seasonal workers. This would not change. The agent maintains that the majority of labour is employed on the agricultural enterprise. The evidence does not clarify this, but it is accepted that the balance is fine. However, the assessment is on the impact of the additional camping area proposed. Because the labour need would not change, it is fair to say that the additional camping grounds would not alter the existing balance of labour between agriculture and non-agriculture. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

Area used:

In the earlier assessment, the application site comprises field numbers 1229 and 0726, totalling 1.32ha. 2038 and 2839 provide a further 1.78ha and 333 and 3224 have established use certificates. Even taking all of this area and assuming it were all permitted for non-agricultural use (between 10% and 15% of the whole), the majority of the land will still be physically available for agriculture. The agent reports that 91.2% of the land is used exclusively for agriculture. The point can be argued, but it is accepted that the application would not materially alter the balance of use.

Financial:

The earlier assessment reported that 37% of existing (and predicted) turnover is from agriculture, with the rest being from non-farming activity. No division of the profits has been supplied to identify what proportion is derived from farming activities. The latest evidence claims that perhaps 58% of the turnover is from agriculture, based on the average over the last 6 years. It is likely that different averages can be derived by selecting different timeframes, but it is fair to say that the diversification business is now becoming as significant, perhaps more significant, than the farming business.

The suggestion has been made that it is not the proportion of activity, turnover, profit, land and labour that defines whether a proposal can still be considered as diversification, but only whether the existing, remaining agricultural enterprise can be considered as a farm. There seems some logic to that approach and in this case, the level of farming activity is significant, is carried out for the purposes of a trade/business and is profitable as an isolated enterprise (the agent reports over £18,000 profit from only agricultural activities, which is sufficient to support at least the principle farm worker). Certainly this influences the assessment.

6. The latest evidence, although by no means cast, is compelling and does go some way to allay the concerns and together with the very specific circumstances of this case, the matter is finely weighted. On balance, in our opinion the proposal stretches the definition of diversification to the limit, but meets the criteria.

APPRAISAL

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

Description

Planning consent is sought for the retention of the mixed use of a field for agriculture and tented camping from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October in any year at Nicholaston Farm, Penmaen, Gower. There is a concurrent application submitted for the same use and time period on an adjacent field (Ref: 2009/1506). The site is situated within both the countryside and Gower AONB.

The farm is 47 hectares in size and 3 ha are dedicated to arable, 10 ha to pick-your-own fruit and potatoes and the rest is mainly grass predominant leys. Some of the buildings are used for agriculture, the remainder have been adapted for non-agricultural uses. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

For 5 months of the year, albeit between November and March, outside the principal growing season, the grass under the proposed camping ground would be available for grazing. It is accepted that this winter grazing is agriculturally significant.

The applicant indicates that there are 3 full time, 7 part time and 3 seasonal workers and this balance will not change. The agent maintains that the majority of labour is employed on the agricultural enterprise.

Site History

The site has a long and varied planning history. Planning permission was previously refused for a small element of field OS2038/2839 for an extension of camping and touring caravan field for a temporary period of 7 years for the following reasons:

1. The proposal represents an unjustified and visually intrusive form of development within the open countryside which would have a seriously detrimental effect on the generally undeveloped character and appearance of the coastline surrounding Nicholaston Farm and detract from the natural beauty of this part of the AONB which has already been compromised by the existing unauthorised use of this field. The development is therefore not considered to accord with West Glamorgan Structure Plan Review (No. 2) Policies C1, C5 and TRS2 and Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1 Policies CL1, CL3 and RT8. 2. The proposed caravan camping area which would be sited immediately adjacent to residential dwellings fronting the A4118 South Gower Road, would result in a serious loss of residential amenity to those residents principally by general disturbance and noise caused by the user of the field for camping and caravanning purposes. The proposal is not therefore considered to accord with Policy BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1. 3. The proposal if approved, would create a precedent for proposals of a similar nature, the cumulative impact of which would be seriously detrimental to the visual amenities of the Gower AONB and prejudice the Council's overall planning policies which seek to resist inappropriate tourism developments.

A planning application was subsequently submitted for the use of this section of field for 28 days a year, however this was also refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal represents an unjustified and visually intrusive form of development within the open countryside which would have a seriously detrimental effect on the generally undeveloped character and appearance of the coastline surrounding Nicholaston Farm and detract from the natural beauty of this part of the AONB which has already been compromised by the existing unauthorised use of this field. The development is therefore not considered to accord with West Glamorgan Structure Plan Review (No. 2) Policies C1, C5 and TRS2 and Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1 Policies CL1, CL3 and RT8. 2. The proposed camping area which would be sited adjacent to residential dwellings fronting the A4118 South Gower Road, would result in a serious loss of residential amenity to those residents principally by general disturbance and noise caused by the user of the field for camping purposes. The proposal is not therefore considered to accord with Policy BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

3. The proposal if approved, would create a precedent for proposals of a similar nature, the cumulative impact of which would be seriously detrimental to the visual amenities of the Gower AONB and prejudice the Council's overall planning policies which seek to resist inappropriate tourism developments.

The application was subsequently dismissed at appeal, however not on residential amenity grounds but due to the impact upon the character and appearance of the Gower AONB. Whilst this current application does not involve the introduction of tents on the application site mentioned above which was previously refused, in order to address the visual impact issues raised in the previous applications the applicant has submitted a landscape character and visual assessment which is a material consideration which would need to be fully considered during the determination of this application.

Main Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relate to whether the proposal constitutes an acceptable temporary change of use of the land from agriculture to tented camping in the countryside and Gower AONB having regard to the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan. New camping sites are assessed against the criteria of Policy EC20 of the Swansea UDP. The proposal has been put forward as part of a farm diversification to support the existing farm business and special regard needs to be given to Policies EC11, EC17 and EV21 of the UDP which relate to rural business development, rural tourism, new camp sites and rural development respectively. The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the Gower AONB is a primary consideration and highway safety issues also need to be considered.

New Camp Site

Policy EC20 of the Swansea UDP allows for New Campsites only where:

(i) It would not materially adversely affect the natural beauty of the AONB, Heritage Coast or other nationally or internationally designated areas, (ii) There would be no material harm to the landscape character and environmental quality of the surrounding area, either individually or cumulatively with other sites in the vicinity, (iii) There are satisfactory service arrangements in terms of access roads, sewerage, power and water supply, surface water disposal and waste disposal, (iv) The site is well located in relation to an adequate road system which can accommodate the traffic generated, and where possible has convenient access to frequent public transport, (v) Holiday occupancy is ensured by condition and (vi) Within the AONB, it can be demonstrated that the site contributes towards meeting an identified unmet need.

The UDP acknowledges that the majority of camp sites are located in areas of high landscape and scenic value within the Gower AONB and any intensification in the number and size of these sites would undoubtedly have an impact upon the landscape. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

Issues relating to visual impact will be addressed further in the appraisal. One of the main criterion within Policy EC20 against which new site proposals are considered within the AONB is that it can be demonstrated that the site contributes towards meeting an identified unmet need. This policy does not consider whether there is an unmet need at a particular area, but within the County as a whole. Ad hoc submissions for new caravan sites and/or claims of potential visitors being turned away from particular sites is not considered to be evidence that the demand for a pitch has not been met elsewhere within the County. Competition rather than cooperation between site operators appears to have led to a failure of the industry to establish and manage a central database of accommodation availability for example through local tourist information centres, which means that there is no clear picture of whether need is being met at any given time.

The UDP does not contain statistics concerning the demand for caravan and camping site pitches. This was a matter considered by the Inspector at the UDP Inquiry when he rejected claims for Tourism Swansea data to be included in the Plan. His reading was that examination of the adequacy of facilities should be in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

Considerably more quantative and qualitative analysis of all sites within the County must be undertaken before the Council is in a position to be able to judge whether or not there is unmet need and therefore justification for new sites within the County.

Where details are provided the LPA could, for example, then contact those persons turned away from any site to establish whether they found an alternative site within the locality and how useful they found the tourist information resources. From this it may be possible to identify the need and methods for improving/ regularly updating accommodation availability information at Tourist Information Centres/ Council Website, etc.

Therefore the onus is upon the applicant to provide both quantitative and qualitative statistical information in order to demonstrate that there is an unmet need for camping within the County which could not be met by alternative sites throughout the Authority. The application cannot therefore be considered an acceptable new camping site in the countryside and as such cannot comply with the provisions of Policy EC20, however given the application has been put forward as part of a farm diversification scheme in accordance with Policy EV21 to support the farm business, Policy EC20 – New Camping sites is not considered the most relevant policy in this instance.

Rural Business/Tourism Development

Proposals for rural tourism and recreational developments need to be assessed against the criteria specified in Policy EC17 of the UDP

Policy EV21 of the UDP, relates specifically to non-residential development, and given that the tented camping is ancillary to the farm business it is considered to be relevant in this instance. The policy supports non residential development that is (i) beneficial to the rural economy; or (ii) meets an overriding social or economic need; or (iii) is an appropriate form of farm diversification; or (iv) provides economic use of previously developed buildings in accordance with Policy EC12 .

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

The amplification of Policy EV21 suggests that sustainable tourism should be supported. The tented camping element supports a number of surrounding businesses (a number of which have written letters of support) including the pick your own business and farm shop/café at Nicholaston Farm itself and as such the retention of the camping element is beneficial to the rural economy. The extent to which it is acceptable diversification is discussed further below.

Policy EV21 promotes appropriate farm diversification provided the enterprise does not adversely affect the viability of the existing farm unit.

Due to the fact that the new business is located on an existing working farm the extent to which the principle of the scheme is considered acceptable turns on whether the proposal is an acceptable form of farm diversification. In this respect Section 3.7 of TAN 6 2010 states: 3.7.1 When considering planning applications for farm diversification projects, planning authorities should consider the nature and scale of activity taking a proportionate approach to the availability of public transport and the need for improvements to the local highway network. While initial consideration should be given to converting existing buildings for employment use, sensitively located and designed new buildings will also often be appropriate. 3.7.2 Many economic activities can be sustainably located on farms. Small on-farm operations such as food and timber processing and food packing, together with services (e.g. offices, workshop facilities, equipment hire and maintenance), sports and recreation services, and the production of non-food crops and renewable energy, are likely to be appropriate uses. The question is whether the proposal is indeed a farm diversification project. For that to be the case, the majority of the enterprise should be agriculture and the diversified elements should support the farm business. Furthermore there must be an existing viable farming unit. When considering applications for farm diversification one must consider the following points:

• Whether the proportion of farming activity as opposed to non-farming activity is sufficient to allow the proposal to be assessed as diversification. • The majority of labour employed in the business being involved in the agricultural enterprise. • Whether the proposal would materially alter the balance between agriculture and non- agriculture. • Percentage of area used for non-agriculture activity compared to agricultural activity. • Whether the farm operated with the intention of being a trade or business and sustainable and profitable without the diversification enterprises?

Level of Farming Activity – The applicant sells 10ha of pick-your-own fruit and potatoes, 3 ha of barley is grown for sale and another’s sheep are kept on tack on some of the grass, with the small remainder dedicated to hay and silage. Some of the buildings are used for agriculture, the remainder have been adapted for non-agricultural uses. For 5 months of the year, albeit between November and March, outside the principal growing season, the grass under the proposed camping ground would be available for grazing. It is accepted that this winter grazing is agriculturally significant. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

Labour Employed – The earlier assessment highlighted that there are 3 full time, 7 part time and 3 seasonal workers. This would not change. The agent maintains that the majority of labour is employed on the agricultural enterprise. The evidence does not clarify this, but it is accepted that the balance is fine. However, the assessment is on the impact of the additional camping area proposed. Because the labour need would not change, it is fair to say that the additional camping grounds would not alter the existing balance of labour between agriculture and non-agriculture.

Balance between Agriculture and Non-agriculture: The majority of people employed and the land available would be derived from agricultural enterprises and there is sufficient income derived from the agricultural enterprises to support a farm worker and as such the farm would thus still remain a viable agricultural unit.

Area used for Non-agricultural activity: The application site comprises field numbers 1229 and 0726, totalling 1.32ha. 2038 and 2839 provide a further 1.78ha and 333 and 3224 have established use certificates. Even taking all of this area and assuming it were all permitted for non-agricultural use (between 10% and 15% of the whole), the majority of the land will still be physically available for agriculture. The agent reports that 91.2% of the land is used exclusively for agriculture. The point can be argued, but it is accepted that the application would not materially alter the balance of use.

Is the farm a sustainable enterprise without diversified elements: The earlier assessment reported that 37% of existing (and predicted) turnover is from agriculture, with the rest being from non-farming activity. No division of the profits has been supplied to identify what proportion is derived from farming activities. The latest evidence claims that perhaps 58% of the turnover is from agriculture, based on the average over the last 6 years. It is likely that different averages can be derived by selecting different timeframes, but it is fair to say that the diversification business is now becoming as significant, perhaps more significant, than the farming business. The suggestion has been made that it is not the proportion of activity, turnover, profit, land and labour that defines whether a proposal can still be considered as diversification, but only whether the existing, remaining agricultural enterprise can be considered as a farm. There seems some logic to that approach and in this case, the level of farming activity is significant, is carried out for the purposes of a trade/business and is profitable as an isolated enterprise (the agent reports over £18,000 profit from only agricultural activities, which is sufficient to support at least the principle farm worker). Certainly this influences the assessment.

The latest evidence, although by no means cast, is compelling and does go some way to allay the concerns and together with the very specific circumstances of this case, the matter is finely weighted. On balance, in our opinion the proposal stretches the definition of diversification to the limit, but meets the criteria. It is therefore considered that given the physical area of the non-farming land only represents a minor element of the whole farm and furthermore it has been demonstrated that there is a considerable level of farming taking place which is viable it is considered that the retention of the camping fields are an acceptable form of ancillary farm diversification to the main agricultural element. Farm diversification is encouraged to support the farming business, and it is considered that the proposal is a sustainable form of development in compliance with both National and Local Policy Guidance. As such the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of Policy EV21 and TAN 6 which encourages sustainable tourism as acceptable farm diversification where it is demonstrated that it supports the viability of the existing farming enterprise. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

Impact upon the character and appearance of the area

The site is situated on the Gower AONB and the area contains a variety of landscapes ranging from steep limestone cliffs and secluded bays and dunes, the gently rolling plateau which hosts the application sites and the higher ridge to the north (Cefn Bryn). Policy EV26 of the UDP requires development within the Gower AONB to conserve and enhance the areas natural beauty. Nicholaston Woods lies to the south of the application site which is a SSSI and also forms part of the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Given the temporary nature of the proposal and the siting of the application sites, the impact upon these protected sites is considered minimal and would not warrant the refusal of this application.

Landmap characterises the application sites as being within the Llanddewi visual and sensory area. The LANDMAP description of Llanddewi visual and sensory area states that it is, “gently rolling farmland…. Traversed by hedges with simple network of roads bordering hedgebanks that connect the isolated small settlements” and “topography with some locally (sic) high tops and the relative lack woodland allows borrowed views of coast”. It also confirms that the zone has “no notable detractors” and attractive views and no detractive ones. It recommends conserving hedges and (unspecified) changes in “tourism influence especially caravan parks”.

The sites are shielded from the coast by Nicholaston Woods which are to the south of the application sites. Given the dense planting of the hedgerows situated along the A4118, the application sites are not visible from the adjacent highway either. There are intermittent views from Cefn Bryn and the Rights of Way which are situated to the immediate north of the application sites, however given that the physical layout of the fields are not being altered and given there is no physical development proposed the proposal generally follows the agricultural character of the area. The proposal is seasonal in nature and weather dependent and given the change of use is for a temporary time period the proposal will not lead to the permanent loss of agricultural land which will return to its natural state for much of the year. It is acknowledged that LANDMAP encourages the move away from caravan sites in the coastal area, due to their detrimental visual impact on the landscape and as such a condition is recommended in this respect to restrict the use to tented camping only.

A landscape character and visual assessment has been submitted by the applicant and this has been assessed by the Councils Landscape Officer, who concluded that subject to the landscaping scheme being modified to include an element of ‘tall growing’ long lived species an agreed landscaping scheme will mitigate against the visual harm of the retention of the change of use. Therefore although there will be some intermittent views of the tents from Cefn Bryn and the Rights of Way to the north of the sites, it is considered that the economic benefits of retaining the camping element upon the local economy and ensuring the long term viability of the existing farming enterprise will, subject to an agreed landscaping scheme, mitigate against the visual harm in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2, EV21, EV22 EV26 and EC17 of the Swansea UDP.

Highway Safety

Having consulted the Head of Transportation adequate parking is available within the site and the access, although rural in nature, is suitable for the likely level of use that the proposal will generate. Therefore on balance no highway objections are raised. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above 21 letters of support were received from neighbouring residents and businesses and two letters of comment were received which raised issues relating to the site history, the illegal nature of the existing use and the proposal being contrary to the UDP. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern was raised that if allowed the fields will be used for tented camping only, this will be controlled, however, via condition. In addition to this Permitted Development Rights will be removed to ensure buildings not related to agriculture are not erected in the field.

A response has raised concerns relating to the removal of a hedgerow, this would not have required planning consent and therefore cannot comment further in this respect.

Conclusion

In summary the retention of this field for camping within the countryside and AONB is considered an acceptable form of farm diversification which will make a valuable contribution to the local economy and subject to the submission of an agreed landscaping scheme the proposal will respect the inherent qualities of the Gower AONB and the wider landscape. Therefore, it is considered that given that the development complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV22, EV26, EC11, EV21 and EC17 of the Swansea UDP and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

1 The site shall not be occupied between the 1st November and 31st March in any calendar year, and shall be used for tented camping only. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and ensure the preservation of the natural beauty of the Gower AONB.

2 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, within 2 months of this permission, a detailed landscaping scheme for the application site which shall include an element of 'tall growing' long lived species such as English Oak or Ash throughout all of the proposed hedgerows/woodland edge planted randomly at 25-35mm intervals. All details of species and their siting in relation to the curtilage of the site and woodland edge, together with a ten year landscape maintenance, management and phasing programme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the agreed programme of phasing, and the works shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die or become seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and appearance of the Gower AONB.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1504

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Part 5 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.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, 1c landscape plans, design and access statement received 9th October 2009, Supplementary Report on the impact of farm based diversification including camping on the agricultural business at Nicholaston Farm dated 10th March 2010 and 2nd Supplementary Report on the impact of farm based diversification including camping on the agricultural business at Nicholaston Farm dated 4th August 2010.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Fields 2038 and 2839 Nicholaston Farm, Penmaen Swansea SA3 2HL Proposal: Retention of mixed use of fields for agriculture and tented camping from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October in any year Applicant: Mr Tom Beynon

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 89/0596/08 OVERHEAD LINE NOT TO EXCEED 50 METERS ON EITHER SIDE Decision: *HNO - NO OBJECTION Decision Date: 06/07/1989

89/1387/03 SINGLE STOREY ADDITION AT REAR OF COTTAGE TO PERMIT USE AS 2 NO. SELF-CONTAINED FLATS Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 26/06/1990

88/1368/01 FARM WORKERS DWELLING. Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 04/04/1989

2001/1218 Extension of camping and touring caravan field for a temporary period of 7 years Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25/09/2001

2002/1322 Extension of camping and touring caravan field for use by tents only for a period of 28 days per annum Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 20/01/2003

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

2003/1062 Use of land for Camping and Caravaning for a period of 42 days in any year (Application for a Certfifcate of Lawfulness) Decision: Is Not Lawful Decision Date: 09/01/2004

2004/1773 Mixed use of part of field Nos 2038 and 2839 for occasional camping, siting of touring caravans and agricultural use (application for Certificate of Lawful Use) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 24/02/2006

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and in the press as Development which affects a public right of way. 21 letters of support, one letter of comment and TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received. The LETTERS OF SUPPORT are summarised below:

SUPPORT:

15. Camping is required on Gower. 16. Supports the local economy. 17. Gower has lost a number of jobs from agriculture and tourism should be supported. 18. Proposal is temporary in use and will not result in lasting development. 19. Proposal is better than a static site. 20. Campers provide more economic benefit than static vans. 21. The mixed use is ideal within the AONB. 22. Camping has existed at Nicholaston for 50 yrs. 23. The site is very well run. 24. The site is close to the beach and has good amenities. 25. Campsite provides knock on jobs. 26. Tented camping has minimal impact on the landscape and should be supported. 27. Applicant has run a successful agricultural/tourism business and should be supported. 28. The site currently is visible from my property and harms my visual amenity, however having discussed this with the applicant the hedgerow will be allowed to grow thus providing screening which would make the development acceptable. I believe that the additional diversification of the use of the farm is appropriate to the economy of the Gower and assists in bringing vitality to the area. 29. The area is suffering from illegal camping which causes issues in relation to littering.

OBJECT/COMMENT:

1. Any decision on camping should have due regard to the impact on the adjacent land should there be a decrease in the number of occasional pitches. 2. We wish to time period to be reduced to the 1st October and not the 31st October as stated in the application. 3. The plan indicates that part of the field will not contain any tents or caravans. We are most concerned that this will be strictly adhered to. 4. The constant adding of such a facility is degrading and never-ending. We have no objections subject to the two stipulations above. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Gower Society: Following observations:

9. We are aware that fields 0726 and 1229 are in fact a single area because the dividing hedge was removed some years ago. 10. These fields were part of the ‘pick your own’ operation until relatively recently. 11. A planning Appeal hearing against enforcement has been postponed following the submission of this application 2009/1506. 12. Since the dismissal in 2003 of a Planning Appeal relating to a nearby field on the same farm, the applicants have continued to ignore the ruling and in fact have increased their activity into both the adjacent and these two fields on the farm. 13. We accept that the site owners run a very efficient farm-orientated business, but the fact remains that these fields have been used illegally for camping/caravanning for a number of years. 14. These two fields are however less conspicuous than 2038 and 2839 – but we deplore the removal of hedges. Whatever the outcome of this application, all hedges should be replaced and restored to a high standard. This would screen any future activity. 15. Any use of this site should be strictly confined to tents only, with a strict enforcement of numbers to prevent visual intrusion, noise and access problems. 16. We are well aware that any substantial increase of the existing site would be contrary to the UDP.

The society asks that you take the above points into consideration when arriving at your decision.

Countryside Council for Wales: CCW does no object to the proposal.

Environment Agency: No objection subject to standard advice notes.

The Council, however does question the necessity of 5m high hedges which seems to be quite excessive and which could radically change the landscape.

5. All 47 ha (116 acres) is owned within the family under the control of the applicant. 6. Many of the buildings have been converted to other uses, but some of the buildings in the yard are still dedicated to agricultural uses. 7. The holding extends to 47 ha (116 acres), of which 3 ha are dedicated to arable, 10 to pick-your-own fruit and potatoes and the rest is mainly permanent grass. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

8. The applicant sells 10ha of pick-your-own fruit and potatoes, 3 ha of barley is grown for sale and another’s sheep are kept on tack on some of the grass, with the small remainder dedicated to hay and silage. Some of the buildings are used for agriculture, the remainder have been adapted for non-agricultural uses. For 5 months of the year, albeit between November and March, outside the principal growing season, the grass under the proposed camping ground would be available for grazing. 3.7.1 When considering planning applications for farm diversification projects, planning authorities should consider the nature and scale of activity taking a proportionate approach to the availability of public transport and the need for improvements to the local highway network. While initial consideration should be given to converting existing buildings for employment use, sensitively located and designed new buildings will also often be appropriate. 3.7.2 Many economic activities can be sustainably located on farms. Small on-farm operations such as food and timber processing and food packing, together with services (e.g. offices, workshop facilities, equipment hire and maintenance), sports and recreation services, and the production of non-food crops and renewable energy, are likely to be appropriate uses. 5. The first question is whether the proposal is indeed a farm diversification project. For that to be the case, the majority enterprise should be agriculture. We have examined the functional and financial elements of the whole farm to make this assessment

Labour – time and number:

Area used:

Financial:

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Labour – time and number:

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Area used:

Financial:

APPRAISAL

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

Description

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Site History

A planning application was subsequently submitted for the use of this section of field for 28 days a year, however this was also refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal represents an unjustified and visually intrusive form of development within the open countryside which would have a seriously detrimental effect on the generally undeveloped character and appearance of the coastline surrounding Nicholaston Farm and detract from the natural beauty of this part of the AONB which has already been compromised by the existing unauthorised use of this field. The development is therefore not considered to accord with West Glamorgan Structure Plan Review (No. 2) Policies C1, C5 and TRS2 and Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1 Policies CL1, CL3 and RT8. 2. The proposed camping area which would be sited adjacent to residential dwellings fronting the A4118 South Gower Road, would result in a serious loss of residential amenity to those residents principally by general disturbance and noise caused by the user of the field for camping purposes. The proposal is not therefore considered to accord with Policy BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No. 1. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

The application was subsequently dismissed at appeal, however not on residential amenity grounds but due to the impact upon the character and appearance of the Gower AONB. Whilst this current application does not involve the introduction of tents on the application site which was previously refused, in order to address the visual impact issues raised in the previous applications the applicant has submitted a landscape character and visual assessment which is a material consideration which would need to be fully considered during the determination of this application.

Main Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relate to whether the proposal constitutes an acceptable temporary change of use of the land from agriculture to tented camping in the countryside and Gower AONB having regard to the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the site history. New camping sites are assessed against the criteria of Policy EC20 of the Swansea UDP. The proposal has been put forward as part of a farm diversification to support the existing farm business and special regard needs to be given to Policies EC11, EC17 and EV21 of the UDP which relate to rural business development, rural tourism, new camp sites and rural development respectively. The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the Gower AONB is a primary consideration and highway safety issues also need to be considered.

New Camp Site

Policy EC20 of the Swansea UDP allows for New Campsites only where:

(vii) It would not materially adversely affect the natural beauty of the AONB, Heritage Coast or other nationally or internationally designated areas, (viii) There would be no material harm to the landscape character and environmental quality of the surrounding area, either individually or cumulatively with other sites in the vicinity, (ix) There are satisfactory service arrangements in terms of access roads, sewerage, power and water supply, surface water disposal and waste disposal, (x) The site is well located in relation to an adequate road system which can accommodate the traffic generated, and where possible has convenient access to frequent public transport, (xi) Holiday occupancy is ensured by condition and (xii) Within the AONB, it can be demonstrated that the site contributes towards meeting an identified unmet need.

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Therefore the onus is upon the applicant to provide both quantitative and qualitative statistical information in order to demonstrate that there is an unmet need for camping within the County which could not be met by alternative sites throughout the Authority. The application cannot therefore be considered an acceptable new camping site in the countryside and as such cannot comply with the provisions of Policy EC20, however given the application has been put forward as part of a farm diversification scheme in compliance with Policy EV21 to support the farm business, Policy EC20 – New Camping sites is not considered the most relevant policy in this instance.

Rural Business/Tourism Development

Proposals for rural tourism and recreational developments need to be assessed against the criteria specified in Policy EC17 of the UDP

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Policy EV21 promotes appropriate farm diversification provided the enterprise does not adversely affect the viability of the existing farm unit.

• Whether the proportion of farming activity as opposed to non-farming activity is sufficient to allow the proposal to be assessed as diversification. • The majority of labour employed in the business being involved in the agricultural enterprise. • Whether the proposal would materially alter the balance between agriculture and non-agriculture. • Percentage of area used for non-agriculture activity compared to agricultural activity. • Whether the farm operated with the intention of being a trade or business and sustainable and profitable without the diversification enterprises?

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Impact upon the character and appearance of the area

Landmap characterises the application sites as being within the Llanddewi visual and sensory area. The LANDMAP description of Llanddewi visual and sensory area the summary of which states that it is, “gently rolling farmland…. Traversed by hedges with simple network of roads bordering hedgebanks that connect the isolated small settlements” and “topography with some locally (sic) high tops and the relative lack woodland allows borrowed views of coast”. It also confirms that the zone has “no notable detractors” and attractive views and no detractive ones. It recommends conserving hedges and (unspecified) changes in “tourism influence especially caravan parks”.

Highway Safety

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above 21 letters of Support and 3 letters of objection were received which raised concerns relating to the proposal being contrary to the UDP, the use of tents, the impact of the proposal upon the Gower AONB and the time period proposed. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern has been raised in relation to the removal of hedgerows, however the removal of these hedgerows would not have required planning permission and as such would have no bearing upon the determination of the planning application.

A letter of objection has requested that the section of field adjacent to Cobwebs should not be used for camping. The submitted plans indicate that this element of the field will have no camping in this area, however, it should be recognised that the previous Inspector concluded that camping would not have an unacceptable impact upon Cobwebs. It is not considered, therefore, that this issues would warrant the refusal of this application and therefore, it is not considered reasonable to restrict the use of this part of the field. In addition, further planning is proposed along the boundary with Cobwebs which will ensure, it is considered, that the level of amenity enjoyed by this property is maintained to a reasonable level.

Conclusion

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, within 2 months of this permission, a detailed landscaping scheme for the application site which shall include an element of 'tall growing' long lived species such as English Oak or Ash throughout all of the proposed hedgerows/woodland edge planted randomly at 25-35mm intervals. All details of species and their siting in relation to the curtilage of the site and woodland edge, together with a ten year landscape maintenance, management and phasing programme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the agreed programme of phasing, and the works shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1506

Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die or become seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and ensure the preservation of the natural beauty of the Gower AONB.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216 WARD: Lower Loughor Area 2

Location: Land off The Croft, Castle Street, Loughor, Swansea Proposal: 4 detached dwellings with detached garages (outline) Applicant: Mr John Kiley

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV24 Within the greenspace system, consisting of wildlife reservoirs, green corridors, pocket sites and riparian corridors, the natural heritage and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced. (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 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 – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216

Policy AS5 Accessibility - Assessment of pedestrian and cyclist access in new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2003/2080 Two storey side extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 05/12/2003

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and twenty six individual properties were consulted. SIXTEEN LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received which are summarised as follows:

1. I have concerns about the distance from my boundary line and the height of the properties which could overwhelm the 2 storey houses in Landor Drive. 2. What are the rights of way on this land and the access from Landor Drive which was donated to the Council from Wilcon and has been earmarked as a potential road to allow ingress to the Croft? 3. The plans would not leave us enough room for deliveries for our LPG gas as the tankers have to manoeuvre their vehicles to be able to deliver to us. 4. The refuse lorry would not be able to gain access to the rear of our properties. 5. The new entrance next to No.1 Gwydr place has created flooding and the heavy plant machinery using the lane which is not meant for heavy loads and the residents have to maintain this lane. 6. The public footpath has been destroyed during the land owner’s site preparation. 7. The demolition of the site left most of Lower Loughor without water for several hours. 8. We don’t believe only 4 houses will be built. 9. We are concerned about surface water. 10. Access for service vehicles to the rear of Gwydr Place must be maintained. 11. Residents of Landor Drive have had pedestrian access to Castle Street which looks as if it is not to continue. 12. Unless the road is widened the traffic created would cause a major problem. 13. Part of the road shown on the plan extends onto our land. 14. I am concerned about the height of the garage which will restrict light into our very small gardens. 15. The traffic generated by the development could be dangerous especially to the local school and the children attending.

Countryside Council for Wales – CCW objected in first instance but does not now offer comments on any developments of less than ten dwellings. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216

Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions

Llwchwr Town Council – Objects as follows:

1. The proposed access road is already unable to cope with the existing traffic and could not meet the needs of the proposed development. 2. The proposed access is inadequate to met the needs of the proposed development. 3. The site is a site of archaeological interest since it is the site of a former glassworks and also is the site of Roman archaeological remains. 4. There are currently tree rights of way crossing the site and these would be stopped by any development. 5. The certificate of ownership is incorrect since the land at the top of the Croft over which the access is proposed is not in the ownership of the applicant but is in the ownership of Jireh Evangelical Church. 6. Concerns that the site is encroaching on existing properties. 7. Blocking existing rights of way. 8. The development has already commenced with the clearing of the land and damage being caused to water mains affecting neighbouring properties. 9. The amended plan only relates to the area of land owned by the applicant but does not address the Council’s objection.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological trust Ltd – No objection subject to the imposition of an archaeological watching brief condition.

Highways Observations – “This proposal is for the construction of 4 dwellings off the end of The Croft, Loughor. The Croft is an adopted road serving approximately 9 dwellings and is made up of two footways, one 2m wide footway on the western side and a 1.5m wide footway on the eastern side together with a 4.5m wide carriageway. The carriageway is below modern standard width which would normally be 5.5m; however it is wide enough for two cars to pass.

The proposed access to the development is indicated to be a 5.5m wide shared private drive and in the form of a loop access thereby allowing access and egress in a forward gear. The proposed width is in excess of the recommended width of 4.5m. The dwelling plots are quite large with ample parking for at least 4 cars within each plot. In terms of additional traffic movements, it is anticipated that there will be 3 extra movements during the peak hour and this is not considered to be excessive. The basis for predicting the additional movements is with reference to nationally held data for residential development.

On balance, whilst recognising that The Croft has a restricted width, I do not consider that the proposal will result in a significant increase in traffic likely to result in adverse highway safety and therefore recommend no highway objection subject to the following;

1. The shared private drive access shall be completed prior to occupation of any dwelling within the site.

2. The construction of a vehicular crossing to Highway Authority Specification.

Note: The Developer must contact the Team Leader - Highways Management, City and County of Swansea (Highways), Penllergaer Offices c/o Civic Centre, Swansea, SA1 3SN (Tel 01792 636091) before carrying out any work.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216

APPRAISAL

This application is called to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Christine Richards because of concerns over parking problems in the area and highway/traffic issues.

Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of four detached dwellings and garages on land to the north of the cul de sac known as The Croft off Castle Street in the urban area of Loughor. Although layout and elevational plans have been submitted, these are indicative only as all detailed matters are to be reserved for future consideration.

The main issues to be considered therefore are whether or not the proposed development is an acceptable form of development at this location having regards to its visual, residential and highway safety impacts having regards to the Policies of the Unitary Development plan 2008.

Policy EV1 refers to all development having regard to the criteria of good design whilst being appropriate to its local context. Policy EV2 refers to preference being given to the use of previously developed land and having regard to the physical character and topography of the site. Policy HC2 relates to proposal for housing development within the urban area being supported provided the development does not result in coalescence of settlements, cramped or overintensive form of development, significant loss of residential amenity or that would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area or significant harm to highway safety. Policy EV23 refers to development within the Green Wedge and states that development will only be permitted where the openness and character of the Green Wedge is maintained.

The area of land the subject of this application lies to the north of the cul de sac known as The Croft and to the south of the properties in Gwydr Place in Loughor. The land measures approximately 110m in width and between 70m and 90m in depth. The site area therefore is ample to support some sort of residential development within this urban area.

The developer has indicated that 4 detached dwellings would be built on the site and the indicative elevations show two storey dwellings with accommodation in the roof space, each with a detached garage within their curtilage. Their siting would dictate that ample separation distances which exceed the recognised distances between dwellings would be achieved between each new dwelling and the existing properties already in situ. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in unacceptable impact upon residential amenities of future occupiers or existing neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of light of privacy or overbearing physical impact. In addition, the proposed layout takes into account the provision of public footpaths through the site; One would run directly north through the site from The Croft and between plots 2 and 3, joining up with the rear of Gwydr Place. A second would run to the east of the site and to the rear of the dwellings in Glanymor Park providing a direct pedestrian access to Landor Drive.

It is not considered that the siting, scale and design of the proposed dwellings as indicated in the illustrative plans would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwellings within The Croft. Whilst the dwellings would be larger, their general appearance would dictate that they would neither appear as discordant or visually incongruous features within the street scene or surrounding area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216

Notwithstanding this, the actual siting, scale and design of the dwellings together with their external appearance and materials to be used would be further considered as part of any future detailed planning application submitted.

Whilst the majority of the site lies outside of the Gorseinon Green Wedge, a small section of the rear residential curtilage of Plot 3 would lie within. However, as the land is residential curtilage, and providing a condition is imposed removing the permitted development rights for outbuildings on this plot, the openness and character of the Green Wedge would be maintained, thus complying with the requirements of Policy EV23 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

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 Llannant WWTW which has created a capacity for 1000 new dwellings within that part of the catchment area in Swansea. A full Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations is not therefore necessary and the application can be approved subject to the drainage conditions indicated. This would satisfy the requirements of the Habitat Regulations.

Turning to highway safety issues, the Head of Transportation and Engineering does acknowledge that The Croft is of restricted width, but also considers that the scheme would not result in a significant increase in traffic likely to result in adverse highway safety. Therefore no highway objection is raised in this instance subject to conditions.

There has been an ongoing issue at the site concerning an application for a public right of way to be registered across the site. The site plan dated August 2011 shows that a footpath running from The Croft to Landor Drive will be provided as well as one traversing the site into Gwydr Place.

With regards to the comments raised by the objectors, the majority of issues raised are addressed above in the main body of the report. Concerns regarding the access to the rear of the properties in Gwydr Place has been addressed by the applicant through the submission of an amended site location plan which has repositioned the development further away from the rear of these dwellings. The comment made about the Certificate of Ownership being incorrect has also been addressed by the applicant who has stated that the red line boundary is all within his ownership. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered an acceptable form of development at this location which complies with the overall requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, HC2, EV33, EV34 and EV35 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

2 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.

4 The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans prior to any part of the development being brought into beneficial use. Reason: To ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the Council, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.

5 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 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216

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.

6 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.

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

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. These details shall include details of the height of the enclosure along the public footpath adjacent to plot 4. Once agreed, the enclosure shall remain as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and general amenity.

9 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.

10 The developer shall ensure that a suitable qualified archaeologist is present during the undertaking of any ground disturbing works in the development area, so that an archaeologist watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken to the standards of the institute of Field Archaeologists. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed, in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development of eh name of the said archaeologist an no work shall begin until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that the proposed archaeologist is suitable. A copy of the watching brief report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two months of the field works being completed by the archaeologist. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216

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.

11 Notwithstanding the details on the on the site layout plan dated 2nd August 2011, any future scheme shall include details of an unenclosed footpath between The Croft and Landor Drive. Where the footpath would be enclosed adjoining Plot 4, the path should have a minimum width of 3m. The footpath shall be completed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of general amenity

12 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto a road. Reason: To ensure that the overall open plan housing layout is not prejudiced by uncontrolled development.

13 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to Article 3 shall not apply on Plot 3. Reason: To protect the openness and character of the Green Wedge.

INFORMATIVES

1 No structure is to be sited within a minimum distance of 3 metres from the centre line of the pipe. The pipeline must therefore be located and marked up accurately at an early stage so that the Developer or others understand clearly the limits to which they are confined with respect to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's apparatus. Arrangements can be made to trace and peg out such water mains on request of the Developer.

Adequate precautions are to be taken to ensure the protection of the water main during the course of site development.

If heavy earthmoving machinery is to be employed, then the routes to be used in moving plant around the site should be clearly indicated. Suitable ramps or other protection will need to be provided to protect the water main from heavy plant.

The water main is to be kept free from all temporary buildings, building material and spoil heaps etc.

The existing ground cover on the water main should not be increased or decreased.

All chambers, covers, marker posts etc. are to be preserved in their present position.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1216

Access to the Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's apparatus must be maintained at all times for inspection and maintenance purposes and must not be restricted in any way as a result of the development.

No work is to be carried out before Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has approved the final plans and sections.

2 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, HC2, EV33, EV34, EV35, AS5, EV24.

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

4 If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Services on 0800 917 2652.

5 The proposed development is crossed by a trunk/distribution water main. It may be possible for this water main to be diverted under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The developer should contact the New Connections Department, Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea SA6 5BQ. Tel: 0800 917 2652 for further information on this matter.

6 The developer is advised to contact the New Connection Design Department, Players Industrial Estate, Swansea SA6 5BQ concerning water supply prior to the commencement of any site work. Telephone 0800 9172652 for further information.

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

PLANS

Indicative elevations, indicative floor plans, existing site plan (Dwr Cymru), proposed site plan (Dwr Cymru), levels site plan, indicative garage details, design and access statement received 14th August 2009. Amended plans site location plan, indicative layout plan received 26th February 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005 WARD: Pennard Area 2

Location: The Round House Parkmill Swansea SA3 2EE Proposal: Replacement dwelling, detached garage/store and new access Applicant: Mr Robert Griffiths

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 99/1571 TWO STOREY AND SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/01/2000

83/1386/03 ALTERATIONS TO GARAGE + UTILITY ROOMS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 24/11/1983 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

88/0329/03 CONSTRUCTION OF 12 FOOT WIDE GATEWAY. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/05/1988

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

The scheme was advertised on site and in the press as a Departure from the Development Plan. No response.

Pennard Community Council – No objection

The Gower Society – Objects as follows:

1. We deplore the proposed demolition of this dwelling that appears to us to be sound and well-maintained. No justification was given for this demolition. Its vernacular appearance adds to the character and landscape value of the AONB. 2. We repeatedly point out that the demolition of sound and vernacular buildings is against Welsh Assembly policy, and does not stand inspection from a sustainability aspect. 3. The current house is well screened with trees but the proposed house is virtually twice the footprint of the existing and will inevitably be more prominent in the landscape than the existing property. 4. The site is prominent on a main road into the remainder of Gower. 5. We note an increasing trend to demolish and rebuild in this area.

Highways Observations - The rebuilding of this property includes the relocation of the access. Currently access is located near to the junction of Vennaway Lane with the A4118 and is very limited due to its geometry. The proposed access will be located around the corner and provide direct access to the A4118 making access and egress in any direction easier and safer than the current access. Visibility is acceptable as the boundary of the site is set back from the edge of the carriageway at the point of access and therefore there is no need to require the usual 'Gower Set-back'.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the construction of a vehicular crossing of the verge to Highway Authority Specification.

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

AMENDED SCHEME – (where the existing access is being reused and the scheme has been reduced overall after consultation with the Case Officer and Council’s Urban Designer.)

The application was advertised on site. No response.

Pennard Community Council – No objection

The Gower Society – Previous comments still apply AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

Highways Observations - Amended Plans 26 Oct 2011.

The rebuilding of this property includes the alteration of the access. Currently access is located near to the junction of Vennaway Lane with the A4118 and is very limited due to its geometry as it joins the main road at an acute angle and has high boundaries either side.

The amended plans indicate alternative access proposals where the existing point of access is to be utilised but reconfigured to give a 'Gower Set-back', where gates are set back from the edge of the carriageway and side walls splayed at 45 degrees. The access will join at right angles and lead to an area for parking and manoeuvring where 3 parking spaces and a garage facility are shown to be provided.

I am satisfied that the access alterations will be an improvement in safety terms from the current layout and recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

Full planning permission is sought for a replacement dwelling, a detached garage and alterations to the existing access at the Round House, Parkmill, located at the junction of the A4118 and Vennaway Lane.

The existing house is a two storey property with a height of approx. 5.8m to eaves and 7.9m to ridge. It looks to have been a traditional 10.8m wide double fronted design, however, the entrance has been moved to the southern corner, the interior remodelled and the chimneys removed. There are a number of insensitive additions to the rear and side. The scale is pleasant, however the house is not widely visible in the Gower landscape and it is screened from the highway by trees and hedges on the boundary.

The original property measures 10.8m in width, 9.5m in depth (including the rear wing) with an overall height of 7.9m. The new dwelling would measure 16.8m,(including the two side wings), have a first floor depth of 13.5m, (including a rear wing), and a total ground floor depth of 15.5m. The maximum overall height of the dwelling would be 8.5m. External finished include smooth render painted walls, slate roof and timber windows and doors.

The new garage would be sited approximately 5m south east of the dwelling and would measure 10m in width, 8m in depth and have a flat roof height of 3m. The garage would be timber clad with a green sedum roof.

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 surrounding area within the Gower AONB and sensitive countryside location having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV19, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan. There are in this case considered to be no additional overriding issues for consideration having regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Policies EV1 and EV2 refers to the design and siting of new development respectively where it should be appropriate to its local context, not result in significant impact upon local amenity in terms of visual impact and residential amenity and traffic movements and protect natural heritage and the historical environment. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

Policies EV22 and EV26 specifically relate to the protection of the countryside for its own sake and states that within the Gower AONB the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty.

The site lies in the open countryside; therefore the key Policy is EV19 which deals with Replacement Dwellings in the Open Countryside. This requires that:

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

The recently adopted Gower Design Guide approved at Planning Committee in November 2011, is also an important material consideration. The key section are paragraphs A1.20 – A1.28 which sets out a number of considerations for replacement dwellings that are not similar in scale, siting, design and character to the existing dwelling. Paragraph A1.27 requires departures to be of the ‘highest quality’ with regards to sustainability and design.

In addition to and to reinforce the replacement dwelling Policy, Section 8 of Module A of the Gower Design Guide specifically relates to replacement dwellings. The key sections are paragraphs A1.20 – A1.28 which set out a number of considerations for replacement dwellings that are not similar to the existing dwelling. The siting should be mainly the same but in terms of design and character, there is scope to depart from the design of the existing dwelling where it is not considered to be of architectural merit and where high quality materials would be used. In terms of sustainability, as an exception, new dwellings should also be exemplars of sustainability. As the scheme was submitted on the 31st August 2010 it is not subject to the mandatory sustainable building standards which came into effect for single dwellings in September of that year. However, due to its siting within the AONB, it is considered that the dwelling, in order to be further considered as an acceptable departure from the requirements of Policy EV19, should achieve at least Code Level 3.

The proposed house occupies a similar location on site as the existing, being set back some 15m from the road with the ridge running parallel to this main route. Therefore the proposed house maintains the overall landscape impact of the two storey house sited at this location. The design of the new dwelling has taken some of its inspiration from the name of the existing dwelling. The design of the new dwelling takes the appearance of a two storey dwelling with 2 two storey side extensions, a two storey rear extension, a rear single storey extension and a detached garage. Whilst the size of the dwelling would be an increase on the existing house, its massing is broken up into several different elements, and as such would not appear overly large in the plot or surrounding landscape.

The front elevation section of the two storey dwelling has curved elements along the central section and the two wings and the ground floor includes a curved single storey rear addition. The plans in 2D form do not fully illustrate the detail of the design and the Council’s Urban Designer has requested that further details of the roof structure and overhang for the two storey part of the house are conditioned to be submitted for further approval. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

The footprint of the existing house is 129m2 at ground floor and 90m2 at first floor, the proposed house has a ground floor footprint of approximately 200m2 and a first floor footprint of 152m2. This equates to a 64% increase at ground floor and a 59% increase at first floor.

Although the increase in size is significant, as mentioned above, the massing of the proposed house is broken down in a traditional manner with subservient side and rear elements. The eaves of the central section height are slightly lower than the existing house which is at 5.5m and the ridge height is slightly higher than the existing which is 8.5m. Whilst it is taller than the existing house by 0.6m, the proposed ridge is still in scale with the overall traditional design. The main frontage is approx. 9m in comparison to the existing of approx. 11m elevation. Overall the scale and massing is traditionally inspired and in scale with the Gower landscape.

The design clearly references the traditional Gower double fronted houses, however a number of ‘quirks’ are deliberately integrated to reference the ‘roundhouse’ theme. This can be seen in three areas:

(i) The front and rear elevations are deliberately curved whilst the roof retains a traditional straight edge. As a result the eaves would be virtually flush in the centre and overhand by approx 1.3m at the corners. It is considered that this would add visual interest as a unique design feature. Care will need to be taken to ensure that the location of down pipes does not harm this appearance; therefore a suitably worded condition is recommended.

(ii) In addition to the curved main walls, the single storey elements to the rear are tightly curved and finished in a contemporary manner with full height glass panels, timber cladding and a shallow pitch metal standing seam room. It is considered that this adds quality and interest to the overall design.

(iii) The final ‘round’ reference is the circular roof light on the rear roof slope which will not be widely visible and will maximise natural lighting of the central hall space.

Overall the proposal successfully blends traditional and contemporary references with the curving elements as distinctive features.

It is considered, however, that the use of high quality materials e.g. slate roof, painted hardwood windows, painted render finish is essential and would ensure that the new dwelling would not appear as a discordant feature in the landscape or have an undue impact upon the overall visual qualities of the Gower AONB, a condition in this respect is therefore recommended. In addition, it is considered that in essence the siting, scale and design of the dwelling would accord with the criteria sited within the Gower Design Guide (Section 8, A1.25, A1.26, A1.27). Overall, it is considered that the proposal is well proportioned with carefully handled details and the result would be a quality dwelling with a number of distinctive features.

On this basis, the proposed replacement dwelling, although larger that the existing, is considered to be of a sufficiently ‘high quality’ to accord with the provisions of the Gower AONB Design Guide in this respect. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

The proposal includes an alteration to the existing access to widen it to enable easier and safer access into the site. Whilst acceptable in principle as shown on the block plan, a condition is recommended to require further details to show how the access and new boundary wall will appear prior to the commencement of works on site.

The proposed scheme would involve the removal of part of the existing wall and hedging to widen the existing access to the new property. Whilst this removal would affect the character of Vennaway Lane to a degree, it would not do so to an extent that would justify a recommendation of refusal on this issue alone. In addition and subject to the imposition of the above recommended condition, the visual amenities of this part of the AONB would be further safeguarded. The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection as the access will be splayed to normal standards required within Gower.

Turning to residential amenity issues, the detached and isolated nature of the site dictates that there are no residential amenity issues to consider.

The issues raised by the Gower Society are noted but the existing dwelling is not considered to be a building of any particular Gower vernacular and as such its replacement would not be a loss in terms of the particular character of this part of Vennaway Lane the surrounding AONB.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, on balance, the proposal is considered an acceptable form of development at this location that would not significantly impact upon the visual qualities of the AONB or highways safety conditions in the area. Whilst the proposed house is larger than the existing house, it is considered that that the proposal would be of a high quality and would positively enhance the character of the this part Gower AONB. It is considered therefore that the proposal complies with the overall requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV19, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Gower Design Guide. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 Notwithstanding the submitted details, samples of all external finishes, which shall include timber windows, doors and joinery and natural slate 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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

3 Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details at the scale of 1:5 of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced: 1. Typical door and window in its opening. 2. Eaves detailing showing the roof overhang and rainwater goods. Once approved, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the Gower AONB.

4 Prior to commencement of any works, a plan to a scale of 1:100 showing the elevation of amendments to the existing access and details of the proposed new wall including external finishes, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved, the scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the Gower AONB.

5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Part 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 of Article 3 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.

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

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

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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

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

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

11 Details of the materials, design and position of the proposed guttering and downpipes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works. Once approved, the downpipes shall be retained in accordance with the approved scheme and retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the Gower AONB.

INFORMATIVES

1 The water main is to be kept free from all temporary buildings, building material and spoil heaps etc.

2 The existing ground cover on the water main should not be increased or decreased.

3 All chambers, covers, marker posts etc are to be preserved in their present position.

4 Access to Welsh Water's apparatus must be maintained at all times for inspection and maintenance purposes and must not be restricted in any way as a result of the development.

5 No work is to be carried out before Welsh Water has approved the final plans and sections.

6 A vehicular crossing must be constructed to Highway Authority specification. The Developer must contact the Team Leader - Highways Management, City and County of Swansea (Highways), Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea. SA6 5BJ (Tel: 01792 841601) before carrying out any work.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

7 Welsh Water advise that there are no public sewers in this area. It may be possible for the Developer to requisition sewers from Dwr Cymru Welsh Water under Sections 98 - 101 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

8 The developer is advised to contact out New Connections Design Department, Players Industrial Estate, Swansea SA6 5BQ, to discuss this prior to the commencement of any site work. Telephone 0800 9172652 for further information on this matter.

9 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, EV19, EV22, EV26

10 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.

11 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).

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

13 The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer. No structure is to be sited within a distance of 3m from the centre line of the pipe. The pipeline must therefore be located and marked up accurately at an early stage so that the Developer or others understand clearly the limits to which they are confined with respect to Welsh Water's apparatus. Arrangements can be made for Welsh Water staff to trace and peg out such water mains on behalf of the Developer.

14 Adequate precautions are to be taken to ensure the protection of the water main during the course of site development.

15 If heavy earthmoving machinery is to be employed, then the routes to be used in moving plant around the site should be clearly indicated. Suitable ramps or other protection will need to be provided to protect the water main from heavy plant.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1005

PLANS

05 proposed north-east and south-west elevations, HG.09.52.08 Rev 0 existing floor plans and elevations, Design and Access Statement received 31st August 2010. Amended plans: HG.09.52 01Rev A- site plan, HG.09.52 02- ground floor plan, HG.09.52 03- 1st floor plan, HG.09.52 04- house elevations front and rear, HG.09.52 05- house elevation left and right, HG.09.52 06- sections through the house, HG.09.52 07- garage elevations, hg.09.52 08- 3D views 1, HG.09.52 09- 3D views 2, HG.09.52 10-3D views, HG.09.52 11- OS received 26th October 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 12 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1381 WARD: Lower Loughor Area 2

Location: Land adjacent to Marshfield House 146 Culfor Road, Loughor, Swansea Proposal: Detached dormer bungalow Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Davies

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED from the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 22nd November 2011 in order to clarify the plans being considered. The applicant’s agent has subsequently submitted further amended plans for consideration and my report has been updated to refer to them.

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal LV/93/0199/03 BEDROOM EXTENSION Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 18/06/1993

2007/2764 Residential development (outline) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 30/01/2008

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1381

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

The application was advertised on site and 1 individual property was consulted. No response.

Llwchwr Town Council – No objection

Countryside Council for Wales – Objects to the proposal, because there is not enough information for us to assess possible effects on the 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 conditions

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to conditions

Highways Observations - This proposal is for a new dwelling in the side garden of 146 Culfor Road. The existing drive will be reconfigured and a new drive installed next to it to access the new dwelling. Each drive is indicated to be 3m wide and this is acceptable. Parking for the new dwelling is indicated in the proposed garage and on the drive area where a total of 3 spaces are available which is sufficient for the proposal. Turning within the site is unlikely when all parking bays are in use, however this is the case with other dwellings along this part of Culfor Road.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the construction of a vehicular crossing to Highway Authority Specification.

AMENDED PLANS

The application was advertised on site and one individual property was again consulted. No response.

Llwchwr Town Council – No objection.

Countryside Council for Wales – No wish to comment on the proposal.

FURTHER AMENDED PLANS

The application was again advertised on site.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Christine Richards due to concerns over the visual and residential amenities of the area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1381

Full planning permission is sought for a detached dormer bungalow on land adjacent to Marshfield House, 146 Culfor Road in Loughor. Outline planning permission was granted in January 2008 for residential development with no details being approved at that stage. However an indicative layout plan was submitted that showed how a dwelling could be accommodated on the site without having an undue impact upon the visual or residential amenities of the area.

The originally submitted scheme was for a large dormer bungalow. It was considered that as the properties along this part of Culfor Road are two storey dwellings, a bungalow of the design proposed would appear as a discordant and incongruous feature that would not attract a favourable recommendation. Further negotiations took place on several designs with a two storey dwelling then being put forward for consideration. However, the applicant has since submitted further amended plans showing another dormer bungalow design and wishes this to be formally considered for consideration.

The main issues to be considered are whether the development has an acceptable impact on the visual, residential amenities and highway safety of the area having regard to the Policies of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Policy EV1 refers to development complying with the objectives of good design and Policy EV2 refers to preference being given to developments on previously developed land which would not have an undue impact upon residential amenities or the character and appearance of the area.

Policy HC2 refers to infill developments in the urban area being supported subject where the site has been previously developed or is not covered by conflicting plan policies or proposals and provided the proposed development does not result in:

(i) Ribbon development or contribute to the coalescence of settlements, (ii) Cramped/Overintensive development, (iii) Significant loss of residential amenity, (iv) Significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, (v) The loss of important urban greenspace, (vi) Significant harm to highway safety, or (vii) Significant adverse effects in relation to landscape, natural heritage, security and personal safety, infrastructure capacity, the overloading of available community facilities and services.

The current scheme for consideration comprises of a dormer bungalow with a rear conservatory. The main body of the bungalow would measure approximately 12.7m x 7.5m with an eaves height of 3.3m and an overall height of 7.2m. The conservatory to the rear of the property would measure approximately 3.6m x 4m with an overall height 3.5m.

The overall siting, scale and design of the dwelling would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the site, albeit No.146 Culfor Road has an individual design which in itself does not relate to any other dwelling in Culfor Road. Notwithstanding this, the unsympathetic and poor design of the current proposal with its overlarge roof design, out of scale dormers and bland front elevation would appear as a discordant and incongruous feature at this location and would have an unacceptable visual impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1381

In addition to the unacceptable overall design, the siting of the dwelling would also have an impact upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of No.144 by virtue of overbearing physical impact; although there would be no loss of privacy to the occupiers through direct overlooking due to both windows at first floor in the rear elevation being obscure glazed.

It is recognised that as the occupiers of No. 146 are the applicants in this case and as such have no objection to the scheme, the occupiers of No. 146 would also be the new occupiers of the proposed dwelling and as such the impact upon the future occupiers of No. 146 has to be considered. It is considered that the siting and design of the new dwelling so close to the boundary with No. 146 would appear unacceptably overbearing when viewed from No. 146, contrary to the requirements of Policy HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Due to the on-going problems with the Burry Inlet, an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the proposed development should be carried out and that issues of surface water drainage and foul water drainage/water quality be addressed.

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

The TLSE only applies, however, if the application is refused. However, Should it be proposed to approve this application, an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken and it is recommended that an appropriately worded informative be imposed.

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations and whilst acknowledging that the site is capable of accommodating a dwelling, the siting, scale and design of the proposal is considered inappropriate at his location and would appear as a discordant and incongruous feature within the street scene detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. It is considered therefore that the proposal does not comply with the overall requirements of Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The siting, scale and design of the dormer bungalow would appear as a discordant and incongruous feature within the street scene, which would have an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenities of the area, contrary to the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 The siting and scale of the proposed dwelling would have an undue impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of No's. 144 and 146 Culfor Road by virtue of overbearing physical impact, contrary to the requirements of Polices EV2 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1381

INFORMATIVES

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

PLANS

Site location plan (1:1250) received 31st August 2010. Amended plans: block plan, received 26th July 2011 Amended plan proposed floor plans and elevations, additional plan proposed street scene received 9th December 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1774 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Tir Nan Og Stembridge Mill Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1BT Proposal: Replacement of detached annexe to provide ancillary living accommodation Applicant: Dr C Young

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

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

SITE HISTORY App No. Proposal 2005/1228 Construction of a block of two stables and two store rooms Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 27/09/2005

2010/1377 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of detached dwelling Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 26/10/2010

98/1039 CHANGE OF USE FROM DWELLING HOUSE (CLASS C3) TO GUEST HOUSE (CLASS C1) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/10/1998

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1774

85/1871 GENERAL RENOVATIONS AND BUILDING NEW BATHROOM AND UTILITY ROOM Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/02/1986

97/0630 TWO STOREY SIDE AND SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSIONS AND EXTENSION TO PORCH Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 15/08/1997

89/1299/03 CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDINGS INTO DWELLINGS Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 15/05/1991

97/1157 CHANGE OF USE OF BARN/MILL TO PROVIDE 4 LETTING BEDROOMS AND ANCILLARY LOUNGE AND KITCHEN ACCOMMODATION, ERECTION OF TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION AND ADDITION OF FIRST FLOOR TO BUILDING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 04/11/1997

98/1171 CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF MILL/BARN TO SINGLE DWELLING HOUSE Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 01/10/1998

2001/0712 Change of use of converted barn from holiday accommodation to single dwelling unit and removal of condition (03) of planning permission 97/1157 which limits the use of the accommodation to holiday use only Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 24/07/2001

2003/2365 Two storey/single storey rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 18/03/2004

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and two neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. No letters of response were received.

Environment Agency: As your Authority is aware, the site is located in an area which drains to the Burry Inlet SAC, currently subject to on-going concerns regarding water quality. Protection of the water environment is a material planning consideration and you must therefore be satisfied that the proposed method of foul and surface water drainage from the proposal will not cause any detriment to water quality. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1774

We note that the applicant intends to use the existing septic tank to deal with foul water flows. It is stated in the Design and Access Statement that this has been clarified and accepted by the Environment Agency Wales. An agreement to use the existing septic tank was in relation to application 2010/1377 (our ref: SH/2010/110203) which was for a replacement dwelling. As this development is to provide ancillary accommodation and therefore an additional dwelling, we would prefer to see separate foul drainage system used.

As highlighted in correspondence relating to application 2010/1377, the site is located on a Primary (Major) Aquifer (Black Rock Limestone) and is therefore a sensitive receptor. The use of a septic tank may pose a risk to the water environment and to accord with government guidance 10/99, a non-mains drainage assessment should be submitted. However, as we are not aware of any pollution incidents from the existing system, in this instance, we would offer no objection to the installation of a separate system to serve this new dwelling.

Further EA Correspondence: Further to our letter of 2 December 2010, we have been contacted by the agent, Mr Richard Williams of CRC Consulting.

Mr Williams has confirmed that with the exception of the ‘Red Line’ planning boundary, there is no change to the works at the site from that proposed under application 2010/1377. We therefore acknowledge that foul water disposal is to be discharged to the existing septic tank on site and that no new septic tank is required.

As the proposed dwelling will be an annexe to the existing building (and therefore cannot be sold on as a separate property in the future), and as we are not aware of any pollution incidents arising from the existing system, we would have no objection to the existing septic tank being used.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust: The particular building concerned in the application is first shown on the second edition OS map of 1898, not on the first edition of 1878 and as the proposed house will be within a similar footprint it is unlikely that the proposed work would impinge on any known features and also unlikely that archaeological features would be located during the work.

The Gower Society: Following comments to make:

1. We note that the recent application 2010/1377 (to demolish and convert the original building was withdrawn. We refer you to our letter of 29th September 2010 in which we objected to that proposal. 2. We note that, although described as ancillary, the proposal is some distance away from the main residence. 3. The proposed development is double the footprint and volume, although the external design appears to be acceptable. 4. However, it must be clear that the proposal is for a ‘new build’ in the AONB and open countryside; as such, it contravenes the current UDP. 5. We are disappointed that the applicants written statement shows favourable views from the footpath opposite that goes up to Ryer’s Down. It does not mention the much more often used important footpath to Cheriton which passes more or less alongside the property. This is misleading. 6. If you are minded to allow this proposal, we strongly recommend that clauses are attached preventing separate sale, holiday letting or full-time occupancy. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1774

We strongly object to this proposal, because it is for a new development in the AONB.

Countryside Council for Wales: CCW does not object to the proposal, but we recommend changes to the impact of the scheme.

Community Council: The Community Council has no objection.

Highways: There are unlikely to be any highway safety or parking implications as a result of this proposal. I recommend no highway objection.

Following agreement with the applicant to the description was amended to read “Replacement annexe to provide ancillary living accommodation – AMENDED DESCRIPTION the application was re-advertised on site and all previous consultees were re-consulted. The following responses were received:

Neighbours: One letter of support was received which is summarised below:

1. Proposal is aesthetically pleasing. 2. Proposal is more in keeping with the Gower AONB. 3. Its size will not impinge upon residential amenity nor on any ramblers using the right of way.

Countryside Council for Wales: CCW does not object to the proposal, but we recommend changes to the impact of the scheme.

APPRAISAL

Full planning permission is sought for a replacement annex to provide ancillary accommodation at Tir Nan Og, Stembridge Mill, Llanrhidian.

The existing property is a large two storey dwelling set within both the countryside and Gower AONB. There is an existing single storey outbuilding which appears to have been used as domestic living accommodation for quite some time. The proposed annexe will be situated within the residential curtilage of the dwelling house approximately 18m from the main dwelling. The proposed annexe will be served by the existing access drive and will incorporate one bedroom, bathroom, and a combined kitchen / living room. A separate basement below is to be used as the plant room for the heating to the main house.

Following negotiations with officers, the amended plans were received which reduced the size of the annex through deletion of the proposed second bedroom and balcony and integrated basement.

It should be noted that a recent application for a replacement dwelling (Ref: 2010/1377) was withdrawn by the applicant following officer advice that the existing annexe was not considered to be an independent dwelling. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1774

Issues

The main issues for consideration are the principal of replacing the annex, the visual impact of the proposal, impacts upon the residential amenities, ecology and highway safety, having regard for the provisions of policies EV1, EV22, EV26 and HC7 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008, the Gower AONB Design Guide 2011 and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional issues.

Principle of Development

Following the receipt of amended plans reducing the proposed annex to a 1 bedroom unit, it is now considered that the building can be considered as a replacement annex rather than a new dwelling. The existing annex measures 50.5sq.m and contains a combined living / bedroom with a separate kitchenette & bathroom and has a flat roof. The proposed annex will measure 70.68sq.m and would contain 1 bedroom, bathroom and a combined living / kitchen and would have a pitched roof. The existing building provides domestic ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling house, and it is considered that the proposed building will provide limited accommodation which would be used ancillary to the main dwelling. In addition, the basement level would be used as accommodating a heat exchanger providing the main source of heating for the main house. There would be no internal stairs from the basement to the annex above.

As such the application is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy HC7 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Visual Amenity

The design of the proposed annex is traditional in appearance – a simple stone building with a central door and two small windows either side. The end elevation facing the garden area would have floor to ceiling glass doors with an exposed timber truss above. The elevations would be stone with a natural slate roof and hardwood timber windows and doors. It is considered that given the modest scale of the annex, and the use of natural materials proposed, that the proposal would complement the rural character of the area. The building would appear as single storey from the south (the main entrance drive) and due to the slope of the land, the basement level would only be visible from the north (facing the existing main house). In addition, the proposal will result in the removal of an unsightly outbuilding.

The application is considered to be acceptable, to the provisions of EV1, EV22, EV26 & HC7 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and follows the design principals set out in the Gower AONB Design Guide 2011 and the Design Guide for Householder Development

Residential Amenity

In terms of residential amenity, the proposal is designed to be a replacement ancillary residential annex used in connection with the existing house, and is sufficiently isolated from any neighbouring properties as such residential amenity issues are not considered to be unacceptably affected by this proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1774

The application therefore complies with the provisions of Policy EV1 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Burry Inlet

The site is located in an area which drains into the Burry Inlet catchment area. However, the existing outbuilding currently drains in to the existing septic tank used by the main dwelling house on the site. This situation is to remain unchanged with the new annex draining into the existing septic tank.

Both Countryside Council for Wales and the Environment Agency have no objections to the application.

Ecology

A bat survey was submitted in relation to the existing annex which concluded that there was no bat or owl use of the building. In this regards the application complies with Policy EV26 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Response to Consultations

The objections issues have been addressed above.

Conclusion

Having regard to all material planning considerations including the provisions of the Human Rights Act, the application is considered to be acceptable in terms of the principle of replacing the existing annex with a new annex, its impact upon visual amenity, the character and appearance of the Gower AONB, residential amenity, drainage, ecology and parking. The application is considered to comply with the provisions of Policies EV1, EV22, EV26 & HC7 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and follows the design principals set out in the Gower AONB Design Guide 2011 and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1774

3 No development approved by this permission shall take place until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces drainage to this system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters (surface and ground waters) and in particular the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS) and to prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.

4 The development hereby approved shall be used wholly in conjunction with and for the enjoyment of the occupants of the existing dwelling house and their family, and shall not be let, sublet or otherwise disposed of as a separate unit of accommodation at any time. Reason: It is not considered that the property is suitable for the creation of separate units of accommodation.

5 The basement floor shall remain as a plant room only and shall not be connected internally or used for any ancillary residential accommodation in connection with the annex hereby approved. Reason: To define the terms under which planning permission has been given.

INFORMATIVES

2 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.

3 Although the submitted Bat Survey found no evidence of bats using the building, they may be a possibility for roosting opportunities. In view of the large nursery roost in the nearby buildings there is the possibility of seasonal use. The Bat Survey suggests that the roof of the building to be demolished should be hand stripped and if any evidence of bats is found then the ecologist / bat group & CCW should be informed. This risk would only occur if the works were undertaken between May - September. You are also advised to incorporate roosting gaps (15- 20mm) behind the fascia of the new building.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1774

4 The applicant is advised that the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. If, prior to or during the implementation of this permission, any particulars are found to be inaccurate then the Local Planning Authority must be informed and works shall not commence or be continued until the matter has been resolved. Failure to do so could lead to the serving of an enforcement or stop notice.

PLANS

0710/TNO/01- site location plan & block plan, 0710/TNO/02- existing elevations and floor plan, 0710/TNO/07- cross section, 0710/TNO/14 15 & 16 visual impact photos, 0710/TNO/17 visual impact location map, received 23rd November 2010. Amended plans: 0909/TNO/03- landscape elevations, 0710/TNO/04A- proposed elevations, 0710/TNO/05B- basement floor plan, 0710/TNO/06A- ground floor plan, 0710/TNO/08A- long sections received 8th September 2011 Additional information - Bat Survey Assessment received 3rd January 2012

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: High Kiln Bank, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1NA Proposal: Detached two storey unit of holiday accommodation Applicant: Mr Steven Moss

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The application was DEFERRED from the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 22nd November 2011 to obtain a statement from the Building Control Officer concerning the demolition of the building. My report has been updated to make reference to this issue. In addition, and after considering further the particular circumstances of this case, my recommendation of refusal has been amended to one of approval of the scheme as a Departure from the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

POLICIES

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

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

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

Policy EC19 The creation of well-designed un-serviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings will be supported. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV20 In the countryside new dwellings will only be permitted where justification is proved in terms of agriculture, forestry or the rural economy; there is no alternative existing dwelling in nearby settlements; and the proposed dwelling is located close to existing farm buildings etc. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2009/1295 Single storey side/rear extension and attached decked area Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/11/2009

2009/1755 Detached raised decked area and staircase Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 04/02/2010

2008/2262 Extension and alterations to existing balcony with addition of external staircase Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/03/2009

2010/0542 Use of garage as a separate unit of holiday accommodation, raised decked area, single storey extension to southern elevation and external alterations Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 27/09/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the local press as a Departure from the Development Plan and three individual properties were consulted. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which are summarised as follows:

1. The applicants have cynically knocked down the garage and is now asking to build a new house in a very small village in the AONB. 2. The access is over land that is owned by Eastern Slade Farm where we keep the gate locked because we do not want cars to travel down onto this land. 3. We feel there would not ne enough parking for more than two vehicles because of the steep incline onto High Kiln Bank and would worry that our access route will be used as further parking for this development. 4. The building has never been class C3 accommodation. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

5. Any thorough research by the architect would have identified insufficient headroom in the existing garage. 6. The woodworm could have been treated or removed. 7. This is a new build and should be treated as such. 8. This is not a Conservation Area but the southern boundary of the application site leads onto SSSI land which is all a part of an AONB. 9. It will not integrate with adjacent spaces and will have a detrimental visual impact. 10. This will place an added burden on an already overloaded sewerage system. 11. An application at Rose Cottage next door was refused on detrimental visual grounds and following considerable negotiations with your department was approved with conditions.

The Gower Society – Objects as follows:

1. A previous application for the conversion of the garage structure resulted in the unexpected demolition of the original structure. Was this approved? If it were not approved, then we cannot think that this was a deliberate decision to circumvent planning regulations. Would a demolition and rebuild have been approved in the first place? 2. The footprint and height of the proposal should not exceed that of the original structure. We were unable to check this from the drawings. 3. We are far from happy with the design that is clearly at odds with the Draft Design Guide and certainly not in keeping with its location. 4. If you are minded to approve, we ask that a clause preventing future full-time occupation be applied. No replacement garage should be allowed to be constructed, nor should any build be allowed to be sold off as separate unit.

Penrice Community Council – No comment to make

Highway Observations - Consent has previously been granted for a conversion of the property however this application now proposes a rebuild. This site is accessed from the end of the adopted highway beyond Oxwich Green. There are a number oh holiday facilities in the vicinity and I do not consider that this proposal to rebuild the existing garage into a holiday let will generate high traffic volumes that would result in a danger on the approach roads. The site is sufficiently large to accommodate both private and holiday parking without resulting in any parking taking place within the approach lanes. Three parking spaces are available for the existing main dwelling and at least 2 spaces can be accommodated for the holiday unit.

On balance, I recommend that no highway objections are raised to this proposal.

Applicant’s Planning Consultant’s Supporting Statement

“Planning consent was granted in September 2010 for the conversion of a two storey building to provide holiday accommodation. This original application was clearly held to be in accordance with the particular UDP policy provisions relating to the conversion of rural buildings. Moreover, it can also be said to have been in accordance with other UDP policies relating to tourism, including Policy EC17 and Strategic Policy 4 in Part 1 of the UDP, as well as the Wales Spatial Plan and other policies relating to the development of tourism facilities. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

Indeed, the converted building had the potential to provide a modest but high quality holiday let, thereby helping to fill a much needed gap in the range of tourist accommodation available in Gower. During the course of the conversion works in January 2011 decay was identified in the first floor joists of the building. The builder, and through him the applicant, were advised by the Council’s Building Inspector to remove the first floor of the building in order to replace these joists. The builder, having consulted with the applicant, then followed the advice of the relevant Council officer. At the above stage no mention was made by the Building Inspector of the potential planning consequences of his advice. Indeed, it was only after that advice had been followed that an officer of the Council’s planning section indicated that the original consent could no longer lawfully be implemented; apparently because part of the development would constitute new works despite the original ground floor of the building remaining intact. Ironically, had the applicant been aware of the potential consequences of such action the defective joists could legitimately have been replaced on a “one by one” basis as such repairs would not have constituted development. Indeed, it is far from unknown for other redundant buildings to be repaired in this manner prior to the submission of an application. The fact that such an approach was not followed by the applicant in this case clearly demonstrates the absence of any desire on his part to circumvent planning controls and that, in facing the current dilemma; he has become an innocent victim of circumstance. The current application has been submitted in order to resolve the dilemma that has arisen. Following discussion it is understood that the officer recommendation on the application is likely to be on one of refusal based upon the absence of any specific UDP policy provision to now justify the grant of consent. By contrast, it is suggested that the current application, just as the original application, conforms to broader UDP and other polices relating to tourism and that these should likewise be taken into consideration. More fundamentally, it is noted that the relevant statutory context is provided by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that the determination of any application “... must be made in accordance with the (development) plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. Even if broader polices are ignored therefore, and a very strict interpretation is made of the relevant policy context, there clearly remains a statutory provision for regard to be had to other material considerations. It is suggested that, in the circumstances outlined, the advice offered by the Council’s Building Inspector and the action taken by the applicant in accordance with that advice, constitute material considerations that should now be taken into account in the determination of the application. In terms of the implications of any consent, should the current application be approved, it is stressed that there would be no significant difference in the impact or appearance of the building from that previously approved. Indeed, the only such difference would be that the work would be completed to an improved standard of insulation, thereby reducing the environmental impact of the building in accordance with broader policy objectives. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

Moreover, the hopefully unique series of events that have led to the current anomaly would be unlikely to be repeated and would therefore mean that any approval could not be said to represent a precedent in connection with any other applications. Given the history as outlined, the Local Planning Authority is respectfully requested to adopt a holistic view of the current application and to have regard both to the broader policy context and, more particularly, to the “other material considerations” provision in the 2004 Act and to now grant consent for a proposal whose use, appearance and impact would essentially be the same as that previously approved.”

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to consider whether the use for holiday accommodation will create an urbanising impact on the area.

This application seeks full planning permission for the rebuilding of the previously sited detached garage at High Kiln Bank, Oxwich as a separate unit of holiday accommodation.

The building would measure between 4.1m and 5.6m in depth, have a width of 6.1m, with an eaves height of 4.5m and an overall height of 5.8m. The proposed decked area would measure a maximum of approximately 2.8m by a maximum depth of approximately 1.2m and would be sited along the southern elevation. It would be elevated above the ground by a maximum of approximately 3.1m to the top of the proposed balustrade. Materials proposed include a mixture of render and red cedar, natural slate roof and white UPVC windows.

The application site forms part of a small hamlet of detached dwellings accessed off a single track in an isolated coastal location within the Gower AONB. The application property known as ‘High Kiln Bank’ is located on the western side of an existing lane leading to the beach at Slade, near Oxwich. This dwelling is the southernmost property in the string of dwellings that run along either side of this steep sided valley and as such is in a visually prominent position within the immediate area, although the existing garage is sited in a less elevated location than the dwelling itself to the north of the site.

Members will recall that an application for the conversion of the previously sited two storey garage building into holiday accommodation was approved in September 2010 – 2010/0542 refers. However, the existing building has been mostly demolished leaving only three walls in situ at ground floor level. Therefore the building cannot just be converted but has to be rebuilt and as such the previous planning permission cannot be implemented.

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, the surrounding countryside and the Gower AONB, and the impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties having regard to Policies EV1, EV17, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan. As the proposal is now for a new build unit of holiday accommodation, which cannot comply with the criteria of Policy EC12 or Policy EC19 which refers to the conversion of buildings in the open countryside to holiday accommodation and their use as unserviced holiday accommodation, the scheme has to be considered under Policy EV20 which refers to new build residential accommodation in the open countryside. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

It allows exceptions to the restrictive Policy framework that restricts residential new build. Any application for new build residential therefore, including tourism development must be considered against this policy. 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 Council does have separate objectives to improve and enhance the tourism portfolio in the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy EC17 specifically relates to rural tourism as part of a rural diversification scheme and only supports proposals which are (i) in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding and (ii) do not have significant adverse effects on landscape and nature conservation interests. Whilst Policy EC17 allows for appropriate scale tourist development in acceptable locations, it is not specifically aimed at new build tourist accommodation. However, where applicants consider that in their case, the Policy supports new build tourist accommodation, they must provide very strong justification in order for the requirements of the other restrictive planning policies to be out weighed.

In visual and residential amenity terms, the siting, scale and external appearance of the building is identical to that previously approved under planning permission 2010/0542 and as such its visual impact would not be over and above that previously considered and to this end would neither result in unacceptable impact in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing physical impact. It was considered previously that its visual prominence in the area would not be increased to an unacceptable level, complying with the requirements of Policy EV1. The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal.

However, the building was mostly demolished instead of converted and notwithstanding the fact that the building proposed would match the external appearance of that previously approved, the criteria for new build accommodation in the open countryside does differ from those Polices which support the re-use of buildings in the open countryside to holiday accommodation. The proposal therefore is considered to be tantamount to a new dwelling within the open countryside. The applicant has not show a proven agricultural need for the property nor has provided any rural justification. It is therefore considered that this proposal for new build tourist accommodation in the countryside would be contrary to Policy EV20 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

The applicant‘s agent states that the reason the building was demolished to its current extent was due to advice given by the Authority’s Building Control Officer. The Building Control Officer involved has confirmed that a conversation was held concerning the state of the building where he acknowledged that the parts he could see were in generally poor condition with evidence of wood boring insects and fugal wood rot. However, he does not agree that he advised the applicant to take the building down as “the repair of the frame was not a requirement of Building Regulations and therefore the council are not able to insist that parts of existing buildings are removed due to their poor condition. We do have powers under S77 and S78 of the Building Act to remove dangers arising from buildings or structures, but I did not consider this to be dangerous. To avoid doubt about my advice, I confirm that I did not advise that the structure be removed. I confirm that the existing structure appeared to be in poor condition.”

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

However, notwithstanding the above, the building was mostly demolished instead of just repaired and converted but as the outcome of the rebuilding of the holiday accommodation unit would be identical to that when planning permission was previously granted, and that the building is sited within the residential curtilage of High Kiln Bank, it is not considered that there would be any undue impact upon the visual amenities or the overall character of the AONB nor result in the introduction of any new permanent residential use into a non residential area nor result in an unacceptable change of use of land. In addition, as stated above a partial section of the existing ground floor remains and as such the proposal would only be tantamount to the rebuilding of the first floor of the accommodation and the conversion of the ground. On balance therefore, it is considered that in this particular instance the building of new tourist accommodation is considered an acceptable Departure given the particular circumstances of the case. It is not considered that by granting planning permission for this particular development it would lead to an undesirable precedent for developments of a similar nature within the Gower AONB as the circumstances, location and use are particular to this specific site.

In addition, whilst the new build holiday accommodation would not specifically comply with Policy EC17 as indicated above, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the landscape or nature conservation, would not result in a significant level of harm or visitor pressure at this sensitive location, can provide a safe access for a variety of mode of transport without harming the character of the adjacent lanes nor lead to the loss of any agricultural land.

The issues raised by the objectors have been addressed in the main body of the report. In addition, most of the comments raised in the applicant’s supporting statement have also been addressed above.

In conclusion, and on balance, whilst the proposal for the construction of a new unit of holiday accommodation would be technically contrary to the provisions of Policies EV20 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008, it is in this particular instance considered an acceptable Departure from the Unitary Development Plan 2008 as the outcome on site would be identical to that previously permitted if the original conversion had taken place. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the application be REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE as an acceptable Departure from the Unitary Development Plan 2008 subject to the following conditions:

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

3 The converted garage shall be used for holiday accommodation purposes only and shall not be occupied by any person or persons as their main or sole place of residence. Reason: The site is only suitable for holiday use and is unsuitable for permanent residential use.

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

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

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

INFORMATIVES

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, 192 05 block plan, 192 01 existing floor plans and section, 192 02 existing elevations, 192 04 proposed elevations, 192 06 proposed floor plans and section received 26th July 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 15 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1192 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Cherry Tree Cottage, Port Eynon, Swansea SA3 1NN Proposal: Detached garage and laundry room Applicant: Mr Jeffrey Grove

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 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)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 81/0009/11 TO SERVE SOFT DRINKS AND COLD SNACKS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/02/1981

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1192

94/0676 CHANGE OF USE OF FORECOURT TO USE FOR SERVING TEAS, SOFT DRINKS AND SNACKS (CLASS A3) Decision: *HGPCTV - GRANT PERMISSION COND. (TV) Decision Date: 23/08/1994

98/1409 CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF SHOP (CLASS A1) TO LIVING ACCOMMODATON AND ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO SHOP Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 08/12/1998

2010/1778 Detached garage with holiday flat above Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25/02/2011

2005/1789 Detached dwelling, including a single storey rear extension (amendment to planning permission 2003/0049 granted on 6th March 2003) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 17/01/2006

A00/0679 ERECTION OF 9 NO. DWELLING HOUSES Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/09/2000

2003/0049 Construction of a detached dwelling house (Amendment to planning permission A00/0679 granted 29th September 2000) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 06/03/2003

2010/0694 New detached dwelling Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 23/11/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Two neighbouring properties have been consulted and the application has been advertised on site, however, no responses have been received from neighbouring properties.

The Gower Society – Objection

1. The proposed changes are to a property within the Port Eynon Conservation Area. As this is the case, great care must be taken that any proposals are suitable and do not have an adverse effect on the village.

2. Cherry Tree Cottage is used as a holiday let. This proposed development is too large, too close to the boundary and unnecessary for a holiday let. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1192

3. As before, this proposal would comprise the amenity of its neighbour.

4. It conflicts with the current UDP and would neither enhance the area of the village, nor the AONB.

5. Application 2010/0694 was an attempt to apply for a garage with a flat over. This was refused by the LA and also, after Appeal, by the PINS Inspector. The Gower Society wrote regarding this Appeal to PINS, supporting the LA’s refusal of permission.

Port Eynon Community Council – Objection

1. The application states that it is to service the holiday complex and caravans, but there are no caravans or holiday complex at this location. 2. The application is not for or relevant to a domestic building it should have been a commercial application not a domestic application. The Design and Access Statement is clearly headed up as an application with the words ‘The Laundry is to be used solely in connection with the serviced holiday cottage homes’ This is a commercial application and should have been on the Full Commercial Planning Application Forms. 3. The walls look as though they are thick enough for them to be suitable for an alternative use i.e. a dwelling. 4. Access into the laundry room is clearly impractical as well as not providing safe means of the escape for commercial usage. 5. The Design and Access Statement implies under L. Environment sustainability, item 3 Design for Change: ‘subject to planning it could also be used for alternative uses’. 6. The access to the garages gives restricted view of traffic trying to leave The Croft as the high wall to the Rickyard prevents any view of the exiting traffic thus creating a traffic hazard. 7. A commercial drying room will require extract fans, flues etc, these are not indicated on the drawings. 8. It appears to have a roller shutter door fitted. Is the owner expecting this roller shutter door to be going up and down all day, there is no separate access door shown for users to enter for the laundry. 9. The plans do not indicate the mature trees previously located within the site, we question what happened to all these trees? 10. The new access and garage are immediately adjacent to the oil storage tank for the Rickyard, this could be considered a traffic hazard.

Ecology Officer – A standard informative is attached regarding birds at the site.

Highway Observations - This is an application to provide a detached garage with laundry facilities to the rear of the property. The access to the garage will be from an unadopted shared access road, to the side of Cherry Tree Cottage, currently serving a number of other properties. The proposed garage will be set back from the access road. Although the driveway is not standard length I do not foresee any problems as there is an existing driveway to the front of the property. I do not consider these proposals will affect the current parking arrangements and therefore, there are no highway objections.

AMENDED PROPOSALS

A re-consultation exercise was undertaken due to the application type changing to a full application from a householder application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1192

Two neighbouring properties have been consulted and the application has been advertised on site. No response has been received from neighbouring properties

Port Eynon Community Council – Objection

This amendment for the use of UPVC windows must be accepted consequent to the recent decision of the Planning Inspector for the adjacent property.

The objections to the original submission are still valid.

The Council requests that these points together with other normal planning considerations be taken into account when considering this application.

Drainage Officer – An informative is attached regarding the soak away, ensuring that it is in accordance with Building Regulations.

Highway Observations - No further comments to make.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to enable the policy implications of the proposals to be fully considered and if considered necessary to undertake a site visit to assess the visual impact. Furthermore, the application is considered contentious and complaints have been received regarding it.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached garage and laundry room at the rear of Cherry Tree Cottage, Port Eynon to serve adjacent holiday accommodation in the applicants’ control. The site is located within the Gower AONB, the Port Eynon Conservation Area and within the small village of Port Eynon. The proposal has been amended by reductions in both the eaves and ridge height and re-siting of the laundry room, this was as a result of officer concerns in relation to the visual impact of the structure and its potential overbearing/overshadowing implications. The proposed garage and laundry room is to serve the surrounding holiday cottages. It should be noted that the application type has been amended to a full application from a householder application due to the curtilage boundary being amended as it is just including the site in which the garage/laundry room is proposed to be located upon and not Cherry Tree Cottage.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application are the impact of the proposals on visual and residential amenity and the character and appearance of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Port Eynon Conservation Area and the Port Eynon Small Village, having regard to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16, EC17 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

Policy EV16 in particular refers to small villages such as Port Eynon and allows small scale development where it is appropriate to the location in terms of scale, design and layout, sympathetic in terms of character and has an acceptable relationship with adjoining buildings, spaces and the landscape and respects residential amenity and highway safety. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1192

The relevant history relating to the site relates to an application (2010/0694) for a new detached dwelling within the site in question, this application was refused on the 23rd of November 2010 due to its design and the visual and physical impact on the neighbouring properties. Following this, an application (2010/1778) for a detached garage with holiday flat above was refused for the same reasons. An appeal was then submitted in respect of the previous application (2010/0694), this appeal was subsequently dismissed with the Inspector raising concerns mainly in relation to the uncomfortably close relationship with The Rickyards resulting in the proposed dwelling appearing contrived and the significant overshadowing and loss of sunlight to the retained rear garden of Cherry Tree Cottage. The Inspector also made reference to the detrimental overbearing and visual impact when viewed from Cherry Tree Cottage’s rear garden and from both the front and the rear of The Rickyards.

In terms of visual amenity, the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area given its sympathetic siting, scale and design. The garage with laundry room is considered to be acceptable given that it incorporates a sympathetic ridge and eaves height which will ensure it will blend in with the surrounding area when viewed from the adjacent lane. The Inspector raised concerns in relation to the application for the new detached dwelling in that the proposal would create an uncomfortably close relationship with ‘The Rickyards’ which would not reflect the more generous gaps between buildings generally found in the immediate area. This scheme, however, is considered to be significantly different in that it is now a single storey structure rather than a two storey structure. Therefore, a greater visual gap is considered to be maintained between the two buildings either side given the single storey nature of the proposal. It is acknowledged that the building is rather large in terms of its overall footprint, however, this is not considered to present an issue given that the building will be located at the end of a lane and will not been seen as a particularly prominent structure within the context of the surrounding area. A condition is recommended to ensure the garage door incorporates a vertical alignment and is as such in keeping with the surrounding area. A condition is also recommended ensuring details of materials are submitted prior to construction on site. Therefore, taking the above considerations into account, the proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding Conservation Area, Small Village or Gower AONB. The proposal is also considered to be in compliance with the Gower AONB Design Guide in this respect.

In addition to the above, as the proposal is for a development in which will serve surrounding holiday cottages, it is considered relevant to consider the application against Policy EC17 which caters for rural tourism. The proposal is considered to meet the criteria set out in this Policy in that it is in keeping with the surrounding and area and is of an acceptably high standard of design whilst also not having an adverse effect on the landscape or nature conservation interests. The proposal is also not considered to give rise to visitor pressure given that the development is to serve existing holiday cottages and thus would not increase the level of accommodation.

In terms of residential amenity, the structure is not considered to have an unacceptable physical impact given its relatively low eaves and ridge height. The Inspector previously made reference to overshadowing implications, the amended height of the structure is, however, considered to ensure that any overshadowing will be minimal and as such not regarded as unacceptable. The fact that the proposal has been amended from a two storey structure to a single storey structure is considered to dictate that the associated implications on the neighbouring properties either side (Cherry Tree Cottage and The Rickyards) are reduced to an acceptable degree. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1192

In terms of overlooking, there are considered to be no detrimental implications given the sympathetic positioning of fenestration. The window to the rear of the garage and the window serving the laundry room are not considered to present any issues in this respect given that there is sufficient distance and sufficiently high boundary treatments.

In terms of the concerns raised in response to consultation, the visual and residential amenity implications and the effect on the Conservation Area and the AONB are considered to be addressed within the main body of the report. Furthermore, the proposals are considered to comply with the relevant Policies within the Unitary Development Plan as detailed above. It should also be noted that the 2010/0694 application and subsequent appeal have been taken into consideration when determining this application. The application type has been amended to a full application and therefore, is no longer treated as a proposal for domestic development. In terms of the concerns raised in relation to the building turning into an independent dwelling, a restrictive condition is attached to ensure this cannot be undertaken. The access into the laundry room is considered to be adequate, however, it should be acknowledged that this application relates purely to planning matters and, therefore, any building regulations issues i.e. adequate means of escape will be addressed under separate legislation The Highways Officer has not raised any concerns as such the issues in relation to highways concerns are considered to be addressed by the relevant comments. The internal requirements for the laundry room are not required to be illustrated on the plans. The frequency of the garage door opening and closing is not considered to be a material planning consideration. The site did not appear to contain any trees at the time in which the site visit was conducted, and there does not appear to be any tree preservation orders relating to the site, therefore, there are considered to be no issues with regard to the removal of trees at the site. It is noted that UPVC has been condoned elsewhere, however, a condition is still attached to ensure the detail of this is agreed prior to construction on site.

Finally, in terms of issues of highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering has advised that the access to the garage will be from an unadopted shared access road, to the side of Cherry Tree Cottage, currently serving a number of other properties. The proposed garage will be set back from the access road. Although the driveway is not standard length no problems are foreseen as there is an existing driveway to the front of the property. As a consequence, these proposals will not affect the current parking arrangements and therefore, there are no highway objections in this instance.

In conclusion and having regard to all material planning considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposals are considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which will have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the Gower AONB and the Conservation Area. The proposals are also not considered to have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties or highway safety. As such the proposals meet the essential criteria of Policies EV1, EV9, EV16, EC17 and EV26 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Gower AONB Design Guide.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1192

2 The materials used for the external surfaces of the development shall be in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

3 The garage and laundry area indicated in the submitted plans shall be retained for the parking of vehicles, general storage and purposes incidental to that use and shall not be used as or converted to domestic living accommodation. 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.

4 Details of the garage door incorporating a vertical alignment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

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

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

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

8 Notwithstanding the details shown in the approved plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details at the scale of 1:5 of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced: Typical door and window detailing shown in its opening. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity within the Conservation Area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1192

INFORMATIVES

1 Any soakaway must be designed, constructed and located in accordance with the requirement of Building Regulations. If ground conditions should prove unsatisfactory then the applicant must provide alternative suitable proposals for dealing with the surface water run-off.

2 If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Developer Services on 0800 917 2652.

3 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, EV9. EV16, EC17 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan)

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

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

PLANS

JA site location plan and frontage elevation, HA proposed plans received 1st November 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339 WARD: Newton Area 2

Location: 27 Slade Road Newton Swansea SA3 4UE Proposal: Replacement dwelling Applicant: Mr Timothy Lillicrap

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/0483 Construction of detached dwelling Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 13/06/2011

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and eighteen individual properties were consulted. SIX LETTERS OF OBJECTION received which are summarised as follows:

• The proposal is three times the height and twice the size of the existing property and will cause significant loss of light to neighbouring dwellings. • This dwelling is taller than the once that was refused • The proposal will impact upon quality of life of neighbouring residents • The proposal will obstruct views AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339

• The developer has no intention of living in the property. • A low lying bungalow would be far better. The applicant has looked at the largest dwelling in the vicinity and copied it. • The development is unacceptably harmful, overbearing, its scale height and massing will have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the existing area. It is totally out of character and appearance to the existing property which is a small one bedroom bungalow located on a secluded plot of land, unobtrusive to neighbouring properties. • The changes in the proposal are insignificant and do not address previous concerns in terms of proximity to boundary, overlooking and overshadowing. • This current proposal now has six windows, some of habitable rooms facing neighbouring properties. • The difference in land levels will exacerbate the negative effects of the dwelling. • The loss of daylight will impact upon the gardens of neighbouring dwellings • The lawned areas within the neighbouring dwellings will be constantly wet. • The proposal is cramped and overintensive. • The proposal has moved further north into the site thus impacting more on No.7 the Orchard and 11 Slade Road and does not occupy the footprint of the original dwelling. • As the access to the site is via Newton School Lane the proposal will greatly increase safety issues through the increased volume of traffic. • The immediate neighbours have not been consulted by the applicant despite what’s stated on the application. • A new dwelling of this magnitude will not improve the visual amenities of the area. • The applicant has built a detached garage under the permitted development rights afforded to the property and has let it half built since Nov 2009. • The proposal development does not accord with Policies EV1, EV2, and HC2 of the Swansea UDP • It seems inconceivable that the policy criteria applied to new housing is lower than that applied to household extension under policy HC7.

Countryside Council for Wales – NO OBJECTION

Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water – NO OBJECTION subject to standard conditions and informatives

Mumbles Community Council - NO OBJECTION

Highway Observations – This application is for a replacement 3 bedroom dwelling at 27 Slade Road, Newton. The site is accessed from the lane leading to Newton Primary School and is established. The access lane is narrow and shared with the school and other properties, however its use to serve the development is established and this proposal will not introduce a new additional dwelling.

The site is laid out to accommodate satisfactory parking which will be available in the existing garage which is being retained and also additional parking on the drive/forecourt area the plot. A minimum of 3 spaces will be accommodated. Turning facilities will also be provided and I am satisfied that there will be no adverse highway safety affect as a direct result of this replacement dwelling. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339

As the site is established as a residential plot and the proposal does not have any adverse highway safety implications, I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Miles Thomas in order for Committee to assess whether the proposal amounts to over intensification.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached dwelling at 27 Slade Road, Newton, Swansea. A similar application was submitted in 2010 seeking consent for a detached dwelling (2010/0483 refers). The application was refused for the following reason:

The proposal constitutes an intensive form of development which by virtue of the inappropriate siting height and design of the dwelling would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by virtue of overbearing visual impact, overshadowing and loss of outlook contrary to the provisions of Policies HC2, EV1, and EV2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

The application site is an irregular shaped plot that rises gently in a north-westerly direction and is currently occupied by a low-lying small detached bungalow which is to be demolished to facilitate the proposed development. The site is bound to the south, east and west by neighbouring residential properties and to the north by the outdoor area of Newton School.

The main issues for consideration in this instance relate to the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, the effect upon residential amenity, and the impact upon existing highway conditions having regard to policies EV1, EV2, HC2 and AS6 of the Unitary Development Plan. There are in this instance no additional overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Planning Policy Wales states that new housing developments should be well integrated within and connected to the existing pattern of settlements. Sensitive infilling of small gaps within small groups of houses, or minor extensions to groups, may be acceptable though much will depend on the character of the surroundings. Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment, including conversion and adaptation, should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity.

Policy HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan presumes in favour of residential development within urban areas unless there are overriding planning objections resulting from overdevelopment, significant loss of residential amenity, loss of urban green space, detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area or satisfactory highway conditions. Policies EV1 and EV2 set objectives of good design and seek to ensure that generally developments should have proper regard to the local context in terms of scale, height and massing, integrate with adjacent spaces and protect the amenities of surrounding areas, in particular visual impact, loss of light or privacy, shared activity, traffic and parking implications.

The existing bungalow measures 10m in width and 6m in depth and is sited some 5m behind the front boundary. The property is an established dwelling situated within a substantial plot with a maximum depth of some 60m. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339

As an established residential dwelling and curtilage, the principle of a replacement dwelling on this plot is supported, albeit the site is constrained somewhat by the number, proximity, and orientation of surrounding neighbouring residential dwellings and curtilages. The proposed dwelling would be sited some 8m further back (as opposed to 5m as previously refused) within the plot than the existing dwelling therefore 13m back from the front boundary (as opposed to 10m as previously refused), and will occupy an ‘L’ shaped footprint with a maximum width of 9.2m (10m as previously refused) and a maximum depth of 16m. Sited in line with the site boundaries a gap of 1m will separate the side elevation of the dwelling from the western side boundary with No.11 Slade Road, and a gap of between 1.5m and 2.5m will be achieved off the eastern side common boundary with No’s 5 and 7 the Orchard. Access to the site is derived via the existing established access which is a single width track off Newton School Lane.

Although the dwelling occupies an ‘L’ shaped footprint, the footprint it is largely rectangular with a consistent width of 7m, however a small single storey annexe is sited to the eastern side taking the maximum width to 9.2m for a length of 6m.

The proposed dwelling provides two floors of accommodation and whilst the previous scheme incorporated the upper floor accommodation within the roof void, the front and rear elevations had the appearance of a conventional two storey property. This current proposal in contrast features an asymmetric design with shallow overhanging eaves and the first floor accommodation contained entirely within the roof void with the western side elevation featuring a catslide roof extending over the side addition.

The dwelling occupies a footprint of some 124m², although smaller than the previously refused 142m², nevertheless substantially larger than the existing property at 60m2.

The height and design of the dwelling and in particular it’s siting and proximity to site boundaries particularly the eastern side boundary is of paramount importance. The issue that led to the previous refusal was the proximity of the proposal to No. 5 the Orchard. This current proposal indicates that the dwelling will be sited further back within the plot. No. 5 The Orchard has a shallow irregular shaped (almost triangular) rear garden with a maximum depth of some 12m and a minimum of just 2m. The rear facing bedroom windows within this neighbouring property currently benefit from an unobscured outlook over the roofplane of existing property.

The replacement dwelling would now be sited so as to achieve a main wall to wall separation distance of 15.5m (excluding the single storey side annexe which would be within some 13m+). The existing bungalow, although shallower is only 9.3m away. It is acknowledged that the re-siting of the dwelling further back within the plot introduces concern over potential impact upon No.7 the Orchard however a wall to wall separation of 18.2m is achieved between the proposed dwelling and No. 7.

The land rises within the plot in a northerly direction and the revised siting of the dwelling would see the proposed house situated on a what is currently a higher ground level than the current dwelling, however, the finished floor level of the dwelling will be 82.58 compared to a floor level of 82.22 at 5 the Orchard, which is considered a minimal difference. The asymmetry of the design ensures that the maximum ridge height is off- centre and sited more towards the west and the larger neighbouring dwelling No. 11 Slade Road. Furthermore the asymmetric, storey and a half design has significantly reduced the physical mass of the dwelling adjacent to No’s 5 and 7 the Orchard. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339

The eaves height of the dwelling at its nearest point to No. 5 is only 2.2m in height (comparable to standard boundary fencing). Rising to a maximum height of some 7.2m however, at this highest point a separation distance of some 20m is achieved from No. 5 the Orchard.

Furthermore, the house has been designed so as to ensure that non-habitable room openings are contained to both the eastern and western side elevations. The side ground floor windows will be obscured via an appropriate boundary treatment in any event and the accommodation within the roof void will be served by velux type roof lights set at 2m above internal floor level which alone is sufficient to mitigate against any potential overlooking, however it is noted that the roof lights serve bathroom and en-suites. All habitable room windows are front and rear facing and include full height vertical glazing with Juliet balconies set within the front and rear gables. Ample separation distances are achieved both forward and to the ear of the dwelling to ensure that no unacceptable levels of overlooking would occur as a result.

It is proposed to retain the natural mature existing boundary treatments that exist however, 2m high close board fencing will be introduced to the more sparse areas of the boundary. The rear of the dwelling will be laid out to grass and patio area while the front will receive permeable parking surface all of which will be fully controlled via condition.

The revised proposal has been designed to provide a relatively low eaves height of approximately 3.8m while still providing two floors of accommodation. The external finishes include a stone/brick plinth with light render walls and a Slate or Cambrian roof tile which will ensure a quality finish. The timber cladding illustrated to the small side annexe provides visual/architectural interest and serves to differentiate this small side annexe from the main core of the dwelling. The external finishes will also be fully controlled via an appropriately worded condition.

It must be noted that the rear amenity space associated with No.5 the Orchard is well below the minimum standard set by modern-day development control criteria, and whilst it is accepted that this is an inherent situation and not the fault of the applicant, the residential amenities reasonably expected to be enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers is a material consideration. To this end it is considered that the proposal as submitted overcomes the negative effects upon this neighbouring dwellings previously cited in the refusal reason. The massing of the building near the eastern site boundary has been adequately addressed through the re-siting and re-design of the dwelling.

The proposal is also sited within 1m of the western side boundary, however No.11 Slade Road is a substantial Victorian style detached property, and even though the proposal will be sited in close proximity to this neighbouring property, it will remain subservient and as such, its impact is less.

The detached garage is already partially constructed and is sited forward of the dwelling in the south-eastern corner of the plot immediately behind the rear boundary of No.5. However it is noteworthy that the garage does not form part of this application as it being constructed under the permitted development rights as defined within the Town and Country Planning Act 1991 (as amended). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339

The area is characterised by a wide variety of house types, styles and sizes, and the principle of this development is accepted. Overall regard must be given to the varied local context, and it is considered that the scale, siting and design of the dwelling now proposed is appropriate in this context and would have a limited impact upon the visual qualities of the area.

Similarly with regard to residential amenity it is considered that the revised scale, design and siting of the dwelling satisfactorily addresses the concerns in relation to physical overbearance, and overlooking. The outlook from the rear facing bedroom windows of No. 5 the Orchard was material to the consideration of the previously application. This proposal in contrast to that previously refused sees the dwelling sited a further 3m back into the site (13m in total). this greater set-back into the site satisfactorily off-sets the dwelling from the direct sight-line from the rear facing first floor windows of No. 5 and provides a consistent albeit notional building line between the proposal and No. 5 the Orchard and No. 11 Slade Road. Additionally it improves the aspect from the rear facing first floor windows of No. 5 the Orchard. Whilst it is inevitable that the proposal will have a degree of impact upon the neighbouring occupiers, it is not considered that this impact is so significantly harmful as to warrant refusal of the application.

With regard to highway safety issues, this application is for a replacement 3 bedroom dwelling , the site is accessed from the lane leading to Newton Primary School and is established. The access lane is narrow and shared with the school and other properties, however its use to serve the development is established and this proposal will not introduce a new additional dwelling.

The site is laid out to accommodate satisfactory parking which will be available in the existing garage which is being retained and also additional parking on the drive/forecourt area of the plot. A minimum of three spaces will be provided and turning will also be accommodated. On this basis the Head of Transportation and Engineering is satisfied that there will be no adverse highway safety affect as a direct result of this replacement dwelling, therefore as the site is an established residential plot and the proposal does not have any adverse highway safety implications no highway objection is raised.

With regard to the objection letters received, these refer mainly to issues of visual and residential amenity, highway safety and Development Plan Policy all of which are addressed fully above. Further concern is expressed over the lack of contact/dialogue between the applicant and the surrounding neighbours, this is however a matter of choice by the applicant and is not material to the consideration of the application. A further point raised suggests that the applicant has no intention of living in the property if approved, and this again is a matter of choice for the applicant and not material to the consideration of the application.

On the basis that the proposal involves the demolition of the existing bungalow, it was considered appropriate to request the submission of a bat survey. Although the survey was carried out at a sub optimal time of year, the surveyor is confident that there is little opportunity for bat roosts at the site. As a precaution however, a standard advisory note is attached. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal represents an appropriate form of development that will have a limited impact upon the visual and residential amenities of the area and will not compromise current highway safety standards. The proposal therefore accords with Policies EV1, EV2, AS6 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

3 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.

4 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.

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339

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

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

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

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

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

11 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, further details of the sustainable drainage (SUDS) measures including permeable paving for the driveway access and car parking areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be retained and maintained as such, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

INFORMATIVES

2 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1339

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).

PLANS

10.26/01A- site location plan & block plan, 10.26/02- site sections, 10.26/03A- proposed layout plan, 10.26/04B- proposed floor plans, 10.26/05B- proposed elevations received 27th September 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 17 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1465 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Lower Shop Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1AD Proposal: Retention and completion of change of use from dwelling with shop to two dwellings Applicant: Mr Mark Warner

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2007/0504 Single storey rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 10/04/2007

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1465

90/0974/13 CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT TO RENEW ROOF COVERING WITH ARTIFICIAL SLATES, ELECTRICAL REWIRING AND RENDERING REAR WALL Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 31/07/1990

2011/1724 Replacement front windows and door Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 09/02/2012

90/0535/03 SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/05/1990

92/0513 RAISE HEIGHT OF BOUNDARY WALL TO 1 METRE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 22/06/1992

87/1752/03 TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE GROUND FLOOR DINNING ROOM WITH BEDROOM ABOVE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/02/1988

80/0701/03 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DWELLING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 28/06/1980

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and adjoining neighbours were individually consulted. No third party correspondence has been received.

Highways and Transportation The removal of the shop use will reduce parking demand associated with the use. Some parking is available on the forecourt which is not affected by the proposal. I recommend no highway objection.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order for Committee to fully consider the policy implications and if necessary undertake a site visit to assess the visual impact.

Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of one residential dwelling with associated retail shop at Lower Shop, Reynoldston into two dwellings. The application property is a traditional mid terraced property currently undergoing renovation and the proposal would allow for the reconfiguration of the internal layout to provide 2 No. two bedroom dwellings. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1465

The extant building fronts onto Reynoldston Village Green which is located within Reynoldston Conservation Area and Gower AONB.

ISSUES The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the acceptability of the proposed use at this location, having regard to Policies EV1, EV9, EV26, AS6 and HC6 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Policy HC6 of the UDP states that proposals for the conversion of larger dwellings to flats or other self-contained units of accommodation will be permitted subject to satisfaction of the following main criteria: 1, Impact on residential amenity; 2. Intensity of use, 3. The effects on the external appearance of the property and the character and appearance of the area. 4. Car parking and highway safety 5. Refuse Storage arrangements;

This amplification to this policy seeks to support the use of suitable buildings to maximise new housing opportunities. The conversion of large dwellings (minimum four bedrooms) and other suitable properties to flats or other self contained units of accommodation is often an effective way of securing their improvement and widening the range and choice of accommodation available to local residents. However, properties must be of sufficient size to permit the creation of individual dwelling units with satisfactory private amenity space, parking facilities, etc. Conversions of existing buildings will not be permitted where they will result in significant detrimental impact to the character of the building, amenities enjoyed by existing residents and neighbours, parking or highway safety.

With regard to impact on visual amenity, no external alterations to the property are proposed as part of this application. The property is to be reconfigured internally to enable the proposed change of use. Separate parking areas are indicated as being located to the front and rear of the respective units each of which is capable of providing off street parking for two vehicles. Parking to the rear of property would be accessed through an existing entrance to the rear of Corner Cottage. In addition to the above the proposal would include the provision of a modest amenity space to the rear of each of the proposed dwellings to provide bin storage and drying facilities. As such, it is not considered that there would be any significant adverse effect on the external appearance of the property and the character of Reynoldston Conservation Area or Gower AONB.

Turning to the impact upon residential amenity, whilst it is proposed to split this property into two separate units, the level of accommodation would not increase substantially beyond that currently provided. The existing dwelling provided 4 No. bedrooms at first floor level which is comparable with the number of bedrooms achieved via the proposed sub division. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in a significant intensification in the use of the property and as such it is not considered that there would be any significant adverse effect upon residential amenity by virtue of noise, nuisance or other disturbance beyond that currently experienced. In addition, both properties would have a pedestrian access to the rear amenity space from the rear of the property and as indicated above, sufficient space has been provided, it is considered, to the rear for the storage of bins and refuse. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1465

In terms of the overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impacts of the proposal, there are not considered to be any issues arising as a result of the proposal over and above that currently experienced as it is not proposed to make any significant alterations to the building envelope. It is not therefore considered that the subdivision of this dwelling would detract from the residential amenities of the occupiers of any property.

Highway Safety With regard to the impact upon highway safety, this proposal would see a reduction in parking demand resulting from the removal of the shop. The proposal would see the existing parking area, utilised for the properties concerned and as such parking provision would not be affected by the proposal. On this basis no highway objections are forthcoming.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposal would not result in an significant adverse impact on residential or visual amenity and is satisfactory in terms of highway safety and therefore accords with the criteria set out in Policies EV1, EV9, EV26, AS6 and HC6 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

INFORMATIVES

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

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

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

4 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, EV9, EV26, AS6, HC6

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1465

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

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, existing elevations, existing floor plans received 21st October 2011. Amended proposed floor plans, proposed elevations and additional car parking and amenity plan received 22nd December 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 18 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1514 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Broadview, Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EH Proposal: Conversion of first floor of existing carpentry workshop to one self contained holiday let, replacement roof with a front gable and 2 velux roof lights Applicant: Mr Kevin Lloyd

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1514

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2006/1504 First floor extension to existing shed Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 24/08/2006

2008/2156 Single storey rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 18/12/2008

86/0339/03 ERECTION OF GARAGE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 06/05/1986

92/0979 PROPOSED EXTENSION AND CONVERSION OF WORKSHOP (CLASS B1) TO DWELLING HOUSE (CLASS C3) AND INSERTION OF DORMER WINDOWS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 05/01/1993

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and three neighbouring residents were individually consulted. NO RESPONSE. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1514

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Area 2 Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to assess the impact of the proposal on the visual and residential amenity of the area.

Full planning permission is sought for the conversion of an existing first floor workshop to provide one bedroom self contained holiday accommodation. The conversion would involve a replacement roof with a front gable and 2 roof lights. The building is within the ownership of the host dwelling Broadview, Llanrhidian. It is considered that the application site falls within the small rural village of Llanrhidian in the Gower AONB. The site is adjacent to common land and outside of the Llanrhidian Conservation Area.

Given that the building has been in-situ for many years and used as a workshop, the main issues for consideration therefore relate to the impact of the use of the first floor for holiday accommodation, in addition to the impact of the proposed external changes, upon visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety, having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV16, EV26, EV33, EV34 and AS6 of the Unitary Development Plan. Furthermore, Policies EC12, EC17 and EC19 are also considered relevant in this instance and support proposals for tourism and the creation of well-designed unserviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings provided they do not have unacceptably adverse effects on the landscape and nature conservation interests of the site and surrounding area, and are compatible with the existing character of the Gower AONB and the primary objective of the protection of natural beauty. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

In terms of visual amenity, this application proposes a new roof to replace the existing corrugated roof which is in need of repair. No increase in the overall ridge height is proposed. On the north elevation facing towards ‘Broadview’ a gable is proposed over the entrance doorway, a roof light to serve the bedroom and a larger double roof light with a vertical double element to serve the living area. The materials proposed are slate for the roof and render to the walls. The existing access to the host dwelling ‘Broadview’ has been widened and additional car parking provision provided. The external stairs to the parking area have recently been constructed and are therefore already on site. It is considered that the external alterations and materials proposed would be appropriate at this location and would not significantly detract from the visual amenities of the immediate area or the wider Gower AONB.

In terms of residential amenity, as the access is already used by vehicles and the building is used as a workshop, there is already an element of comings and goings associated with the existing property and the use of the workshop. In terms of overlooking/loss of privacy impacts, the proposed roof light serving the bedroom can be conditioned to be a minimum of 1.8m above floor level. The proposed windows to the living area face towards the village and marshland beyond, but would afford oblique views over the rear garden area of the dwelling at No.12 Malt Hall, on the opposite side of the lane. Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed holiday accommodation would be accessed via steps and raised boardwalk from the parking area which also allows overlooking into the garden area of No12. However, in this instance, the garden area of No.12 already experiences mutual overlooking due to the elevated position and siting relationship with the existing dwelling ‘Broadview’. In addition, the steps and boardwalk are existing on site and provide access to the first floor workshop. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1514

In light of this existing situation, it is not considered that the use of the first floor as a one bedroom holiday unit used in association with the existing dwelling at ‘Broadview’ would result in any significant, demonstrable overlooking or loss of privacy impacts to the occupiers of No.12 over and above that currently experienced sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal on these issues alone.

Turning to the relationship with the adjoining neighbours in the dwelling to the front of the application site (The Old Workshop), there are no windows immediately overlooking this amenity space and in addition, the amenity area is not currently enclosed by any boundary treatments although a 1.8m high boundary fence could be erected on this boundary under permitted development rights. As the building is existing and the proposal does not propose any significant increase in height, it is not considered that there would be any overbearing or overshadowing impacts form the proposal. On this basis, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the residential amenity of the occupiers of this dwelling over and above the existing situation.

The application site is well placed for walking, cycling, horse riding and activity holidays, being within the Gower AONB and served by a bus route and road networks. Policy EC17 supports proposals for tourism and recreation developments of an appropriate scale. Additionally, Policy EC12 supports the conversion of existing rural buildings to new uses that contribute to the local economy where; the building is largely intact; structurally suitable for conversion; allows for safe access for pedestrians and vehicles. In this respect, it is considered that the proposal accords with the criteria of Policies EC17 and EC12 and would be in accordance with the requirements of Policy EC19, which supports development that improves the range and quality of un-serviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings. However, to ensure that the holiday accommodation remains ancillary to the main dwelling at ‘Broadview’ an appropriate condition is recommended to ensure that the building is used for ancillary or holiday accommodation purposes only in connection with the main dwelling.

Having regard to highway safety and access, the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal as it is considered that there is sufficient room within the site to accommodate the one additional parking space required by the proposal.

Burry Inlet and Drainage Issues

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1514

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 ((revised 12th September 2011). Also the phosphate stripping carried out at the Llannant WWTW which has created a capacity for 1000 new dwellings within that part of the catchment area in Swansea. A full Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations is not therefore necessary and the application can be approved subject to the drainage conditions indicated. This would satisfy the requirements of the Habitat Regulations. The development would be in accordance with Policy EV33 relating to Sewage Disposal and Policy EV34 relating to the protection of controlled waters.

In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, including the Human Rights Act, it is considered the conversion of the first floor to holiday accommodation is appropriate in this instance and would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the wider Gower AONB, the amenity of nearby residents or highway safety standards, in accordance with UDP Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV26, EV33, EV34 and AS6. Furthermore, the application site is well placed for walking, cycling, horse riding and activity holidays and as such accords with UDP Policies EC12, EC17 and EC19 which relate to tourist accommodation. A TLSE has been undertaken and subject to drainage conditions this would satisfy the requirements of the Habitat Regulations and in accord with Polices EV33 and EV34. Approval is therefore recommended subject to a condition to ensure that the annexe is used for ancillary or holiday accommodation only in conjunction with the existing dwelling house known as 'Broadview'.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

3 The building shall be used as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied by any person or persons as their main or sole place of residence and shall not be otherwise disposed of as a separate unit of accommodation from `Broadview' at any time. Reason: To ensure that the ancillary/holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential accommodation. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1514

4 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The roof shall be natural slate, all roof lights/windows and doors shall be stained timber. The use of uPVC is expressly excluded. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

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

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

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

8 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 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented and retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1514

INFORMATIVES

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

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

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

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

6 If connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Developer Services on 0800 917 2652.

7 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).

8 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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1514

PLANS

Site location plan, 051/11/S01 existing floor plans, 051/11/S02 existing section, 051/11S/03 existing east and north elevations, 051/11S/04 existing south and west elevations, 051/11/PL01 proposed first floor plan with north and west elevations, 051/11/PL02 proposed site layout and east elevation received 22nd November 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 19 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1528 WARD: Gower

Location: Sluxton Farm, Rhossili, Swansea SA3 1JR Proposal: Agricultural building Applicant: Mr John Alexander

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2006/2078 Agricultural building (application for the Prior Approval of the Local Planning Authority) Decision: Prior Approval Is Not Required Decision Date: 09/10/2006

A01/0183 ERECTION OF A STEEL FRAMED AGRICULTURAL BUILDING FOR USE AS A HAY SHED (APPLICATION FOR THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY) Decision: *HPAA - PRIOR APPROVAL IS APPROVED Decision Date: 09/03/2001 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 19 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1528

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site. No response

Rhossili Community Council – No objection

APPRAISAL

This application is called to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to enable the committee to consider the policy implications of the proposal fully and to undertake a site visit if considered necessary.

Full planning permission is sought for an agricultural building at Sluxton Farm in Rhossili. The proposed agricultural building would measure approximately 8m in height to the ridge, 33m in length and 15m in width. Although the new building would be substantial in nature, it will be situated adjacent to an existing agricultural building and will provide an additional storage facility for machinery/hay and straw. In addition, the existing shed has a height of 7m and the building would be sited on an existing hardstanding.

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposed building on the visual amenities and character and appearance of the Gower AONB, having regard to Policies EV1, EC13, EC14, EV22 and EV26 in the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Policy EV1 refers to development complying with the criteria of good design and being appropriate to its local context. Policy EC13 refers to agricultural land and states that development that would result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land will not be permitted., and EC14 which also relates to agricultural development states that agricultural development should give proper consideration to the protection of natural heritage and the historical environment and should be sympathetically sited and designed. Policy Ev22 refers to the countryside being protected for its own sake and Policy EV26 states that eh primary objective of the AONB is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty.

The scale and design of the proposed storage building, although large, is considered consistent with its agricultural use and the size of the holding it is to serve. It is not considered that the proposal would appear conspicuous having regard to its siting adjacent to an existing building, the siting of the farm itself and the dominant agricultural use of the surrounding land. The wall would be dark green steel sheets with a concrete block plinth with fibre cement roof. These materials and colour of the building will harmonize with the surrounding buildings already in situ at the site.

Due to the isolated location of the agricultural holding it is not considered that there are any residential amenity issues to consider.

In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the siting, scale and design of the proposed agricultural building is acceptable and complies with the overall requirements of Policies EV1, EC13, EC14, EV22 and EV26 OF THE Unitary Development Plan 2008. Approval is therefore recommended. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 19 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1528

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 The developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority, in writing and within 7 days of the date on which the development was substantially completed. In the event that the use of the building for the purposes of agriculture within the unit permanently ceases within 4 years from the date that the development was substantially completed and planning permission has not been granted on an application or deemed to be granted under Part III of the Act, for development for purposes other than agriculture, within 3 years from the date on which the use of the building for the purposes of agriculture within the unit has permanently ceased, the following shall apply. Unless the Local Planning Authority has otherwise agreed in writing, the building shall be removed and the land shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be restored to its condition before the development took place, or such a condition as may have been agreed in writing between the Local Planning Authority and the developer. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the Gower AONB, and to prevent the sporadic proliferation of buildings in the countryside.

INFORMATIVES

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 19 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1528

PLANS

2011/03 site location and block plan, 2011/02 land ownership, 2011/01 proposed plans, 2011/04 proposed east and north elevations received 14th November 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 20 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1538 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: Land adjoining Hillside, Wernffrwd, Llanmorlais, Swansea, SA4 3UE Proposal: Detached dwelling (outline) Applicant: Mr Simon Passmore

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

Policy EV39 Development which would create, affect or might be affected by unstable or potentially unstable land will not be permitted where there would be a significant risk. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

None

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1538

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the local press as a development proposal which does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and the neighbouring property consulted. No third party responses were forthcoming.

The Gower Society – OBJECT on the following grounds;

1. The proposal is for a dwelling the open countryside. 2. The site does not fall into the category infill. 3. If minded to approve, it is essential that the AONB Design Guide is strictly adhered to.

The Coal Authority: OBJECT on the following grounds;

1. The application site falls within the defined Coal Mining Development Referral Area. The Coal Authority objects as a Coal Mining Risk Assessment has not been submitted as part of the application.

Assistant Gower AONB Officer: Makes the following comment: I draw your attention to the following policies within the Gower AONB Management Plan

1. Policy D1 – Support new development which is locally distinct, sensitive to the location and setting, has a minimum impact on the special qualities of the AONB landscape and seascape, and incorporates designs based upon the principles of sustainable development. 2. Policy HC1 – Promote the provision of affordable housing for local people.

Highways and Transportation: Make the following comment;

This proposed dwelling is to be accessed adjacent to an existing access where the boundary is set back from the carriageway. On that basis, there is little merit in requiring a further set back of the boundary however safety would be improved if on site turning facilities were included. I recommend therefore that no highway objections are raised subject to the provision of on-site turning facilities in accordance with details to be submitted.

APPRAISAL

The proposal is reported to committee for decision at the request of Cllr. Paul Tucker who wishes to consider local need in the area.

Outline planning permission is sought for a detached dwelling at land adjoining Hillside, Llanmorlais, with all details relating to scale, appearance, access, landscaping and layout reserved for determination as reserved matters at a later date. The plot itself currently forms part of the field system surrounding the property known as Hillside and is located in the open countryside and within Gower AONB.

The application site is currently in agricultural use and lies approximately 50 meters to the south of New Road (B4295) off the Wernffrwdd cross road. The site is bounded to the west and south/south east by the country lane which runs around the perimeter of the site with the property Hillside located to the North West with the remainder of the site adjoining agricultural fields. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1538

The main issues to be considered in this instance are the acceptability of the proposed development in principle and its impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside and Gower AONB having regard to the provisions of prevailing policies of the Unitary Development Plan and national planning policy guidance. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

The application site is located adjacent to Hillside, Llanmorlais, and is considered to fall outside of the settlement limits of nearby Wernfrwdd as defined under the provisions of Policy EV16 and within the countryside of the Gower AONB. Policy EV22 of the UDP dictates that within this area the countryside will be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural, environment and agricultural and recreational value through the control of development. Within this area Policy EV20 of the UDP allows for new dwellings providing the dwelling is required to accommodate a full time worker employed in agriculture, forestry or an appropriate use to serve the rural economy for someone who needs to live on the premises rather than a nearby settlement and there is no alternative existing dwelling available in nearby settlements. No justification has been provided in this respect.

Planning Policy Wales (PPW) acknowledges that the sensitive infilling of small gaps may be acceptable it also states that new houses in the countryside away from existing settlements recognised in UDP’s must be strictly controlled. In this instance the current application site does not fall within a recognized settlement and is not considered to represent a small gap suitable for sensitive infilling, conversely the character of this part of the lane remains sufficiently rural in appearance such that the proposal would introduce a suburbanizing effect into this part of the open countryside and Gower AONB which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and the policy objectives set out in the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

In light of the above and having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan Policy EV20 in particular, in this case no evidence has been submitted that the proposal is required for an agricultural or forestry workers dwelling and that there is an overriding economic need to serve the rural economy and the provision of affordable housing so meet a demonstrable need. There is no justification therefore for the introduction of a new dwelling which would result in an undesirable visual intrusion into this part of the countryside and AONB. The proposal therefore fails to provide an essential agricultural or overriding economic or rural need for a dwelling at this countryside location, and there are no other material considerations that outweigh the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan.

With regard to the issue of affordable housing, the Council’s Housing Officers have undertaken a market assessment which indicates that in the ‘Gower and Penclawdd’ area there is a need for approximately 10 units per annum, but this need has to be quantified by a further in depth study of the villages in this area to define the type, size and location of units required and where such sites should be supported. This further study would help inform future development plan policy and development control decisions in the area. However, at present there is no evidence that a specific needs exists in the countryside or nearby Wernffrydd, and no justification in this respect has been provided in support of the current application.

In this respect, Policy E18 of the Unitary Development Plan, whilst supporting local needs affordable housing ‘within’ small villages, makes no provision for an exception to be made in the countryside. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1538

On this basis, it is not considered that this issue would justify the provision of a dwelling at this location and override established policies which seek to control residential development and protect the character and appearance of the countryside and Gower AONB.

Planning Policy Wales 13.9 requires the local planning authority to be mindful of hazards associated with unstable land which is further supported by Policy EV39 of the UDP. Notwithstanding the objection raised by the Coal Authority, in this instance, given the fact that provision of a Mining Risk Assessment would not overcome the substantive, in principle, reason for refusal, a Mining Risk Assessment Report was not requested. However the agent for the scheme has been advised that should they wish to progress the proposal in any way the provision of a Mining Risk Assessment Report will be an essential requirement.

In terms of visual amenity the absence of detailed design, given that the application is submitted in outline, prevents the local planning authority from offering a full appraisal of the visual impact of the proposal. However, on the basis of the fundamental overriding objections to the proposal in terms of principle, it is considered that the introduction of a dwelling on the application site would have a retrograde step in the conservation and enhancement of the open countryside to the detriment of its natural heritage, and environmental value and as such would be considered visually intrusive contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1, EV2, EV22 and EV26.

Turning to residential amenity it is considered the plot would be capable of accommodating a dwelling without giving rise to an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. The comings and goings of one additional dwelling are not considered to give rise to an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. Details of siting, scale, appearance and landscaping are to be dealt with at a latter stage and as such in this sense; it is considered that the proposed development would be compliant with the Principles of Policy EV1 and EV2 of the Swansea UDP.

In terms of highway safety the proposed dwelling would be accessed adjacent to an existing access where the boundary is set back from the carriageway. However safety would be improved if on site turning facilities were included, therefore no highway objections are raised subject to an appropriate condition requiring the provision of on-site turning facilities.

Finally, the application site will drain into the Burry Inlet catchment area. On the basis of the strategic concerns raised by our statutory advisors, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Coal Authority, there is not enough information for us to assess possible effects of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet RAMSAR or consider ground stability respectively.

However, as the application is being recommended for refusal on overriding planning grounds, these assessments have not been undertaken. A Test of Likely Significant Effect under the Habitat Regulations has been undertaken where it was concluded that subject to the refusal of the application, there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of this European site as there would be no increased flows entering the drainage network. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1538

In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the release of this land for a new dwelling house would result in an unacceptable urbanisation and visually intrusive form of development within the countryside, with no satisfactory rural justification or need, to the detriment of the rural character and status of this site and its landscape quality. As such the proposal would not only detract significantly from the character and appearance of the immediate surrounding vicinity, but would unacceptably harm the visual amenities and quality of this sensitive landscape and countryside of the Gower AONB. Therefore the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22, EV26 and EV39 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. On this basis it is not considered that there is any justification to warrant a departure from the Development Plan at this location. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The proposal represents an unjustified form of development in the countryside for which no overriding need has been demonstrated to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

2 The proposal would result in the introduction of a visually intrusive form of development to the detriment of the established character and appearance of this part of the countryside and Gower AONB contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1, EV2, EV22 and EV26 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

3 The proposal constitutes development in a Coal Mining Development Referral Area for which no Mining Risk Assessment Report has been provided. There is insufficient information on which to determine the application and as such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Wales Section 13.9 and Policy EV39 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

INFORMATIVES

2 Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires the competent authority, in this case 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1538

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

Site location plan, block plan received 7th November, 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 21 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1591 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: 2 Chestnut Cottages Marsh Road Llanmorlais Swansea SA4 3TS Proposal: Single storey rear extension, second floor rear extension and rear dormer Applicant: Mrs Alison Owen

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2004/1655 Rear Conservatory Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 03/09/2004

94/1310 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/12/1994

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised via direct neighbour consultation. ONE letter of response was received and is summarised as follows:-

1. The proposal is totally out of character with our property and the adjacent cottages. 2. The floor to roof glass at second floor will affect our privacy. No objection to the second floor extension being replaced by a dormer. 3. The internal lift may cause strain on the party wall and may create noise. 4. For their privacy and ours the first floor cloakroom window should be obscured.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Tucker to allow the Committee the opportunity to undertake a site visit to assess the proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 21 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1591

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a single storey rear extension, second floor rear extension and a rear dormer at No.2 Chestnut Cottages, Marsh Road, Llanmorlais. The property may be characterised as a semi detached property in an established residential settlement.

The applicant has verbally indicated that the extension is required at ground floor to provide space for their disabled daughter and that the second floor extension was required in order to provide sufficient room for a lift shaft and attic space.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities in respect of Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

In terms of visual amenity, the proposed rear dormer is considered to accord with the design guide and maintains the character and appearance of the property.

The proposed single storey extension would however, project a total length of some 8.5 metres from the main back wall of the original dwelling and as a consequence would appear out of proportion with and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

In addition, the proposed second floor extension has an eaves height which would project well above that of the main dwelling and would fail to respect the scale and form of the traditional semi detached property introducing what essentially constitutes a third storey to what is a two storey property.

The proposal is therefore considered to have an adverse visual impact upon host dwelling and consequently the area to which it relates and fails to accord with Policies EV1 & HC7 of the adopted City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008) and the Adopted Householder Design Guide.

In terms of residential amenity it is considered that given the existence of mature boundary screening and the fact that the single storey proposal only projects 3.8m beyond the neighbouring property, the proposal is unlikely to have an overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impacts on the adjacent property at No.1 Chestnut Cottages.

The proposed second floor extension would allow overlooking of the rear amenity space serving the adjacent property at No.1 Chestnut Cottages. However, it is considered that a condition requiring the non habitable room to be obscurely glazed would eliminate this concern. Whilst the proposal may have a minor overshadowing impact upon Rose Cottages, by virtue of the increase in eaves and ridge height, this is considered to be minimal and not sufficient to warrant a refusal in this instance.

In this instance it is not considered that the proposal has a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and is therefore considered to conform to the requirements of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Adopted Household Design Guide . AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 21ST FEBRUARY 2012

ITEM 21 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1591

CONCLUSION In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an unsatisfactory form of development which conflicts with current development plan Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development and has an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposed single storey extension by virtue of its excessive overall length and second floor extension by virtue of its siting and eaves height and fails to respect the scale and form of the traditional semi detached property and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, iwm.mth.8865 Rev 11 existing plans, iwm.mth.8866 Rev 11 proposed plans received 21st November 2011

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 Labour Vacancy J Christine Richards David I E 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 - 95