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 27th September 2011
Time: 2.00p.m. Members are asked to contact John Lock (Planning Control Manager) on 635731 or Phil Baxter on 635733 should they wish to have submitted plans and other images of any of the applications on this agenda to be available for display at the Committee meeting.
AGENDA
1. Apologies for Absence.
2. Declarations of Interest To receive Disclosures of Personal and Prejudicial Interests from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. (NOTE: Members are requested to identify the Agenda Item /minute number/ planning application number and subject matter that their interest relates).
3. To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 30th August 2011.
FOR DECISION
4. Town and Country Planning - Planning Applications:- (a) Items for deferral/withdrawal. (b) Requests for Site Visits. (c) Determination of Planning Applications.
Patrick Arran Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement 20th September 2011 Contact: Democratic Services 01792 636820
ACCESS TO INFORMATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (SECTION 100) (AS AMENDED) (NOTE: The documents and files used in the preparation of this Schedule of Planning Applications are identified in the ‘Background Information’ Section of each report. The Application files will be available in the committee room for half an hour before the start of the meeting, to enable Members to inspect the contents)
Item No. 2
Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members
To receive Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. You must disclose orally to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest.
NOTE: You are requested to identify the Agenda Item / Minute No. / Planning Application No. and Subject Matter to which that interest relates and to enter all declared interests on the sheet provided for that purpose at the meeting.
1. If you have a Personal Interest as set out in Paragraph 10 of the Code, you MAY STAY, SPEAK AND VOTE unless it is also a Prejudicial Interest.
2. If you have a Personal Interest which is also a Prejudicial Interest as set out in Paragraph 12 of the Code, then subject to point 3 below, you MUST WITHDRAW from the meeting (unless you have obtained a dispensation from the Authority’s Standards Committee)
3. Where you have a Prejudicial Interest you may attend the meeting but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose, whether under a statutory right or otherwise. In such a case, you must withdraw from the meeting immediately after the period for making representations, answering questions, or giving evidence relating to the business has ended, and in any event before further consideration of the business begins, whether or not the public are allowed to remain in attendance for such consideration (Paragraph 14 of the Code).
4. Where you have agreement from the Monitoring Officer that the information relating to your Personal Interest is sensitive information, as set out in Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct, your obligation to disclose such information is replaced with an obligation to disclose the existence of a personal interest and to confirm that the Monitoring Officer has agreed that the nature of such personal interest is sensitive information.
5. If you are relying on a grant of a dispensation by the Standards Committee, you must, before the matter is under consideration: (i) disclose orally both the interest concerned and the existence of the dispensation; and (ii) before or immediately after the close of the meeting give written notification to the Authority containing -
- details of the prejudicial interest; - details of the business to which the prejudicial interest relates; - details of, and the date on which, the dispensation was granted; and - your signature
Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Cttees\Area 2\2008-09\08jun24\02 - Disclosures of Personal Interest.doc
Item No. 3
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON TUESDAY 30th AUGUST 2011 AT 2.00 P.M.
PRESENT: Councillor D P Tucker (Chairman) presided
Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s):
M C Child R D Lewis C L Philpott A C S Colburn K E Marsh J C Richards W Evans P M Matthews G Seabourne E W Fitzgerald P M Meara M Smith N A Holley W K Morgan R J Stanton D I E Jones J Newbury C M R W D Thomas J W Jones B G Owen D W W Thomas S M Jones
30. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J E Burtonshaw, A M Day, B J Hynes, M H Jones, E T Kirchner, R J Lloyd, D Price and C Thomas.
31. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea, the following interests were declared:
Councillor M C Child - personal - Item 5 (2011/0570) - applicant is Member of the Labour Party.
Councillor D W W Thomas - personal - Item No. 5 (2011/0570) - applicant is member of Labour Party.
32. MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 2nd August 2011 be agreed as a correct record.
33. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL
RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning application BE DEFERRED for the applicant to consider in detail possible alternative sites for the sports building and to also further address the drainage and water quality reason for refusal. They will also look at some of the design details as well as the affordable housing and education requirements:
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (30.08.11) Cont’d
(Item 1) Application No 2007/2097
Construction of 209 dwellings, indoor sports barn, two outdoor sports pitches, new vehicular access off Loughor Road and associated parking, open space and landscaping works (amended plans and elevation for indoor sports barn) on land at Cae Duke, Loughor Road, Loughor.
34. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS
RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning applications BE DEFERRED for SITE VISITS for the reasons outlined below:
(Item 7) Application No 2010/1387
Three detached dwellings with integral garages on land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd.
Reason
To consider whether the development gives rise to a harmful overbearing impact on neighbouring residents.
(NOTE: Mrs Reynolds addressed the Committee objecting to this proposal after receiving legal advice regarding speaking rights.)
(Item 8) Application No. 2011/0092
Construction for 4 no. retail units at Cross Marble and Stone Ltd, Gorseinon Road, Gorseinon.
Reason
To consider the impact of developing the site given that it is currently an eyesore and to assess the highway access implications of the proposal.
(Item 9) Application No. 2011/0825
Two storey rear extension, single storey side extension and glazed link extension at Oaklea, Llangennith.
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (30.08.11) Cont’d
Reason
To assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area and neighbouring residents.
(Item 10) Application No. 2011/0243
Conversion of existing garage to living accommodation (variation of condition 1 of planning permission 2005/0146 granted on 19th July 2005), increase in height of front gable with timber cladding and two storey rear extension to existing garage, part single storey, part two storey glazed link extension between house and garage raised decked areas to front elevation, new chimney and single storey side extension with balcony to main dwelling at 21 East Cliff, Pennard.
Reason
To consider the impact of the development given the planning history of the site.
35. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
The Planning Control Manager submitted a schedule of outline applications, reserved matters and planning applications. Amendments to this schedule were reported and are indicated below by (#).
RESOLVED that:
(1) the undermentioned planning applications BE APPROVED subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligations in respect of a contribution of £200,000 towards offsite affordable housing provision and subject to the conditions in the report:
(Item 4) Application No. 2011/0364
Four detached dwellings with detached garages (outline) at Morfryn, St Annes Close, Langland.
(NOTE: A visual presentation was given)
(2) the undermentioned planning applications BE REFUSED for the reasons indicated in the report:
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (30.08.11) Cont’d
(Item 2) Application No. 2010/0092
Detached dwelling with integral garage at Plot 1, Plenty Farm, Llangennith.
(NOTE: Mr H Jenkins (agent) addressed the Committee.)
(NOTE: A visual presentation was given)
# (Item 3) Application No. 2011/0309
Change of use of retail unit (Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Class A3) at Unit 1, 908 Carmarthen Road, Fforestfach.
(NOTE: A late letter of objection was reported.)
(NOTE: A visual presentation was given)
(Item 5) Application No. 2011/0570
Variation of condition 6 of planning permission 77/0743 granted 25th August 1977 to allow 12 months occupancy at 4, Longcliffe Park, Mumbles.
(NOTE: The applicant and Mr H Jenkins (agent) addressed the Committee.)
(NOTE: The Planning Task and Finish Group were requested to consider the policy in respect of 12 months occupancy of chalets.)
(NOTE: A visual presentation was given)
(3) the Committee BEING MINDED TO APPROVE the undermentioned planning application it BE REFERRED to PLANNING COMMITTEE with a recommendation of approval on the basis that Members considered that due to the unit being vacant for a considerable period of time it is in the wider interest of the District Centre to have such units occupied.
(Item 6) Application No. 2011/0745
Change of use from retail shop (Class A1) to coffee shop (Class A3) at 29B Gower Road, Sketty.
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (30.08.11) Cont’d
(NOTE: This decision was contrary to the officer’s recommendation.)
(NOTE: A visual presentation was given.)
(NOTE: The applicant addressed the Committee.)
(NOTE: A late letter of objection was reported.)
36. PROVISIONAL TREE PRESERVATION ORDER
The report of the Head of Economic Regeneration and Planning submitted recommended confirmation as a full order of the provisional Tree Preservation Order for trees indicated on the plan at 26 Rhyd-yr- Helyg, Sketty. Following neighbours’ concerns regarding the health/conditions of the horse chestnut tree it was considered that it be removed from the Order to reflect this concern.
RESOLVED that the Tree Preservation Order for 26 Rhyd-yr-Helyg, Sketty be confirmed with the amendments as shown on the plan and schedule to the Order.
37. APPEALS INFORMATION REPORT
This report submitted updated the Committee on the results of the appeals between 1st April 2011 and 30th June 2011.
38. ENFORCEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
The report submitted informed the Committee of the current position relating to the number of complaints received and resolved together with the notices served, enforcement appeals received and enforcement notices complied with.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
39. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
The Committee was requested to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as set out in paragraph 18 if Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation)(Wales) Order 2007. The public interest test:- the Proper Officer (Monitoring Officer) had determined in preparing this report that paragraph 18 should apply.
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (30.08.11) Cont’d
His view on the Public Interest Test in relation to paragraph 18 is that the Authority’s statutory powers could be rendered ineffective or less effective where there is to be advance knowledge of its intention and the exercise of the Council’s statutory power could be prejudiced by public discussion or speculation on the matter to the detriment of the Authority and the inhabitants of the area. On that basis, he felt that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. Members were asked to consider the factors when determining the Public Interest Test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
It was RECOMMENDED that, as in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, the public should be excluded.
The Committee having considered Paragraph 18 and the Public Interest Test as applied by the Proper Officer (Monitoring Officer) resolved that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and RESOLVED to exclude the public.
(CLOSED SESSION)
38. ENFORCEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
The report submitted informed the Committee of the current position in relation to all outstanding enforcement action authorised within the Area Development Control Committee area.
The meeting ended at 5.00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN
S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 30 August 2011 (JT/KL)
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: 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 13. KILLAY SOUTH 14. KINGSBRIDGE 29 18. LOWER LOUGHOR 20. MAYALS 9 27 23. NEWTON 35 18 24. OYSTERMOUTH 14 25. PENCLAWDD 27. PENLLERGAER 11 28. PENNARD 5 29. PENYRHEOL 25 32. SKETTY 35. UPPER LOUGHOR 7 8 12 36. WEST CROSS
13 32
20 10 36 28 1 23 24
Phil Holmes BS(Hons), MSc, Dip Econ Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning
CONTENTS
ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.
1 2010/1101 Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS REFUSE Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2011, 1st November 2011 to 31st March 2012 and 1st November 2012 to 31st March 2013
2 2010/1102 Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS REFUSE Temporary siting of marquee, associated overspill car park and associated landscaping from 1st April 2011 to 31st October 2011, 1st April 2012 to 31st October 2012, 1st April 2013 to 31st October 2013 and 1st April 2014 to 31st October 2014
3 2010/1387 Land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd, APPROVE Swansea SA4 3XA Three detached dwellings with integral garages
4 2011/0825 Oaklea Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU APPROVE Two storey rear extension, single storey side extension and glazed link extension.
5 2011/0243 21 East Cliff Pennard Swansea SA3 2AS APPROVE Conversion of existing garage to living accommodation (variation of condition 1 of planning permission 2005/0146 granted on 19th July 2005), increase in height of front gable with timber cladding and two storey rear extension to existing garage, part single storey part two storey glazed link extension between house and garage, raised decked areas to front elevation, new chimney and single storey side extension with balcony to main dwelling
6 2011/0235 Land adjacent to Ty Croeso Salthouse Point Crofty APPROVE Swansea SA4 3RP Detached dwelling (outline)
7 2011/0092 Cross Marble and Stone Ltd Gorseinon Road Gorseinon REFUSE Swansea SA4 9GE Construction of 4.No retail units
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.
8 2011/0192 Tircoch Isaf Farm Llanmorlais Swansea SA4 3UQ APPROVE Construction of an agricultural stock barn
9 2011/0479 11 William Gammon Drive Mumbles, Swansea SA3 4HR REFUSE Alterations to roof design incorporating increase in eaves and ridge height with the addition of three front dormer windows and rear dormer extension
10 2011/0564 Land adjacent to 26 Highpool Lane. Newton, Swansea APPROVE SA3 4TX Detached dwelling with integral garage
11 2011/0869 The Spinney Caswell Road Caswell Swansea SA3 4RT APPROVE Addition of first floor and associated increase in ridge height providing accommodation in roof space with two front and one rear dormer, front bay window, front porch and front canopy
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101 WARD: Gower Area 2
Location: Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS Proposal: Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2011, 1st November 2011 to 31st March 2012 and 1st November 2012 to 31st March 2013 Applicant: Mr I Williams
This application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 DC Committee on the 19th April, 2011 to enable the applicant to submit a full economic appraisal of the scheme’s benefits in order for due weight to be afforded to the economic benefits of the development.
Subsequently further information including financial records has been submitted by the applicant and carefully considered by the Head of Economic Regeneration and Planning and Head of Culture and Tourism to assess the relative economic and tourism related benefits of the current scheme. My report has been updated to include these additional issues.
In addition, a further letter of objection has been received from the Gower Society and three letters of objection from members of the public; and a photograph has been submitted by a previous objector. My report has been updated to include reference to this further correspondence received.
In addition, my appraisal has been revised and expanded to fully consider the relevant material considerations and weight that should be given to the various conservation, environmental, sustainability, and economic regeneration issues that affect this protected rural AONB site.
My recommendation of REFUSAL remains unchanged.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV3 Proposals for new development and alterations to and change of use of existing buildings will be required to meet defined standards of access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
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 EV11 Development will not be permitted that would harm the character or setting of a registered Historic Park or Garden or the character of an Historic Landscape. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV12 The character of lanes and public paths that contribute to the amenity, natural and historical qualities of an area will be protected. (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 EV25 Development, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, which is likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European protected site (SAC, Marine SAC, SPA and Ramsar Sites) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
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 EV27 Development that significantly adversely affects the special interests of sites designated as SSSI's and NNR's will not be permitted unless the need for the development is of such significance that it outweighs the national importance of the designation. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
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 EV31 Along the undeveloped coastline development proposals for the provision of visitor and recreation facilities and services to complement existing facilities will be permitted at specified coastal locations. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV40 Development proposals will not be permitted that would cause or result in significant harm to health, local amenity, natural heritage, the historic environment or landscape character because of significant levels of air, noise or light pollution. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy 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 AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2010/1102 Temporary siting of marquee, associated overspill car park and associated landscaping from 1st April 2011 to 31st October 2011, 1st April 2012 to 31st October 2012, 1st April 2013 to 31st October 2013 and 1st April 2014 to 31st October 2014 Undetermined and on this agenda for decision.
2008/2185 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1 February 2009 to 31 October 2009 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/01/2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
2009/1599 Extend the period of temporary permitted use for marquee and associated overspill car park to include the period commencing 1st November 2009 and ceasing on 31st March 2011 including alterations to colour of marquee between the beginning of December and end of February with this period. Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 07/05/2010
2008/0064 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from April to September 2008 and December 2008 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 04/03/2008
2006/2781 Temporary siting of marquee from April to September 2007 and December 2007, associated overspill car park and landscaping. Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2007
98/0565 ENGINEERING OPERATIONS TO REPROFILE OPEN MEADOW TO FORM A PLATEAU FOR THE TEMPORARY SITING OF A MARQUEE WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS WAY AND LAND DRAINAGE WORKS Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 14/07/1998
2004/1741 Siting of temporary marquee April to September inclusive and December, and associated overspill car park Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 11/08/2005
98/1207 RETENTION OF LAND DRAINAGE WORKS, ALTERATIONS TO FIELD ACCESS AND REPROFILING OF PLATEAU AREA Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/03/1999
2005/2635 Submission of details for conditions 3 and 5 of planning permission 2004/1741 granted on 11th April 2005 to show new hedge and background lighting for the marquee and overspill car park Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 28/03/2008
90/0500/03 SITING OF PORTAKABIN AND FLOODLIGHTS Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 25/03/1996
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
2007/2148 Addition of pitched roof to part of northern elevation and replacement roof to existing entrance canopy Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/11/2007
89/1470/03 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO HOTEL PREMISES. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 15/12/1989
84/0188/03 THE SITING OF A PORTAKABIN + THE SITING OF A MOBILE ICE- CREAM VAN. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 29/03/1984
84/1190/06 ILLUMINATED HOTEL RESTAURANT SIGN - SIZE:- 3FT X 1FT 6INS. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 25/10/1984
84/1288/03 ADDITION OF NEW ENTRANCE PORCHES,BAY WINDOWS,EXTRA TOILET ACCOMMODATION AND GENERAL ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/11/1984
84/1600/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION (B) ON PREVIOUS APPROVAL 82/1383/11 REFERRING TO NO COACHES OR CHARABANCS BEING ALLOWED TO ENTER SITE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 31/01/1985
85/0812/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'C' ON PREVIOUS CONSENT RELATING TO USE FOR MUSIC DANCING AND OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985
85/0886/06 HANGING SIGNS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985
86/0082/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'E' ON CONSENT FOR MUSIC AND DANCING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS, (2/1/85/0812/12). Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 18/03/1986
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
86/0286/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'C' ON PREVIOUS CONSENT NUMBER 821383 RELATING TO USE FOR MUSIC,DAN- CING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS FOR A Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 06/05/1986
86/0359/03 USE OF BUILDING (HOTEL) FOR MUSIC AND DANCING IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE FUNCTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/06/1986
86/1566/03 EXTENSION TO EXISTING KITCHENS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/01/1987
90/1260/03 ERECTION OF GARAGE, CAR PORT + SCREENING TO SERVICE AREA, HUT AND BARRIER TO EXISTING CAR PARK, HEIGHTENING OF ROOF STORE + PROVISION OF ACCESS. Decision: DEFERRAL AT AREA PLANNING CMTE Decision Date: 13/11/1990
91/0088/03 ERECTION OF WALL Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/04/1991
91/1506 ERECTION OF STORM PORCH WITH FIRST FLOOR CONSERVATORY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/02/1992
91/6027 RETRACTABLE SUN BLINDS Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 09/07/1991
94/1316 EXTENSION OF EXISTING PORCH, ERECTION OF NEW STAIRWELL AND FORMATION OF RAISED GARDEN Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/02/1995
96/0906 FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION INCORPORATING NEW BALCONY, SINGLE STOREY CONSERVATORY EXTENSION AND NEW PORCH AND BALCONY ON FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION, ALTERATIONS TO ELEVATIONS, EXTENSION TO ROOF AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 13/01/1998 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
97/1168 SINGLE STOREY SIDE CONSERVATORY EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY SIDE/REAR EXTENSION AND ERECTION OF COVERED WALKWAYS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/02/1998
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The application was advertised on site and in the press as a Departure from the Development Plan and a development within a Conservation Area and four neighbouring properties were individually consulted. FIVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION and ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT have been received, which are summarised as follows:
OBJECTION
1. The marquee has had an extremely adverse effect on the beauty of the surrounding area. 2. Having the marquee in place for the winter will severely detract from the beauty of this internationally important landscape and nature reserve. 3. The green front to the marquee from January to March is only a minor concession and the white marquee will be in place in November and December. 4. I have been approached by visitors who say that the marquee has detracted from their enjoyment of the surrounding countryside. 5. The marquee site and car park area were both green fields until recently. A road has been driven through at the back and substantial landscaping works have been undertaken. Planning permission has never been sought for these works. 6. The marquee has been left up without permission this winter already and granting an application in this manner will create an extremely unfortunate precedent. 7. It is an environmental eyesore through the summer and noisy and it is only right that it should be properly removed for at least two thirds of the year so that tourist can enjoy the pastoral nature of our coastline for which it is famous. 8. Further points added to previous objection draw attention to Planning Policy Wales which states that where a development proposal affects the setting of a listed building or its setting, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting or any features of special architectural interest which it possesses. Swansea UDP Policy EC17 nos (i) and (ii) reinforces Assembly Planning Guidance. 9. With regard to historical perspective, Oxwich Bay Hotel was originally a Georgian rectory built in 1788 so is in close proximity to the ancient Norman church of Oxwich which is listed and its setting needs to be preserved above all else in Oxwich and it would be severely damaged by the granting of these applications. 10. Also the protection of the whole setting and environment where the application site is a green field, unitl recently known for its wild flowers and primroses. The woods behind Oxwich Woods which are a SAC, which is European designation higher than the SSSI. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
11. The whole area – Oxwich Marsh, the dunes, beach and Nicholastan Woods are a SSSI and a National Nature Reserve. They are considered to be one of the most important wetland areas in Western Europe. Surely such a severe scar in the form of this marquee cannot be allowed to damage this crucial part of the Gower AONB. 12. Tourism is undeniably essential to the Gower Economy but it cannot be allowed to operate at the cost to the natural environment. 13. In this instance the damage done to the landscape which is enjoyed by thousands of visitors every year , vastly outweighs the supposed economic benefit to the hotel. 14. This fundamental point is made even more pertinent since there is a clear option in these circumstances for the hotel to site the marquee on the other side of their property in the so called overspill car park, which again is a green field site. This would be less damaging on the setting of the listed church. 15. I know that you are concerned as I am to protect the integrity of the AONB in Gower; as such I sincerely hope that you will come to the conclusion that the marquee in its current position is unacceptable both in the summer and particularly in the winter and that these applications should be rejected. 16. Apologies for late response but appalled by the application to extend the number of months that this awful eyesore will be overlooking one of the iconic beaches in Gower. 17. It is my view that the marquee should not be allowed at any time of the year such is its landscape damage. 18. I am most concerned about the serious negative impact on the setting and solitude of the adjacent church which for me with over 35 years appreciation of Oxwich Bay has been charmingly half hidden by the trees around it. 19. Further concerns that CADW are not acting proactively regarding the important listed Church building but awaiting a consult from the officer. 20. Also request that the Authority take into account a report that CADW jointly commissioned into the economic value of heritage. Although this looked at National Parks it can be logically extended to AONBs. 21. Concerned about the increased visibility of the marquee during the winter months, and the loss of sense of wildness of the beach and headland during the winter days. 22. Risk of light pollution in a natural area from the marquee during the darker winter months. 23. I am just an ordinary member of the public who deeply loves the Welsh countryside and the welsh heritage. 24. I also appreciate the need for local business to operate profitably, however in this case the protection of the countryside here and the setting of the listed church (impacting upon the economic heritage) outweighs the economic justifications and need for the marquee for the hotel business. 25. Terribly upset that this monstrosity can be allowed to remain there any longer, and hope the application is refused and perhaps in the medium term the whole thing is removed permanently.
SUPPORT
1. We have had fundraising events at the Marquee and thanks to the support of Mr Williams we have raised thousands of pounds for cancer research. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
2. The marquee is a very popular party venue and as we understand that commercial bookings are priority, the majority of our fundraising functions area held out of season, usually in the winter month which will unfortunately cease if planning is not granted. 3. I know that other charities and local churches also hold events at the marquee and these people could be affected too. 4. Having such a lovely setting and venue attracts more people from outside Gower to each event, which in turn raises more for our worthwhile charity.
The Gower Society – 1/12/10 Objects:
1. By allowing this occupancy the CCS would in fact be giving 12-month permission (if 2010/1102 were to be allowed). The next step would be for a permanent structure at this location. 2. We note that the applicant is proposing an olive green roof. However, the sides would remain very conspicuous. The extensive photographs and montages do not convince us of any real change in the impact on the landscape. 3. This structure is very prominent, located adjacent to the historic Church and alongside a very popular beach used all year. It is highly visible from both near and far. Once leaf fall has occurred, this will stand out even more. 4. The applicant has indicated that he would not hold any event in the marquee for a period between January and March. What is the marquee to be used for in November and December? 5. We would point out that there is no need for the marquee to be present in order to show potential clients. With today’s technology, potential customers could be shown photographs and/or DVD’s to illustrate what is available. A virtual tour of the marquee could be available on a web-site. 6. We have previously suggested that the marquee could have originally been placed closer and to the rear of the hotel. 7. Were the Authority to consider this application for approval, then we ask that the whole of the exterior of the marquee be olive-green or similar so that the structure is much less visible in the landscape of the AONB – otherwise this application should not be considered.
The Gower Society: further comment 20/1/11 as follows:
“We would like to draw your attention the following information that has recently come to light or has been made known to us regarding the above application.
English Heritage apparently state that such temporary structures would be entirely inappropriate when near to a Listed Building and harm the value of a place” or words to that effect. We do not have the exact quotation but they are clearly opposed to such structure in sensitive locations. This is very much in line with our own comments that were made in our letter of 1st December 2010.
We are also informed that the applicant may be claiming that a marquee has been utilised on this site for 19 years. This in our opinion is inaccurate and misleading and the marquee has only been present for the last 5 or 6 years and your files should reveal this. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
You will also recall that a number of people including ourselves were greatly concerned about the unauthorised works that were carried out to the north and east of the hotel car park when earthworks were ruined a natural primrose meadow and we understand a road was driven around the rear of the hotel to access the marquee. We are not certain where the marquee is now situated was levelled but it was certainly not 19 years ago.
We repeat we are not against a marquee in principle at eh rear of the hotel but to give permission for such a highly visible structure so close to the listed church and in such a grossly prominent position does not fit comfortably with the current UDP, the AONB or indeed with common sense.”
The Gower Society: further comment 26/04/11 as follows:- Reiterate earlier objections. Also refer to UDP policy EC17 on Rural Tourism. We do not consider that the use of a marquee at this site • “relates acceptably to …(its)…surroundings”, • Is not “in keeping with the …character of the surrounding area”, • Does not have a “high standard of design” and • Will have “significant adverse effects on the landscape” of Oxwich Bay.
Countryside Council for Wales – “There appears to be a discrepancy between the ownership boundary outlined on the drawing titled ”Ownership and Site Boundary with SSSI and SAC Conservation Areas” and what CCW understand to be the ownership boundaries at the site. We enclose a map showing the boundary of the Oxwich Nature Reserve hatched in red, an area leased by CCW from the Estate of George Bertram Bathurst (deceased). The indicative boundary of the applicant’s ownership appears to overlap with this lease area.
We would request that the above information is passed on to the applicant or their agent.”
Highways Observations - The application is for the renewal of temporary permission to site a marquee and associated overspill car parking. There have been no reported issues as a result of this and the temporary overspill parking area is considered to be beneficial when events are being held at the site, to ensure that no extraneous parking takes place within the village. I recommend no highway objections be raised.
Economic Regeneration Observations – summarised as follows:- From the information provided, it is clear that that hotel makes a valuable contribution to the local economy, both in terms of providing employment and purchasing from local suppliers. For example, during 2010, the hotel provided … full time jobs and spent … with a range of local businesses supplying food, drink and bottled gas. In addition it generates benefits from the tourism perspective through the increase in number of visitors/ spend in Swansea/ Gower. Annual turnover figures show that turnover was reducing year on year from 2006, until the marquee came into use in 2009. The popularity of the marquee as a wedding venue and the increase in bookings that it has generated for the hotel has meant that since its introduction in 2009 turnover has grown year on year, despite the recession – with an increase in turnover in the first 2 years of operating the marquee. The evidence suggests that the marquee is vital to the viability of the hotel business, and given the economic benefits generated by the hotel in terms of employment and local procurement I would support the retention of the marquee. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
Tourism Observations - summarised as follows:-
The Oxwich Bay Hotel, is one of a few remaining traditional seaside hotels left on Gower and has probably bucked the recent (20 years) trend, that has seen the Osborne, Langland Bay, Caswell Bay, Nicholaston House, St Annes to name a few, all disappear as a result of the change in market demand and expectation. In some respect, as a privately owned hotel, The Oxwich Bay Hotel management ought to be commended for the fact that it has continued to operate, whilst other privately owned and corporate hotels have ceased operating. How much of this is down to diversifying the product offer against the issue of supply, being one of the last remaining large hotels on Gower is debatable, but it has been a valued marketing partner with CCS and formerly Swansea City Council for well over 25 years now.
During this time, the market has changed and unfortunately Gower hotels didn’t. The rise in package holidays, increased UK competition and the appeal of new emerging destinations, both short and long haul changed the face of the traditional seaside “bucket and spade” hotel. As a consequence and as we have also seen in the farming industry, tourism has also had to diversify to appeal to new markets at different times of the year. This is a huge strategic challenge for the whole of Wales and one we are striving to address, with more out of season marketing activity, creating a year-round destination. To do that we need product on the ground and the Oxwich Bay Hotel (OBH) through its own marketing and via ours and Visit Wales is looking to address this in a sustainable way.
I can’t comment on the figures, however, it appears that part of the OBH diversification plans involve changes in its business model to include weddings, taking advantage of its spectacular seafront location and setting on the edge of Oxwich Bay. I can see why it is such a popular location for weddings and other events in either the hotel or currently within the Marquee. Aesthetically, it’s would be very subjective to comment on the Marquee’s appearance, both upon its impact on the beach and from further afield, but its location is the USP and what makes having a wedding at the venue so popular, so you can understand why the OBH is keen to exploit this opportunity.
The wedding market has also changed over the years, with services not just taking place on a Saturday, this has helped it become a very lucrative market for those in great locations, especially now that venues can have a license for the service to be conducted there. The advantages from a tourism perspective are:-
• Sustains local employment • Opportunity to extend the season • Supports the supply chain for fresh local produce • Reaches new markets (wedding) • Potential to convert guests to future leisure visitors • Helps meet and maintain demand on Gower • Has potential benefit to other operators on Gower if Guests can’t be accommodated at the hotel in the evening. • If I am not mistaken the OBH provides coach transport for evening guests, which must help the environmental aspect of the application but not having droves of traffic on Gower roads in the evening.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
Finally, expectations from guests of a “perfect day” are extremely high and if there is no reinvestment into facilities, then venues are unlikely to attract business over time. How this impacts upon a non permanent structure, which is subject to inclement weather if permanently sited will bring its own set of challenges. But clearly from a tourism perspective, we view the wedding market as not necessarily a target market that we, as a destination, would pursue, but one which is important to the local tourism industry as it strives to meet changing market conditions and for the aforementioned reasons, we would be supportive in principle, subject to continuous investment by the OBH in the product and in particular the marquee as a venue and of course it meeting the statutory requirements.
APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The original application was submitted with a Site Evaluation Document that can be viewed in full with the application file. This document included a Design and Access Statement, with the following chapters:-
• Analysis of the Site Context, • Policy Context, • Access Details, • Landscape Character Assessment, • Landscape Plan and Design Proposals, • Sketch views and Photographs, • Details of Existing plant species and Usage on site, • Meadow Species • Lighting and Ecology • Client statement
In addition the application was supported by a letter that highlighted the following points:-
• The roof of the principal mass of the temporary marquee will be covered with olive coloured Upvc during the months of December, January and February to help blend the marquee into the meadow surroundings during the winter period and the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods.
• The neighbouring hedge referred to in past reviews screening the site of the temporary marquee from the views of the beach will be enhanced and upgraded by additional planting and this is illustrated on the accompanying photo montages.
• We wish to emphasise that the marquee and its associated mobile services vehicles are temporary. They are not permanent, are removable and permit the existing landscape and topography to return to their original condition and form upon demand.
• Our landscape architect has given careful consideration to and undertaken a survey of the existing tree and shrub series to ensure that the location of any strategic new planting will help to enhance the existing landscape and overcome and visual impact the marquee may have. The temporary marquee will be linked to the hotel through an arch of mature evergreen hedging and informal soft landscaped pathway. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
• The site evaluation and proposals include photo montages of the siting of the marquee from a number of important and prominent vantage points which demonstrate how we envisage the impact of the temporary marquee may be considerably reduced.
• The visual impact of the temporary marquee and its temporary support facilities from St.Illtyds church will be considerably reduced, if not overcome by new planting and clearing of the area.
• The Oxwich Bay Hotel is very pleased to be able to offer upon request the WC facilities provided within the temporary marquee to St. Illtyds church and an identified access will be provided.
• The area at the rear and front access to the marquee will be cleared of barriers and fencing and the slope adjusted to offer a consistent grade whilst at the same time offering an attractive soft landscape are at the entrance to the marquee.
• Reference has also been made to the Land Maps prepared by the Countryside Council for Wales and particularly Habitat, Cultural Historic, Visual sensory and geological for this particular area at Oxwich. We wish to emphasise that the proposals the subject of this application are for a temporary marquee which can be removed, and the area immediately returned to meadow in accordance with the CCW Land Maps.
• Any possibility of light pollution has been addressed by the use only of solar lighting to identify the pedestrian route linking the hotel with the marquee and careful design and testing of the light output within the marquee itself.
• Experience and business trends tell use in a strong way that the period 2nd January to 10th February each year is purely showcasing the facilities, such an important step by the customer in the decision making process. They would be prepared to sign a legal document that can be agreed between us covering this use only between these dates.
Further Supporting Information has been submitted by the applicant following the deferral of the application from the Area 2 DC Committee in April 2011.
The additional information includes a Business Appraisal with detailed financial information that is confidential, but has been considered carefully by the Head of Economic Regeneration and Planning and the Head of Culture and Tourism to assess the relative economic and tourism related benefits of the current scheme. Their responses are summarised above.
In summary the business appraisal provides the following:- • A brief history of the hotel business from April 1959 to 2005. • Annual breakdown of capital investment, maintenance, employment records and annual turnover. • Marquee venue bookings in period 2009-2011 • Benefit of marquee venue being retained for twelve months • Summary AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis. The application has been advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan.
The application site is situated on land at Oxwich Bay Hotel. This field site (Field No. 2821) is located to the south east of the hotel at the southern end of Oxwich Bay. The site is located on the beach side of the prominent headland at Oxwich Point, both within the Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and close to the Grade II* Listed Church of St Illtyds, and adjacent to the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation, within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The application was submitted seeking temporary planning permission for the retention of the existing marquee and associated overspill car park as constructed for a period of three years over the winter months from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2013.
A second application (ref. 2011/1102) is being considered concurrently at this Committee retrospectively seeking temporary planning permission for the retention of the same marquee and associated overspill car park during the summer months, for a period of three years from 1st April 2010 to 31st October 2013.
Planning permission was previously granted on the 15th January, 2009, for the temporary siting of a marquee at this site for three years (Ref: 2008/2185), subject to conditions including Condition 01, as follows:-
“Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, this permission is for a limited period expiring on 31st October 2011. During this period the marquee hereby approved shall only be used between the 1st April and 31st October (inclusive) in any year, and shall be removed in its entirety from the planning unit between the 1st November and 31st March in any year”.
Members are advised that notwithstanding the above conditional requirement, the marquee has not been removed during the intervening months and is still erected on site.
In response to pre application discussions with the case officer, the applicant’s agent submitted a supporting written statement with the application to justify not removing the marquee during the winter months.
However it is noted that in terms of its overall size and siting the marquee currently on site is different to the one that was granted temporary planning permission on 15th January, 2009 under planning application ref. 2008/2185, so, irrespective of it being in situ over the winter months, the details of the summer marquee is also currently unauthorised. The second application, ref. 2010/1102 has therefore been submitted to regularise the summer period and is being considered concurrently at this Committee.
In particular, the approved marquee in 2009 comprised two sections measuring 27m by 12m and 18m by 9m (486m2), however the marquee as erected is in one main section measuring 30m by 12m (324m2). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
In addition, the structure now has a degree of permanency that was not clarified or considered during the determination of the previous approval, including hardstandings and associated paths constructed to the front entrance to the marquee and around the sides and rear of marquee, as well as fixed connections to power supplies. There has also been a significant amount of unauthorised engineering operations. The marquee has an integral kitchen and toilets which appear to be permanent structures and as such overall the marquee could be considered to be a stand alone development that need not rely on the existing hotel for services or facilities.
Related Planning History
Prior to the above approval in 2009, the application site had been used for approximately ten years to site a temporary marquee (albeit smaller than the current proposal) during the summer months. Originally in the late 1990s, planning permission was not required for the marquee because the tent was not erected for more than 28 days in any year, and as such was permitted development for the purposes of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. However, retrospective planning permission was granted in March 1999 (application ref. 98/1207) for the associated engineering and re-profiling works that had been carried out unlawfully to this former wildflower meadow.
In 2004 an application (ref. 2004/1741) was submitted to regularise a marquee in this field which exceeded the 28 day restrictive period, and this marquee was subsequently granted temporary planning permission in 2005 for the months of April to September 2005 and the month of December 2005, on the condition that it was removed in the intervening periods with the field restored to its original state, and the permission was for a limited period only, expiring on 18th July 2006, so that the use could be re-evaluated in the light of circumstances then prevailing. A similar application was also approved under 2006/2781 for the 2007 season.
Prior to 2009, therefore, the land was restored to a green field site during the winter. Moreover, the former site and marquee was well screened by a mature hedgerow on the beach side along the north eastern facing boundary of the site, which helped screen the previous structure especially during the summer months.
Policy Considerations
The main issues to be considered are whether the retention and continuous use of the current marquee throughout the winter months until 31st March 2013 (as well as during the summer months) would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and rural landscape of the designated Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby listed Church of St. Illtyds, and neighbouring protected areas including Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), aswell as the Oxwich Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and Oxwich National Nature Reserve (NNR). In addition consideration has to be given to the economic and tourism benefits of the use of a marquee at this site for weddings. In this regard full consideration has to be given to the prevailing policies of the Unitary Development Plan and National planning guidance. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
National Planning Policy Guidance
Recent Central Government policy guidance, provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 (as amended February 2011) and its supporting Technical Advice Notes set out the overarching critical principles and objectives in respect of conservation of natural and built heritage, coastline, biodiversity, sustainability, economy and tourism, design, and use of approved information sources such as LANDMAP, etc. which are applied to inform the decision makers and reinforce the policies of the Unitary Development Plan.
The application site is located in the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and PPW states that ‘the primary objective for designating AONBs is the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty’. Development plan policies and development control decisions affecting AONBs should favour conservation of natural beauty, although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the areas. It should be noted that Local authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to AONB purposes, and protect the landscape and scenic quality (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). Moreover National Parks and AONBs are of equal status in terms of landscape and scenic beauty and both must be afforded the highest status of protection from inappropriate developments. Therefore in AONBs, development plan development control decisions should give great weight to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of these areas.
In addition, PPW advises that where development does occur it is important to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to safeguard or enhance the environmental quality of land, and authorities should seek to minimise those effects and should, where possible, retain and, where practicable, enhance features of conservation importance. In some cases it concludes that in some cases it will be necessary to refuse planning permission on conservation grounds, where the adverse effect on the environment clearly outweighs other material considerations.
LPAs are advised to seek the guidance of CCW where planning applications are likely to result in disturbance or harm to a protected species or likely to have a significant adverse effect on sites of more than local importance. Statutory designation does not necessarily prohibit development, but proposals for development must be carefully assessed for their effect on those natural heritage interests which the designation is intended to protect.’
PPW recognises that the countryside is a dynamic and multi-purpose resource. In line with sustainability principles, it must be conserved and, where possible, enhanced for the sake of its ecological, geological, physiographic, historical, archaeological and agricultural value and for its landscape and natural resources, balancing the need to conserve these attributes against the economic, social and recreational needs of local communities and visitors. New businesses in rural areas are essential to sustain and improve rural communities, but developments which only offer short-term economic gain will rarely be appropriate.
Moreover whilst tourism is an essential element in providing for a healthy, diverse, local economy, PPW advises that the scale and nature of such development must be sensitive to the local environment. Development should be sympathetic in nature and scale to the local environment and to the needs of visitors and the local community. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
PPW advises that in some places there may be a need to limit new development to avoid damage to the environment (for example in undeveloped coastal areas), or to the amenity of residents and visitors.
In conclusion it is noted that whilst PPW is supportive of the creation or expansion of businesses and supports tourism initiatives in rural areas, local planning authorities need to consider the impact of proposals on the environment and local community, and consider the effects on neighbouring uses in terms of noise, light emissions, traffic generation etc. and ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on local amenity or protected landscapes.
LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales, July 2010 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2010.) LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design.
City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan
The Unitary Development Plan for Swansea was adopted on the 10th November, 2008, and in line with the above national planning policy guidance, the relevant objectives and policies seek to protect the countryside and sensitive areas of high landscape quality in Gower AONB from development that would cause material harm, particularly where the undeveloped coastline or other areas of high landscape quality are concerned. The Local Planning Authority seeks to protect the environment and landscape of Gower AONB and Oxwich Village Conservation Area through the application of Strategic Part 1 Policies SP1, SP2, and SP3 and Part 2 Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV9, EV11, EV12, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV27, EV30, EV31, EV40 and Policy EC17 are relevant to this application.
In line with National planning policy guidance, Policy EV26 of the UDP requires that within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty, and development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. Furthermore, any development within the AONB should be of an appropriately high standard of design, and retain and where possible enhance existing features of natural heritage and the historic environment.
This is reinforced by Policy EV22 of the UDP which seeks to conserve and enhance the countryside for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural environment and agricultural and recreational value. Moreover Policies EV25 and EV27 set out the criteria for protecting sites of international and national importance.
At a local level Policy EV30 seeks to protect and improve trees and hedgerows which are important for their visual amenity, historic environment, etc. and Policy EV12 requires development in rural areas to protect the character and amenity of local lanes.
Policy EV9 requires that development does not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. In addition Policy EV1 requires development to preserve the setting of a listed building, which is often an essential part of its character. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
Policies EV1 and EV2 require developments to relate satisfactorily to the local context and existing development patterns, integrate effectively with adjacent spaces and public realm, protect the amenities of the surrounding area including residential amenity, take into account and where possible retain landscape features, trees and hedgerows and have regard to visual and residential amenity and highway safety. Policy EV3 requires proposals for new development to provide access for all. Policy AS6 requires proposals to allow for appropriate levels of parking.
In the countryside Policy EV21 supports non residential development subject to demonstrating that the development is in accord with the conservation and design principles of the Plan. Similarly, Policy EV31 permits development proposals at this Oxwich coastal location provided they are of a scale and design that respects the sensitive nature conservation, landscape and historic environment interests. In addition, Policy EC17 supports rural tourism, but this is also subject to the development meeting specific criteria including criteria (i) are in keeping with the scale and design of surrounding area and are of a high standard of design; (ii) that they do not have significant adverse effects on the landscape or nature conservation interests, etc.
Visual Impact, Conservation and Environmental Issues
Although the application site lies within the grounds of Oxwich Bay Hotel, it is separated from the main hotel complex by a distance of approximately 76m. Based on the planning history of this site and corroborated by responses to consultation it is clear that the field site was a natural meadow with wildflowers until the mid to late 1990s. Since then the use of the field has intensified through incremental changes to its landscape and the intensified use for a marquee.
The application site is located on the southern limits of Oxwich Bay, and is seen in the context of the wider surrounding countryside setting, including the long sweep of Oxwich beach and bay to the north east, and the backcloth of the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) to the south west. In the local context the marquee is seen in the context of the setting of the neighbouring CADW listed St Illtyds Church situated approximately 90m to the south east of the application site, and the neighbouring rural lane and woodland.
The application field site is naturally an integral part of the surrounding highly valued landscape and an intrinsic part of the character of this edge of woodland and beach location. Whilst it is acknowledged that the current marquee facility provides an improved facility for the hotel in providing a separate venue for weddings, it must also be assessed against the need to conserve the special landscape qualities of the Gower AONB.
As referred to above, LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to make informed local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2011). In this respect the analysis has been prepared by independent specialists who have evaluated aspects of landscape and provide the consistent Wales- wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
An analysis of the relevant Visual and Sensory data for this site concludes that the application site falls within an area where there is an overall high scenic quality (picturesque views of coast), with attractive views both in and out (views of coast/cliffs from some viewpoints) and high character (strong sense of place), where the open landscape and field/hedge character should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be changed. This is reinforced by the cultural landscape data for Oxwich Bay/Oxwich area, which recognises the national importance of Oxwich Bay as a “honey pot” destination for holiday makers throughout the UK and overseas. It describes the aspect area as ‘a three-mile crescent of gently-sloping white sand that culminates in the east with Great Tor. Within that area are two spectacular headlands and several castles. The village and the area is dominated by the leisure industry, though its history is still evident…the Oxwich Bay Hotel, a former 18th century rectory now utterly spoiled by modern additions’. The recommendations include the immediate improvement of the appearance of beach buildings and caravan parks.
The landscape, geological and historical layers of LANDMAP add to the above baseline data. The landscape data confirms that apart from being with the Gower AONB, the application site is close to sites of international importance and adjacent to a high value area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland ‘Woods at Oxwich Point’ which is regarded as high priority habitat supporting high levels of biodiversity within SSSI.
In conclusion, this baseline data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic landscape quality and character, outstanding geological, outstanding historical, and high cultural significance, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.
The plans submitted indicate that the current marquee has a footprint of approximately 360m², and height of approximately 4.8m, with a 6m x 6m oriental style reception canopy with a maximum height of 5.4m. The case officer’s site visit has confirmed that the application site is clearly visible from numerous public vantage points in the immediate and wider surrounding area, for example the existing structure can be viewed easily from all the beaches surrounding within Oxwich Bay and is also visible long distance from Pennard Cliffs and Cefn Bryn. This impact is demonstrated in the “Site Evaluation and Proposals for Temporary Marquee” document submitted as part of the current application. The applicant has also submitted an addendum to this proposal which shows the visual impact with photographs taken during the winter months with both the white and proposed green roof.
It is considered that the current structure is more visually prominent in the surrounding landscape than any of the previous marquees. This partly due to the changes in the design and layout and associated changes to the field site through land re-profiling and hedge trimming, but is also exacerbated because of its significant height above the neighbouring hedge and external materials finish in a brilliant white canvas.
It has also been noted that the marquee is clearly visible in the summer months, and this is further exacerbated during the winter months, when the white marquee stands out sharply against the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods as a prominent white structure. In this context, the marquee appears as an alien and incongruous feature in relation to its surroundings with significant harm to the landscape, which is characterised by the green quality of the agricultural fields, woodland backdrop and coastal views across Oxwich Bay. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
This contrasts particularly with the subdued impact of the protected church that nestles discretely nearby against the backcloth of trees.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant has indicated that the materials for the roof of the marquee would be changed to an olive colour during the months of December, January and February, this does not negate the principle policy concerns that the marquee would remain highly visible within the wider landscape during the winter months, when additional internal and external illumination will inevitably be required, increasing the potential for light pollution at the sensitive coastal location in the Gower AONB. The applicant has suggested the use of solar powered lighting to light the footpath to the marquee and carefully designing and testing the lighting within the marquee itself. This however, does not overcome the concerns of the Local Planning Authority on this issue as no specific details of the lighting has been submitted for consideration.
Furthermore, the marquee, by its very appearance and nature is not considered appropriate for a more permanent function facility, particularly in an area designated for its natural beauty and recognised internationally as being part of a coastal area of high scenic quality and value. Notwithstanding any change in colour, the retention of the marquee during the winter months is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. To allow the marquee to remain on the application site for a continuous period until 31st March 2013 would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies.
Moreover, it is not considered that screening through additional planting can help screen this structure, given its siting on a lowland coastal site which is prominently visible from higher ground in the surrounding AONB area.
In conclusion, therefore the current marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape and its retention during the winter months, notwithstanding the change in colour, is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. In addition, due to its size, siting, and appearance, the marquee is considered to have a dominant and obtrusive impact on the immediate setting of the protected listed church and detracts from the character and appearance of Oxwich Village Conservation Area. To allow the marquee to remain on the application site for a continuous period each year until 2013 would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies. It is not considered that any change in colour of the marquee would overcome the fundamental policy concerns and as such the development is contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV27, and EV31.
The overspill car park is associated with the use of the marquee but is not in a highly visible location. The previous temporary approval allowed for this area to regenerate during the winter months when the need for additional car parking would be at its lowest. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
The applicant has made representation that the marquee would only be used to showcase the marquee to potential clients during the months of January to March and as car parking for this use would not increase the amount of spaces needed significantly, it is not considered that its use during the winter months should be supported.
Tourism/Business Issues
As indicated above, the applicant has submitted additional information in support of his application to retain the marquee all year round including during the winter months. This information has been carefully assessed by regeneration and tourism officers.
The Head of Tourism has highlighted that the Oxwich Bay Hotel, is one of a few remaining traditional seaside hotels left on Gower and it is noted that the hotel has probably overcome the recent trend over the past twenty years that has seen other private and corporate establishments cease operating as a result of the change in market demand and expectation. Whilst how much of this is down to diversifying the product offer against the issue of supply, being one of the last remaining large hotels on Gower, is debatable, but it is recognised that this hotel has been a valued marketing partner with CCS and formerly Swansea City Council for well over 25 years now.
In addition it is acknowledged that due to changes in the holiday market, including the rise in package holidays, increased UK competition and the appeal of new emerging destinations, the traditional seaside “bucket and spade” hotels have had to diversify to appeal to new markets at different times of the year. This is a huge strategic challenge and one that Tourism officers strive to address, with more out of season marketing activity, and working with businesses such as Oxwich Bay Hotel (OBH) to address this in a sustainable way.
With regard to the wedding market, it is apparent that part of the OBH diversification plans involve changes in its business model to include weddings, taking advantage of its spectacular seafront location and setting on the edge of Oxwich Bay. The wedding market has also changed over the years, with services not just taking place on a Saturday, this has helped it become a very lucrative market for those in great locations, especially now that venues can have a license for the service to be conducted there. The advantages from a tourism perspective are:-
• Sustains local employment • Opportunity to extend the season • Supports the supply chain for fresh local produce • Reaches new markets (wedding) • Potential to convert guests to future leisure visitors • Helps meet and maintain demand on Gower • Has potential benefit to other operators on Gower if Guests cannot be accommodated at the hotel in the evening. • If the OBH provides coach transport for evening guests, this must help the environmental aspect of the application but not having droves of traffic on Gower roads in the evening. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
Finally, the Head of Tourism advises that expectations from guests of a “perfect day” are extremely high and if there is no reinvestment into facilities, then venues are unlikely to attract business over time. How this impacts upon a non permanent structure, which is subject to inclement weather if permanently sited will bring its own set of challenges.
Clearly from a tourism perspective, the wedding market is not necessarily a target market that the Council officers as a destination, would pursue. However, it is important to the local tourism industry as it strives to meet changing market conditions and on that basis there would be tourism support, subject to continuous investment by the OBH in the product and in particular the marquee as a venue and provided it meets the statutory requirements.
Similarly, the Regeneration officers have stated that based on the information provided, it is clear that that hotel makes a valuable contribution to the local economy, both in terms of providing employment and purchasing from local suppliers. Whilst the precise figures cannot be divulged to the public, it is clear from the officer’s analysis of the business case that for example, during 2010, the hotel provided (a significant number of ) full time jobs and spent (a significant amount of money) with a range of local businesses supplying food, drink and bottled gas. In addition it generates benefits from the tourism perspective through the increase in number of visitors/ spend in Swansea/ Gower. Annual turnover figures show that turnover was reducing year on year from 2006, until the marquee came into use in 2009. The popularity of the marquee as a wedding venue and the increase in bookings that it has generated for the hotel has meant that since its introduction in 2009 turnover has grown year on year, despite the recession, and with an increase in turnover in the first 2 years of operating the marquee. Therefore based on the evidence submitted, it is suggested that the marquee is vital to the viability of the hotel business, and given the economic benefits generated by the hotel in terms of employment and local procurement, would be supported from a purely business regeneration perspective.
It is clear from the above responses that both Tourism and Regeneration officers support the business in principle. Moreover the claims made by the applicant that he has made significant investment in this venture, in particular in the past few years, appear to have been substantiated. On this basis it can be surmised that this investment has not only maintained the profitably of the current hotel business at Oxwich Bay Hotel, but also helps to support the local economy and provide enhanced services to the community through the injection of private funds and continued investment at this hotel location.
However it is also evident from the latest information received from the applicant that since the marquee has been erected there is a significant increase in the number of weddings taking place in the winter months and throughout the years 2010 and 2011 many customers have chosen to move their weddings to the marquee instead of holding them in the main hotel building.
It should also be noted that with regard to the wedding use of the marquee, the applicant has previously confirmed that the marquee is only used for showcasing the structure from 2nd January to 10th February in any year, and has agreed to sign a legal agreement to prevent the use of the marquee between these times.
However, and irrespective of it being used during these times, the structure would still be in situ and as such its visual impact would not be negated. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
Moreover, no information has been provided by tourism or regeneration officers of the counter effect on other types of tourism in the area. As highlighted in the letters of objection, account should be taken into consideration of the many visitors and local population who appreciate this part of Gower AONB because of its natural beauty and open wild landscapes and will be clearly concerned by the siting and appearance of a large visually prominent and permanent marquee in this AONB landscape which could detract from their enjoyment. In this regard the wider ‘visual’ cost of the use of the marquee has not been factored in to the above economic considerations.
As highlighted above, both national and local planning policies support tourism and business diversification in rural areas, to ensure a healthy, diverse, local economy, but the scale and nature of such development must be sensitive to the local environment and areas of landscape value. In this respect it is considered that the current marquee may provide an improved tourist/business facility at this location and help aid the socio economic well being of the area, but this has to be considered against the primary objective to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB, and other areas of conservation value, and substantial weight must therefore be given in favour of conserving the character and appearance of the Gower AONB and other protected features and areas from any inappropriate development.
Policy EV31 identifies Oxwich as a suitable location for visitor and recreational facilities, provided that they are of a scale and design that respects sensitive nature conservation, landscape and historic environment interests. However, it has been demonstrated above in the visual amenity section that the proposal fails to respect the landscape of historic environment interests of the area, contrary to the requirements of the above Policy. It is also debatable as to whether the marquee can be classed as a tourist facility given it is used predominately as a wedding venue and as such fails to comply with the requirements of Policy EC17.
The advice in PPW and its associated TANs is that in the interests of achieving sustainable development it is important to manage change in the tourism sector in ways which respect the integrity of the natural, built and cultural environment. In particular TAN (Wales) 13, on Tourism advises that such development should be compatible with neighbouring uses, and seek to protect the setting of historic buildings. In addition, the guidance emphasises that, ‘The fact that a development is intended to meet tourism needs does not mean that statutory or non statutory designations should not apply or that they should be applied less rigorously’ (para. 2.9 TAN 13).
Of fundamental concern is that the visual prominence of the structure would be contrary to the overall objective of Policy EV26 with the structure neither preserving nor enhancing the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Furthermore, as described above the marquee also affects the setting of the Listed Building, contrary to Policy EV1 as well as the Historic Park and Gardens, contrary to Policy EV11. Nor does it protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy EV9.
The current scheme also fails to meet the prescribed criteria of Policy EV21 regarding appropriate rural development as it is considered to have a unacceptable and significant impact upon the environment, and as such not is not considered a satisfactory sustainable tourism development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
Moreover, it is considered that the incremental intensification and urbanisation of this site with this more permanent structures will further undermine the objectives of national planning and local planning policy guidance which seek to protect this sensitive coastal location and ensure that the very environment that attracts tourism to this popular area is not destroyed by inappropriate development.
There is a need to cater for increased visitor and tourism needs against the need to safeguard the visual character and appearance and environmental capital of the Gower landscape, so that it is preserved for the benefit of future generations. The Gower Peninsula is recognised internationally as a most important visitor attraction, however if development is not carefully controlled there is a risk of destroying the very qualities which constitute its attraction.
Having consideration to the above issues, it is therefore concluded that it has not been demonstrated satisfactorily by way of additional supporting information that the socio- economic benefits of this scheme outweigh the fundamental and primary objectives to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of this sensitive coastal site within the Gower Area of Outstanding Beauty, and other features of conservation value. As such it is considered that the scheme fails to meet the required criteria of Policies EV31 and EC17 regarding acceptable rural development, and fails the overriding objectives of Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV26, EV27 to protect this unique AONB landscape and environmental heritage from unacceptable development and visual degradation.
Highway Observations
The Head of Transportation and Engineering has no reported issues as a result of the temporary permission and the overspill car park is considered beneficial when events are being held at the site. No highway objection is raised.
Other Material Considerations
In response to public consultation, the Gower Society has objected raising concerns regarding the visual intrusiveness of the development and the impact upon the wider landscape, and concerns that the marquee could become a permanent at the site. In addition the Society has raised further concerns that the marquee fails to meet particular criteria of Policy EC 17. A photograph of the marquee has been submitted to demonstrate the visual impact of the marquee on the surrounding bay environment as seen from a distant public vantage point.
In addition, letters of objection have been received from members of the public, including local Gower residents and a visitor to the area who express a number of concerns regarding the impact of the marquee on the heritage and environment of this ‘iconic’ Oxwich Bay and edge of woodland location within the AONB. These issues have been addressed above in the main body of the report.
There is also suggestion that a more appropriate siting may be to the rear of the hotel in a less visually prominent location. This has not however been suggested by the applicant or his agent as an alternative siting, presumably because they want to maximise the selling point of the view of the bay from the current site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
The letter of support is noted but as addressed above the success of the use of the marquee as a fundraising venue is not considered to outweigh the overriding planning objections to its retention.
The comments raised by CCW are noted but the area referred to does not form part of the site’s redevelopment. If the applicant wanted to develop this land, planning permission and other consents would be required, including permission obtained from the landowner. However the CCW comments do underline the closeness of the marquee site to the national and international protected sites and there should be concern that this current development and the associated intensification of use of the site for weddings etc. may have longer term implications for the surrounding environment, including the effects on the sensitive ecology as well as drainage capacity in this area.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the application site is located in a particularly sensitive coastal location with the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, in close proximity to the Grade 2” Listed Church of St Illtyds, and landscape protected by national and international designations. Careful consideration has therefore been given to the additional information submitted by the applicant regarding his business case for this development. However, it is not considered that it has been has been demonstrated satisfactorily by way of additional supporting information that the socio-economic benefits of this scheme outweigh the fundamental and primary objectives to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of this sensitive coastal site within the Gower Area of Outstanding Beauty, and other features of conservation value.
Whilst the applicant’s agents has given every assurance that the structure is temporary, the fact that the structure has remained on site during the unauthorised winter months and the subsequent applications to retain it for both the summer and winter months, would infer that the intention is for the structure to remain on site permanently. Whilst the current application is for the winter periods up to 2013 seasons only, the concurrent application ref. 2010/1102 requests an extension of its use up to 31st October 2014, and no further information has been forthcoming about the applicant’s intentions for the site after this period. Moreover it is not considered that the marquee sited permanently on this site is an acceptable solution to the applicant’s accommodation needs in the long term.
In conclusion, therefore the current marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape and its retention during the winter months, notwithstanding the change in colour, is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. In addition, due to its size, siting, and appearance, the marquee is considered to have a dominant and obtrusive impact on the immediate setting of the protected listed church and detracts from the character and appearance of Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and other features of conservation value. It is not considered that any change in colour of the marquee would overcome the fundamental policy concerns.
Moreover, it is considered that approving this application for a more permanent function facility, would set a dangerous precedent for the consideration of other applications, the cumulative impact of which would erode the very qualities of the environment and natural beauty of the AONB that the Council seeks to protect. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101
In the light of the above considerations, it is considered that to allow the marquee to remain continuously on site until 2013 would result in a prominent, alien and incongruous feature within the landscape during the winter months, which would cause significant harm to the landscape and natural beauty of the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, and the setting of the neighbouring Grade 2* Listed Church of St. Illtyds, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV27, EV31 and EC17 of the Unitary Development Plan. Refusal is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE for the following reason:
1 The proposed retention of the existing temporary marquee until 31st March 2013 including changes to the colour of the roof between the beginning of December and end of February within this period, by virtue of its siting, size, design and appearance, represents an inappropriate form of development at this countryside location that results in significant harm to the rural character of the landscape and high scenic quality of this coastal area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB landscape, and the character and setting of the Oxwich Village Conservation Area and Grade II* Listed Church of St. Illtyds, contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21 EV22, EV26, EV27, EV31 and EC17.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV3, EV9, EV11, EV12, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV27, EV30, EV31, EV40, EC17, and AS6.
PLANS
1004.01B site location plan, 1004.02B landscape context, 1004.03B photography locations, 1004.04 site survey, 1004.05 landscape plan, 1004.06 design marquee area, 1004.07 design for marquee and hotel, 1004.08 overspill car park, 1004.09 sections, 2.01 site layout plan, 2.02 elevations, design and access statement received 8th November 2010, additional information dated 2nd February 2011
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102 WARD: Gower Area 2
Location: Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS Proposal: Temporary siting of marquee, associated overspill car park and associated landscaping from 1st April 2011 to 31st October 2011, 1st April 2012 to 31st October 2012, 1st April 2013 to 31st October 2013 and 1st April 2014 to 31st October 2014 Applicant: Mr I Williams
This application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 DC Committee on the 19th April, 2011 to enable the applicant to submit a full economic appraisal of the scheme’s benefits in order for due weight to be afforded to the economic benefits of the development.
Subsequently further information including financial records has been submitted by the applicant and carefully considered by the Head of Economic Regeneration and Planning and Head of Culture and Tourism to assess the relative economic and tourism related benefits of the current scheme. My report has been updated to include these additional issues.
In addition, a further letter of objection has been received from the Gower Society and two letters of objection from a member of the public; and a photograph has been submitted by a previous objector. My report has been updated to include reference to this further correspondence received.
In addition, my appraisal has been revised and expanded to fully consider the relevant material considerations and weight that should be given to the various conservation, environmental, sustainability, and economic regeneration issues that affect this protected rural AONB site.
My recommendation of REFUSAL remains unchanged.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV3 Proposals for new development and alterations to and change of use of existing buildings will be required to meet defined standards of access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
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 EV11 Development will not be permitted that would harm the character or setting of a registered Historic Park or Garden or the character of an Historic Landscape. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV12 The character of lanes and public paths that contribute to the amenity, natural and historical qualities of an area will be protected. (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 EV25 Development, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, which is likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European protected site (SAC, Marine SAC, SPA and Ramsar Sites) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
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 EV27 Development that significantly adversely affects the special interests of sites designated as SSSI's and NNR's will not be permitted unless the need for the development is of such significance that it outweighs the national importance of the designation. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
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 EV31 Along the undeveloped coastline development proposals for the provision of visitor and recreation facilities and services to complement existing facilities will be permitted at specified coastal locations. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV40 Development proposals will not be permitted that would cause or result in significant harm to health, local amenity, natural heritage, the historic environment or landscape character because of significant levels of air, noise or light pollution. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (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 2010/1101 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2011, 1st November 2011 to 31st March 2012 and 1st November 2012 to 31st March 2013 Undetermined and on this agenda for decision.
2009/1599 Extend the period of temporary permitted use for marquee and associated overspill car park to include the period commencing 1st November 2009 and ceasing on 31st March 2011 including alterations to colour of marquee between the beginning of December and end of February with this period. Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 07/05/2010
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
2008/0064 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from April to September 2008 and December 2008 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 04/03/2008
2006/2781 Temporary siting of marquee from April to September 2007 and December 2007, associated overspill car park and landscaping. Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2007
2008/2185 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1 February 2009 to 31 October 2009 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/01/2009
98/0565 ENGINEERING OPERATIONS TO REPROFILE OPEN MEADOW TO FORM A PLATEAU FOR THE TEMPORARY SITING OF A MARQUEE WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS WAY AND LAND DRAINAGE WORKS Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 14/07/1998
2004/1741 Siting of temporary marquee April to September inclusive and December, and associated overspill car park Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 11/08/2005
98/1207 RETENTION OF LAND DRAINAGE WORKS, ALTERATIONS TO FIELD ACCESS AND REPROFILING OF PLATEAU AREA Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/03/1999
2005/2635 Submission of details for conditions 3 and 5 of planning permission 2004/1741 granted on 11th April 2005 to show new hedge and background lighting for the marquee and overspill car park Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 28/03/2008
90/0500/03 SITING OF PORTAKABIN AND FLOODLIGHTS Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 25/03/1996
2007/2148 Addition of pitched roof to part of northern elevation and replacement roof to existing entrance canopy Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/11/2007
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
89/1470/03 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO HOTEL PREMISES. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 15/12/1989
96/0906 FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION INCORPORATING NEW BALCONY, SINGLE STOREY CONSERVATORY EXTENSION AND NEW PORCH AND BALCONY ON FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION, ALTERATIONS TO ELEVATIONS, EXTENSION TO ROOF AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 13/01/1998
85/0886/06 HANGING SIGNS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985
91/1506 ERECTION OF STORM PORCH WITH FIRST FLOOR CONSERVATORY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/02/1992
94/1316 EXTENSION OF EXISTING PORCH, ERECTION OF NEW STAIRWELL AND FORMATION OF RAISED GARDEN Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/02/1995
86/1566/03 EXTENSION TO EXISTING KITCHENS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/01/1987
86/0359/03 USE OF BUILDING (HOTEL) FOR MUSIC AND DANCING IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE FUNCTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/06/1986
86/0286/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'C' ON PREVIOUS CONSENT NUMBER 821383 RELATING TO USE FOR MUSIC,DAN- CING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS FOR A Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 06/05/1986
86/0082/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'E' ON CONSENT FOR MUSIC AND DANCING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS, (2/1/85/0812/12). Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 18/03/1986
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
90/1260/03 ERECTION OF GARAGE, CAR PORT + SCREENING TO SERVICE AREA, HUT AND BARRIER TO EXISTING CAR PARK, HEIGHTENING OF ROOF STORE + PROVISION OF ACCESS. Decision: DEFERRAL AT AREA PLANNING CMTE Decision Date: 13/11/1990
91/6027 RETRACTABLE SUN BLINDS Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 09/07/1991
97/1168 SINGLE STOREY SIDE CONSERVATORY EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY SIDE/REAR EXTENSION AND ERECTION OF COVERED WALKWAYS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/02/1998
84/1600/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION (B) ON PREVIOUS APPROVAL 82/1383/11 REFERRING TO NO COACHES OR CHARABANCS BEING ALLOWED TO ENTER SITE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 31/01/1985
85/0812/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'C' ON PREVIOUS CONSENT RELATING TO USE FOR MUSIC DANCING AND OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985
84/0188/03 THE SITING OF A PORTAKABIN + THE SITING OF A MOBILE ICE- CREAM VAN. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 29/03/1984
84/1190/06 ILLUMINATED HOTEL RESTAURANT SIGN - SIZE:- 3FT X 1FT 6INS. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 25/10/1984
84/1288/03 ADDITION OF NEW ENTRANCE PORCHES,BAY WINDOWS,EXTRA TOILET ACCOMMODATION AND GENERAL ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/11/1984
91/0088/03 ERECTION OF WALL Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/04/1991 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The application was advertised on site and in the press as a Departure from the Development Plan and a development within a Conservation Area and four neighbouring properties were individually consulted. FIVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION and ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT have been received, which are summarised as follows:
OBJECTION
1. The marquee has had an extremely adverse effect on the beauty of the surrounding area. 2. Having the marquee in place for the winter will severely detract from the beauty of this internationally important landscape and nature reserve. 3. The green front to the marquee from January to March is only a minor concession and the white marquee will be in place in November and December. 4. I have been approached by visitors who say that the marquee has detracted from their enjoyment of the surrounding countryside. 5. The marquee site and car park area were both green fields until recently. A road has been driven through at the back and substantial landscaping works have been undertaken. Planning permission has never been sought for these works. 6. The marquee has been left up without permission this winter already and granting an application in this manner will create an extremely unfortunate precedent. 7. It is an environmental eyesore through the summer and noisy and it is only right that it should be properly removed for at least two thirds of the year so that tourist can enjoy the pastoral nature of our coastline for which it is famous. 8. Further points added to previous objection draw attention to Planning Policy Wales which states that where a development proposal affects the setting of a listed building or its setting, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, or its setting or any features of special architectural interest which it possesses. Swansea UDP Policy EC17 nos (i) and (ii) reinforces Assembly Planning Guidance. 9. With regard to historical perspective, Oxwich Bay Hotel was originally a Georgian rectory built in 1788 so is in close proximity to the ancient Norman church of Oxwich which is listed and its setting needs to be preserved above all else in Oxwich and it would be severely damaged by the granting of these applications. 10. Also the protection of the whole setting and environment where the application site is a green field, until recently known for its wild flowers and primroses. The woods behind Oxwich Woods which are a SAC, which is European designation higher than the SSSI. 11. The whole area – Oxwich Marsh, the dunes, beach and Nicholaston Woods are a SSSI and a National Nature Reserve. They are considered to be one of the most important wetland areas in Western Europe. Surely such a severe scar in the form of this marquee cannot be allowed to damage this crucial part of the Gower AONB. 12. Tourism is undeniably essential to the Gower Economy but it cannot be allowed to operate at the cost to the natural environment. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
13. In this instance the damage done to the landscape which is enjoyed by thousands of visitors every year, vastly outweighs the supposed economic benefit to the hotel. 14. This fundamental point is made even more pertinent since there is a clear option in these circumstances for the hotel to site the marquee on the other side of their property in the so called overspill car park, which again is a green field site. This would be less damaging on the setting of the listed church. 15. I know that you are concerned as I am to protect the integrity of the AONB in Gower; as such I sincerely hope that you will come to the conclusion that the marquee in its current position is unacceptable both in the summer and particularly in the winter and that these applications should be rejected. 16. Apologies for late response but appalled by the application to extend the number of months that this awful eyesore will be overlooking one of the iconic beaches in Gower. 17. It is my view that the marquee should not be allowed at any time of the year such is its landscape damage. 18. I am most concerned about the serious negative impact on the setting and solitude of the adjacent church which for me with over 35 years appreciation of Oxwich Bay has been charmingly half hidden by the trees around it. 19. Further concerns that CADW are not acting proactively regarding the important listed Church building but awaiting a consult from the officer. 20. Also request that the Authority take into account a report that CADW jointly commissioned into the economic value of heritage. Although this looked at National Parks it can be logically extended to AONBs. 21. Concerned about the increased visibility of the marquee during the winter months, and the loss of sense of wildness of the beach and headland during the winter days. 22. Risk of light pollution in a natural area from the marquee during the darker winter months. 23. I am just an ordinary member of the public who deeply loves the Welsh countryside and the welsh heritage. 24. I also appreciate the need for local business to operate profitably, however in this case the protection of the countryside here and the setting of the listed church (impacting upon the economic heritage) outweighs the economic justifications and need for the marquee for the hotel business. 25. Terribly upset that this monstrosity can be allowed to remain there any longer, and hope the application is refused and perhaps in the medium term the whole thing is removed permanently.
SUPPORT
1. We have had fundraising events at the Marquee and thanks to the support of Mr Williams we have raised thousands of pounds for cancer research. 2. The marquee is a very popular party venue and as we understand that commercial bookings are priority, the majority of our fundraising functions area held out of season, usually in the winter month which will unfortunately cease if planning is not granted. 3. I know that other charities and local churches also hold events at the marquee and these people could be affected too. 4. Having such a lovely setting and venue attracts more people from outside Gower to each event, which in turn raises more for our worthwhile charity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
The Gower Society – 1/12/10 Objects:
1. By allowing this occupancy the CCS would in fact be giving 12-month permission (if 2010/1102 were to be allowed). The next step would be for a permanent structure at this location. 2. We note that the applicant is proposing an olive green roof. However, the sides would remain very conspicuous. The extensive photographs and montages do not convince us of any real change in the impact on the landscape. 3. This structure is very prominent, located adjacent to the historic Church and alongside a very popular beach used all year. It is highly visible from both near and far. Once leaf fall has occurred, this will stand out even more. 4. The applicant has indicated that he would not hold any event in the marquee for a period between January and March. What is the marquee to be used for in November and December? 5. We would point out that there is no need for the marquee to be present in order to show potential clients. With today’s technology, potential customers could be shown photographs and/or DVD’s to illustrate what is available. A virtual tour of the marquee could be available on a web-site. 6. We have previously suggested that the marquee could have originally be placed closer and to the rear of the hotel. 7. Were the Authority to consider this application for approval, then we ask that the whole of the exterior of the marquee be olive-green or similar so that the structure is much less visible in the landscape of the AONB – otherwise this application should not be considered.
The Gower Society: further comment 20/1/11as follows:
“We would like to draw your attention the following information that has recently come to light or has been made known to us regarding the above application.
English Heritage apparently state that such temporary structures would be entirely inappropriate when near to a Listed Building and harm the value of a place” or words to that effect. We do not have the exact quotation but they are clearly opposed to such structure in sensitive locations. This is very much in line with our own comments that were made in our letter of 1st December 2010.
We are also informed that the applicant may be claiming that a marquee has been utilised on this site for 19 years. This in our opinion is inaccurate and misleading and the marquee has only been present for the last 5 or 6 years and your files should reveal this.
You will also recall that a number of people including ourselves were greatly concerned about the unauthorised works that were carried out to the north and east of the hotel car park when earthworks were ruined a natural primrose meadow and we understand a road was driven around the rear of the hotel to access the marquee. We are not certain where the marquee is now situated was levelled but it was certainly not 19 years ago.
We repeat we are not against a marquee in principle at the rear of the hotel but to give permission for such a highly visible structure so close to the listed church and in such a grossly prominent position does not fit comfortably with the current UDP, the AONB or indeed with common sense.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
Countryside Council for Wales – “There appears to be a discrepancy between the ownership boundary outlined on the drawing titled ”Ownership and Site Boundary with SSSI and SAC Conservation Areas” and what CCW understand to be the ownership boundaries at the site. We enclose a map showing the boundary of the Oxwich Nature Reserve hatched in red, an area leased by CCW from the Estate of George Bertram Bathurst (deceased). The indicative boundary of the applicant’s ownership appears to overlap with this lease area.
We would request that the above information on to the applicant or their agent.”
The Gower Society: further comment 26/04/11 as follows:- Reiterate earlier objections. Also refer to UDP policy EC17 on Rural Tourism. We do not consider that the use of a marquee at this site • “relates acceptably to …(its)…surroundings”, • Is not “in keeping with the …character of the surrounding area”, • Does not have a “high standard of design” and • Will have “significant adverse effects on the landscape” of Oxwich Bay.
Countryside Council for Wales – “There appears to be a discrepancy between the ownership boundary outlined on the drawing titled ”Ownership and Site Boundary with SSSI and SAC Conservation Areas” and what CCW understand to be the ownership boundaries at the site. We enclose a map showing the boundary of the Oxwich Nature Reserve hatched in red, an area leased by CCW from the Estate of George Bertram Bathurst (deceased). The indicative boundary of the applicant’s ownership appears to overlap with this lease area.
We would request that the above information is passed on to the applicant or their agent.”
Highway Observations - The application is for the renewal of temporary permission to site a marquee and associated overspill car parking. There have been no reported issues as a result of this and the temporary overspill parking area is considered to be beneficial when events are being held at the site, to ensure that no extraneous parking takes place within the village. I recommend no highway objections be raised.
Economic Regeneration Observations –summarised as follows:- From the information provided, it is clear that that hotel makes a valuable contribution to the local economy, both in terms of providing employment and purchasing from local suppliers. For example, during 2010, the hotel provided … full time jobs and spent … with a range of local businesses supplying food, drink and bottled gas. In addition it generates benefits from the tourism perspective through the increase in number of visitors/ spend in Swansea/ Gower. Annual turnover figures show that turnover was reducing year on year from 2006, until the marquee came into use in 2009. The popularity of the marquee as a wedding venue and the increase in bookings that it has generated for the hotel has meant that since its introduction in 2009 turnover has grown year on year, despite the recession – with an increase in turnover in the first 2 years of operating the marquee. The evidence suggests that the marquee is vital to the viability of the hotel business, and given the economic benefits generated by the hotel in terms of employment and local procurement I would support the retention of the marquee. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
Tourism Observations :- summarised as follows
The Oxwich Bay Hotel, is one of a few remaining traditional seaside hotels left on Gower and has probably bucked the recent (20 years) trend, that has seen the Osborne, Langland Bay, Caswell Bay, Nicholaston House, St Annes to name a few, all disappear as a result of the change in market demand and expectation. In some respect, as a privately owned hotel, The Oxwich Bay Hotel management ought to be commended for the fact that it has continued to operate, whilst other privately owned and corporate hotels have ceased operating. How much of this is down to diversifying the product offer against the issue of supply, being one of the last remaining large hotels on Gower is debatable, but it has been a valued marketing partner with CCS and formerly Swansea City Council for well over 25 years now.
During this time, the market has changed and unfortunately Gower hotels didn’t. The rise in package holidays, increased UK competition and the appeal of new emerging destinations, both short and long haul changed the face of the traditional seaside “bucket and spade” hotel. As a consequence and as we have also seen in the farming industry, tourism has also had to diversify to appeal to new markets at different times of the year. This is a huge strategic challenge for the whole of Wales and one we are striving to address, with more out of season marketing activity, creating a year-round destination. To do that we need product on the ground and the Oxwich Bay Hotel (OBH) through its own marketing and via ours and Visit Wales is looking to address this in a sustainable way.
I can’t comment on the figures, however, it appears that part of the OBH diversification plans involve changes in its business model to include weddings, taking advantage of its spectacular seafront location and setting on the edge of Oxwich Bay. I can see why it is such a popular location for weddings and other events in either the hotel or currently within the Marquee. Aesthetically, it’s would be very subjective to comment on the Marquee’s appearance, both upon its impact on the beach and from further afield, but its location is the USP and what makes having a wedding at the venue so popular, so you can understand why the OBH is keen to exploit this opportunity.
The wedding market has also changed over the years, with services not just taking place on a Saturday, this has helped it become a very lucrative market for those in great locations, especially now that venues can have a license for the service to be conducted there. The advantages from a tourism perspective are:-
• Sustains local employment • Opportunity to extend the season • Supports the supply chain for fresh local produce • Reaches new markets (wedding) • Potential to convert guests to future leisure visitors • Helps meet and maintain demand on Gower • Has potential benefit to other operators on Gower if Guests can’t be accommodated at the hotel in the evening. • If I am not mistaken the OBH provides coach transport for evening guests, which must help the environmental aspect of the application but not having droves of traffic on Gower roads in the evening. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
Finally, expectations from guests of a “perfect day” are extremely high and if there is no reinvestment into facilities, then venues are unlikely to attract business over time. How this impacts upon a non permanent structure, which is subject to inclement weather if permanently sited will bring its own set of challenges. But clearly from a tourism perspective, we view the wedding market as not necessarily a target market that we, as a destination, would pursue, but one which is important to the local tourism industry as it strives to meet changing market conditions and for the aforementioned reasons, we would be supportive in principle, subject to continuous investment by the OBH in the product and in particular the marquee as a venue and of course it meeting the statutory requirements.
APPLICANTS SUPPORTING STATEMENT
The original application was submitted with a Site Evaluation Document that can be viewed in full with the application file. This document included a Design and Access Statement, with the following chapters:-
• Analysis of the Site Context, • Policy Context, • Access Details, • Landscape Character Assessment, • Landscape Plan and Design Proposals, • Sketch views and Photographs, • Details of Existing plant species and Usage on site, • Meadow Species • Lighting and Ecology • Client statement
In addition the application was supported by a letter that highlighted the following points:-
• The roof of the principal mass of the temporary marquee will be covered with olive coloured Upvc during the months of December, January and February to help blend the marquee into the meadow surroundings during the winter period and the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods.
• The neighbouring hedge referred to in past reviews screening the site of the temporary marquee from the views of the beach will be enhanced and upgraded by additional planting and this is illustrated on the accompanying photo montages.
• We wish to emphasise that the marquee and its associated mobile services vehicles are temporary. They are not permanent, are removable and permit the existing landscape and topography to return to their original condition and form upon demand.
• Our landscape architect has given careful consideration to and undertaken a survey of the existing tree and shrub series to ensure that the location of any strategic new planting will help to enhance the existing landscape and overcome and visual impact the marquee may have. The temporary marquee will be linked to the hotel through an arch of mature evergreen hedging and informal soft landscaped pathway. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
• The site evaluation and proposals include photo montages of the siting of the marquee from a number of important and prominent vantage points which demonstrate how we envisage the impact of the temporary marquee may be considerably reduced.
• The visual impact of the temporary marquee and its temporary support facilities from St.Illtyds church will be considerably reduced, if not overcome by new planting and clearing of the area.
• The Oxwich Bay Hotel is very pleased to be able to offer upon request the WC facilities provided within the temporary marquee to St. Illtyds church and an identified access will be provided.
• The area at the rear and front access to the marquee will be cleared of barriers and fencing and the slope adjusted to offer a consistent grade whilst at the same time offering an attractive soft landscape are at the entrance to the marquee.
• Reference has also been made to the Land Maps prepared by the Countryside Council for Wales and particularly Habitat, Cultural Historic, Visual sensory and geological for this particular area at Oxwich. We wish to emphasise that the proposals the subject of this application are for a temporary marquee which can be removed, and the area immediately returned to meadow in accordance with the CCW Land Maps.
• Any possibility of light pollution has been addressed by the use only of solar lighting to identify the pedestrian route linking the hotel with the marquee and careful design and testing of the light output within the marquee itself.
• Experience and business trends tell use in a strong way that the period 2nd January to 10th February each year is purely showcasing the facilities, such an important step by the customer in the decision making process. They would be prepared to sign a legal document that can be agreed between us covering this use only between these dates.
Further Supporting Information has been submitted by the applicant following the deferral of the application from the Area 2 DC Committee in April 2011.
The additional information includes a Business Appraisal with detailed financial information that is confidential, but has been considered carefully by the Head of Economic Regeneration and Planning and the Head of Culture and Tourism to assess the relative economic and tourism related benefits of the current scheme. Their responses are summarised above.
In summary the business appraisal provides the following:- • A brief history of the hotel business from April 1959 to 2005. • Annual breakdown of capital investment, maintenance, employment records and annual turnover. • Marquee venue bookings in period 2009-2011 • Benefit of marquee venue being retained for twelve months • Summary AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis. The application has been advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan.
The application site is situated on land at Oxwich Bay Hotel. This field site (Field No. 2821) is located to the south east of the hotel at the southern end of Oxwich Bay. The site is located on the beach side of the prominent headland at Oxwich Point, both within the Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and close to the Grade II* Listed Church of St Illtyds, and adjacent to the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation, within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Planning permission is sought for the retention of the existing marquee and associated overspill car park throughout the holiday periods (1st April to 31st October) during 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
A second application (ref. 2011/1101) is being considered concurrently at this Committee retrospectively seeking temporary planning permission for the retention of the same marquee and associated overspill car park during the winter months, for a period of three years from 1st November 2010 to 31st March 2013.
Planning permission was previously granted on the 15th January, 2009, for the temporary siting of a marquee at this site (Ref: 2008/2185), subject to conditions including Condition 01, as follows:-
“Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, this permission is for a limited period expiring on 31st October 2011. During this period the marquee hereby approved shall only be used between the 1st April and 31st October (inclusive) in any year, and shall be removed in its entirety from the planning unit between the 1st November and 31st March in any year”.
Members are advised that notwithstanding the above conditional requirement, the marquee has not been removed since it was erected in 2009 and is still erected on site. In response to pre application discussions with the case officer, the applicant’s agent submitted a supporting written statement with the application to justify not removing the marquee during the winter months.
However, it is noted that in terms of its overall size and siting the marquee currently on site is different to the one that was granted temporary planning permission for the summer periods of 2009, 2010, and 2011 under planning application 2008/2185 so it is currently unauthorised.
In particular, the approved marquee in 2009 comprised two sections measuring 27m by 12m and 18m by 9m (486m2), however the marquee as erected is in one main section measuring 30m by 12m (324m2). In addition, the structure now has a degree of permanency that was not clarified or considered during the determination of the previous approval, including hardstandings and associated paths constructed to the front entrance to the marquee and around the sides and rear of marquee, as well as fixed connections to power supplies. There has also been a significant amount of unauthorised engineering operations. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
The marquee has an integral kitchen and toilets which appear to be permanent structures and as such overall the marquee could be considered to be a stand alone development that need not rely on the existing hotel for services or facilities.
Related Planning History
Prior to the above approval in 2009, the application site had been used for approximately ten years to site a temporary marquee (albeit smaller than the current proposal) during the summer months. Originally in the late 1990s, planning permission was not required for the marquee because the tent was not erected for more than 28 days in any year, and as such was permitted development for the purposes of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. However, retrospective planning permission was granted in March 1999 (application ref. 98/1207) for the associated engineering and re-profiling works that had been carried out unlawfully to this former wildflower meadow.
In 2004 an application (ref. 2004/1741) was submitted to regularise a marquee in this field which exceeded the 28 day restrictive period, and this marquee was subsequently granted temporary planning permission in 2005 for the months of April to September 2005 and the month of December 2005, on the condition that it was removed in the intervening periods with the field restored to its original state, and the permission was for a limited period only, expiring on 18th July 2006, so that the use could be re-evaluated in the light of circumstances then prevailing. A similar application was also approved under 2006/2781 for the 2007 season.
Prior to 2009, therefore, the land was restored to a green field site during the winter. Moreover, the former site and marquee was well screened by a mature hedgerow on the beach side along the north eastern facing boundary of the site, which helped screen the previous structure especially during the summer months.
Policy Considerations
The main issues to be considered are whether the retention and continuous use of the current marquee throughout the summer months until 31st October 2014 (as well as during the winter months) would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and rural landscape of the designated Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby listed Church of St. Illtyds, and neighbouring protected areas including Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), as well as the Oxwich Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and Oxwich National Nature Reserve (NNR). In addition consideration has to be given to the economic and tourism benefits of the use of a marquee at this site for weddings. In this regard full consideration has to be given to the prevailing policies of the Unitary Development Plan and National planning guidance. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
National Planning Policy Guidance
Recent Central Government policy guidance, provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 (as amended February 2011) and its supporting Technical Advice Notes set out the overarching critical principles and objectives in respect of conservation of natural and built heritage, coastline, biodiversity, sustainability, economy and tourism, design, and use of approved information sources such as LANDMAP, etc. which are applied to inform the decision makers and reinforce the policies of the Unitary Development Plan.
The application site is located in the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and PPW states that ‘the primary objective for designating AONBs is the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty’. Development plan policies and development control decisions affecting AONBs should favour conservation of natural beauty, although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the areas. It should be noted that Local authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to AONB purposes, and protect the landscape and scenic quality (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). Moreover National Parks and AONBs are of equal status in terms of landscape and scenic beauty and both must be afforded the highest status of protection from inappropriate developments. Therefore in AONBs, development plan development control decisions should give great weight to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of these areas.
In addition, PPW advises that where development does occur it is important to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to safeguard or enhance the environmental quality of land, and authorities should seek to minimise those effects and should, where possible, retain and, where practicable, enhance features of conservation importance. In some cases it concludes that in some cases it will be necessary to refuse planning permission on conservation grounds, where the adverse effect on the environment clearly outweighs other material considerations.
LPAs are advised to seek the guidance of CCW where planning applications are likely to result in disturbance or harm to a protected species or likely to have a significant adverse effect on sites of more than local importance. Statutory designation does not necessarily prohibit development, but proposals for development must be carefully assessed for their effect on those natural heritage interests which the designation is intended to protect.
PPW recognises that the countryside is a dynamic and multi-purpose resource. In line with sustainability principles, it must be conserved and, where possible, enhanced for the sake of its ecological, geological, physiographic, historical, archaeological and agricultural value and for its landscape and natural resources, balancing the need to conserve these attributes against the economic, social and recreational needs of local communities and visitors. New businesses in rural areas are essential to sustain and improve rural communities, but developments which only offer short-term economic gain will rarely be appropriate.
Moreover whilst tourism is an essential element in providing for a healthy, diverse, local economy, PPW advises that the scale and nature of such development must be sensitive to the local environment. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
Development should be sympathetic in nature and scale to the local environment and to the needs of visitors and the local community. PPW advises that in some places there may be a need to limit new development to avoid damage to the environment (for example in undeveloped coastal areas), or to the amenity of residents and visitors.
In conclusion it is noted that whilst PPW is supportive of the creation or expansion of businesses and supports tourism initiatives in rural areas, local planning authorities need to consider the impact of proposals on the environment and local community, and consider the effects on neighbouring uses in terms of noise, light emissions, traffic generation etc. and ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on local amenity or protected landscapes.
LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales, July 2010 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2010.) LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design.
City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan
The Unitary Development Plan for Swansea was adopted on the 10th November, 2008, and in line with the above national planning policy guidance, the relevant objectives and policies seek to protect the countryside and sensitive areas of high landscape quality in Gower AONB from development that would cause material harm, particularly where the undeveloped coastline or other areas of high landscape quality are concerned. The Local Planning Authority seeks to protect the environment and landscape of Gower AONB and Oxwich Village Conservation Area through the application of Strategic Part 1 Policies SP1, SP2, and SP3 and Part 2 Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV9, EV11, EV12, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV27, EV30, EV31, EV40 and Policy EC17 are relevant to this application.
In line with National planning policy guidance, Policy EV26 of the UDP requires that within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty, and development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. Furthermore, any development within the AONB should be of an appropriately high standard of design, and retain and where possible enhance existing features of natural heritage and the historic environment.
This is reinforced by Policy EV22 of the UDP which seeks to conserve and enhance the countryside for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural environment and agricultural and recreational value. Moreover Policies EV25 and EV27 set out the criteria for protecting sites of international and national importance.
At a local level Policy EV30 seeks to protect and improve trees and hedgerows which are important for their visual amenity, historic environment, etc. and Policy EV12 requires development in rural areas to protect the character and amenity of local lanes. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
Policy EV9 requires that development does not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. In addition Policy EV1 requires development to preserve the setting of a listed building, which is often an essential part of its character.
Policies EV1 and EV2 require developments to relate satisfactorily to the local context and existing development patterns, integrate effectively with adjacent spaces and public realm, protect the amenities of the surrounding area including residential amenity, take into account and where possible retain landscape features, trees and hedgerows and have regard to visual and residential amenity and highway safety. Policy EV3 requires proposals for new development to provide access for all. Policy AS6 requires proposals to allow for appropriate levels of parking.
In the countryside Policy EV21 supports non residential development subject to demonstrating that the development is in accord with the conservation and design principles of the Plan. Similarly, Policy EV31 permits development proposals at this Oxwich coastal location provided they are of a scale and design that respects the sensitive nature conservation, landscape and historic environment interests. In addition, Policy EC17 supports rural tourism, but this is also subject to the development meeting specific criteria including criteria (i) are in keeping with the scale and design of surrounding area and are of a high standard of design; (ii) that they do not have significant adverse effects on the landscape or nature conservation interests, etc.
Visual Impact, Conservation, and Environmental Issues
Although the application site lies within the grounds of Oxwich Bay Hotel, it is separated from the main hotel complex by a distance of approximately 76m. Based on the planning history of this site and corroborated by responses to consultation it is clear that the field site was a natural meadow with wildflowers until the mid to late 1990s. Since then the use of the field has intensified through incremental changes to its landscape and the intensified use for a marquee.
The application site is located on the southern limits of Oxwich Bay, and is seen in the context of the wider surrounding countryside setting, including the long sweep of Oxwich beach and bay to the north east, and the backcloth of the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) to the south west. In the local context the marquee is seen in the context of the setting of the neighbouring CADW listed St Illtyds Church situated approximately 90m to the south east of the application site, and the neighbouring rural lane and woodland.
The application field site is naturally an integral part of the surrounding highly valued landscape and an intrinsic part of the character of this edge of woodland and beach location. Whilst it is acknowledged that the current marquee facility provides an improved facility for the hotel in providing a separate venue for weddings, it must also be assessed against the need to conserve the special landscape qualities of the Gower AONB.
As referred to above, LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to make informed local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2011). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
In this respect the analysis has been prepared by independent specialists who have evaluated aspects of landscape and provide the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design.
An analysis of the relevant Visual and Sensory data for this site concludes that the application site falls within an area where there is an overall high scenic quality (picturesque views of coast), with attractive views both in and out (views of coast/cliffs from some viewpoints) and high character (strong sense of place), where the open landscape and field/hedge character should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be changed. This is reinforced by the cultural landscape data for Oxwich Bay/Oxwich area, which recognises the national importance of Oxwich Bay as a “honey pot” destination for holiday makers throughout the UK and overseas. It describes the aspect area as ‘a three-mile crescent of gently-sloping white sand that culminates in the east with Great Tor. Within that area are two spectacular headlands and several castles. The village and the area is dominated by the leisure industry, though its history is still evident…the Oxwich Bay Hotel, a former 18th century rectory now utterly spoiled by modern additions’. The recommendations include the immediate improvement of the appearance of beach buildings and caravan parks.
The landscape, geological and historical layers of LANDMAP add to the above baseline data. The landscape data confirms that apart from being with the Gower AONB, the application site is close to sites of international importance and adjacent to a high value area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland ‘Woods at Oxwich Point’ which is regarded as high priority habitat supporting high levels of biodiversity within SSSI.
In conclusion, this baseline data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic landscape quality and character, outstanding geological, outstanding historical, and high cultural significance, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.
The plans submitted indicate that the current marquee has a footprint of approximately 360m², and height of approximately 4.8m, with a 6m x 6m oriental style reception canopy with a maximum height of 5.4m. The case officer’s site visit has confirmed that the application site is clearly visible from numerous public vantage points in the immediate and wider surrounding area, for example the existing structure can be viewed easily from all the beaches surrounding within Oxwich Bay and is also visible long distance from Pennard Cliffs and Cefn Bryn. This impact is demonstrated in the “Site Evaluation and Proposals for Temporary Marquee” document submitted as part of the current application. The applicant has also submitted an addendum to this proposal which shows the visual impact with photographs taken during the summer months with white roof.
It is considered that the current structure is more visually prominent in the surrounding landscape than any of the previous marquees. This partly due to the changes in the design and layout and associated changes to the field site through land re-profiling and hedge trimming, but is also exacerbated because of its significant height above the neighbouring hedge and external materials finish in a brilliant white canvas. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
The marquee is clearly visible in the summer months when it stands out sharply against the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods as a prominent white structure. In this context, the marquee appears as an alien and incongruous feature in relation to its surroundings with significant harm to the landscape, which is characterised by the green quality of the agricultural fields, woodland backdrop and coastal views across Oxwich Bay. This contrasts particularly with the subdued impact of the protected church that nestles discretely nearby against the backcloth of trees.
To provide some mitigation and restore the site to a more natural setting, the current scheme includes landscaping proposals which involve the removal of a hedgerow from the middle of the field to return it back to a wildflower meadow, additional tree and other over ground planting with the introduction of creeping plans over the existing green kiosks to the rear and side of the marquee to help screen the marquee from the wider view. However, it is not considered that screening through additional planting can help screen this structure, given its siting on a lowland coastal site which is prominently visible from higher ground in the surrounding AONB area.
Furthermore, the marquee, by its very appearance and nature is not considered visually appropriate for a more permanent function facility, particularly in an area designated for its natural beauty and recognised internationally as being part of a coastal area of high scenic quality and value. To allow the marquee and its attached kiosks, to remain on the application site for the next three summer seasons until end of October 2014 would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies. In addition, the location of the marquee is considered to detract from the setting of St Illtyd’s Church; a Grade II* Listed Building, which is a mediaeval structure of domestic scale and significant national artefact.
In conclusion, therefore the current marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape and is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. In addition, due to its size, siting, and appearance, the marquee is considered to have a dominant and obtrusive impact on the immediate setting of the protected listed church and detracts from the character and appearance of Oxwich Village Conservation Area. To allow the marquee to remain on the application site for a continuous period each year until the end of October 2014 would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies. It is not considered that any change in colour of the marquee would overcome the fundamental policy concerns and as such the development is contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV27, and EV31.
The overspill car park is screened from the south by the hotel buildings and enclosures, from the east by the neighbouring caravan park and high hedging, from the west by the woodland, and partially from the north by the landscaped bund that has been formed across the northern end of the established car park and the overspill area. In terms of impact upon highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering recommends no highway to this planning application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
Tourism/Business Issues
As indicated above, the applicant has submitted additional information in support of his application to retain the marquee all year round including during the summer months. This information has been carefully assessed by regeneration and tourism officers.
The Head of Tourism has highlighted that the Oxwich Bay Hotel, is one of a few remaining traditional seaside hotels left on Gower and it is noted that the hotel has probably overcome the recent trend over the past twenty years that has seen other private and corporate establishments cease operating as a result of the change in market demand and expectation. Whilst how much of this is down to diversifying the product offer against the issue of supply, being one of the last remaining large hotels on Gower, is debatable, but it is recognised that this hotel has been a valued marketing partner with CCS and formerly Swansea City Council for well over 25 years now.
In addition it is acknowledged that due to changes in the holiday market, including the rise in package holidays, increased UK competition and the appeal of new emerging destinations, the traditional seaside “bucket and spade” hotels have had to diversify to appeal to new markets at different times of the year. This is a huge strategic challenge and one that Tourism officers strive to address, with more out of season marketing activity, and working with businesses such as Oxwich Bay Hotel (OBH) to address this in a sustainable way.
With regard to the wedding market, it is apparent that part of the OBH diversification plans involve changes in its business model to include weddings, taking advantage of its spectacular seafront location and setting on the edge of Oxwich Bay. The wedding market has also changed over the years, with services not just taking place on a Saturday, this has helped it become a very lucrative market for those in great locations, especially now that venues can have a license for the service to be conducted there. The advantages from a tourism perspective are:-
• Sustains local employment • Opportunity to extend the season • Supports the supply chain for fresh local produce • Reaches new markets (wedding) • Potential to convert guests to future leisure visitors • Helps meet and maintain demand on Gower • Has potential benefit to other operators on Gower if Guests cannot be accommodated at the hotel in the evening. • If the OBH provides coach transport for evening guests, this must help the environmental aspect of the application but not having droves of traffic on Gower roads in the evening.
Finally, the Head of Tourism advises that expectations from guests of a “perfect day” are extremely high and if there is no reinvestment into facilities, then venues are unlikely to attract business over time. How this impacts upon a non permanent structure, which is subject to inclement weather if permanently sited will bring its own set of challenges. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
Clearly from a tourism perspective, the wedding market is not necessarily a target market that the Council officers as a destination, would pursue. However, it is important to the local tourism industry as it strives to meet changing market conditions and on that basis there would be tourism support, subject to continuous investment by the OBH in the product and in particular the marquee as a venue and provided it meets the statutory requirements.
Similarly, the Regeneration officers have stated that based on the information provided, it is clear that that hotel makes a valuable contribution to the local economy, both in terms of providing employment and purchasing from local suppliers. Whilst the precise figures cannot be divulged to the public, it is clear from the officer’s analysis of the business case that for example, during 2010, the hotel provided (a significant number of ) full time jobs and spent (a significant amount of money) with a range of local businesses supplying food, drink and bottled gas. In addition it generates benefits from the tourism perspective through the increase in number of visitors/ spend in Swansea/ Gower. Annual turnover figures show that turnover was reducing year on year from 2006, until the marquee came into use in 2009. The popularity of the marquee as a wedding venue and the increase in bookings that it has generated for the hotel has meant that since its introduction in 2009 turnover has grown year on year, despite the recession, and with an increase in turnover in the first 2 years of operating the marquee. Therefore based on the evidence submitted, it is suggested that the marquee is vital to the viability of the hotel business, and given the economic benefits generated by the hotel in terms of employment and local procurement, would be supported from a purely business regeneration perspective.
It is clear from the above responses that both Tourism and Regeneration officers support the business in principle. Moreover the claims made by the applicant that he has made significant investment in this venture, in particular in the past few years, appear to have been substantiated. On this basis it can be surmised that this investment has not only maintained the profitably of the current hotel business at Oxwich Bay Hotel, but also helps to support the local economy and provide enhanced services to the community through the injection of private funds and continued investment at this hotel location.
However it is also evident from the latest information received from the applicant that since the marquee has been erected there is a significant increase in the number of weddings taking place throughout the years 2010 and 2011 and many customers have chosen to move their weddings to the marquee instead of holding them in the main hotel building.
Moreover, no information has been provided by tourism or regeneration officers of the counter effect on other types of tourism in the area. As highlighted in the letters of objection, account should be taken into consideration of the many visitors and local population who appreciate this part of Gower AONB because of its natural beauty and open wild landscapes and will be clearly concerned by the siting and appearance of a large visually prominent and permanent marquee in this AONB landscape which could detract from their enjoyment. In this regard the wider ‘visual’ cost of the use of the marquee has not been factored in to the above economic considerations.
As highlighted above, both national and local planning policies support tourism and business diversification in rural areas, to ensure a healthy, diverse, local economy, but the scale and nature of such development must be sensitive to the local environment and areas of landscape value. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
In this respect it is considered that the current marquee may provide an improved tourist/business facility at this location and help aid the socio economic well being of the area, but this has to be considered against the primary objective to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB, and other areas of conservation value, and substantial weight must therefore be given in favour of conserving the character and appearance of the Gower AONB and other protected features and areas from any inappropriate development.
Policy EV31 identifies Oxwich as a suitable location for visitor and recreational facilities, provided that they are of a scale and design that respects sensitive nature conservation, landscape and historic environment interests. However, it has been demonstrated above in the visual amenity section that the proposal fails to respect the landscape of historic environment interests of the area, contrary to the requirements of the above Policy. It is also debatable as to whether the marquee can be classed as a tourist facility given it is used predominately as a wedding venue and as such fails to comply with the requirements of Policy EC17.
The advice in PPW and its associated TANs is that in the interests of achieving sustainable development it is important to manage change in the tourism sector in ways which respect the integrity of the natural, built and cultural environment. In particular TAN (Wales) 13, on Tourism advises that such development should be compatible with neighbouring uses, and seek to protect the setting of historic buildings. In addition, the guidance emphasises that, ‘The fact that a development is intended to meet tourism needs does not mean that statutory or non statutory designations should not apply or that they should be applied less rigorously’ (para. 2.9 TAN 13).
Of fundamental concern is that the visual prominence of the structure would be contrary to the overall objective of Policy EV26 with the structure neither preserving nor enhancing the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Furthermore, as described above the marquee also affects the setting of the Listed Building, contrary to Policy EV1 as well as the Historic Park and Gardens, contrary to Policy EV11. Nor does it protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy EV9.
The current scheme also fails to meet the prescribed criteria of Policy EV21 regarding appropriate rural development as it is considered to have a unacceptable and significant impact upon the environment, and as such not is not considered a satisfactory sustainable tourism development.
Moreover, it is considered that the incremental intensification and urbanisation of this site with this more permanent structures will further undermine the objectives of national planning and local planning policy guidance which seek to protect this sensitive coastal location and ensure that the very environment that attracts tourism to this popular area is not destroyed by inappropriate development.
There is a need to cater for increased visitor and tourism needs against the need to safeguard the visual character and appearance and environmental capital of the Gower landscape, so that it is preserved for the benefit of future generations. The Gower Peninsula is recognised internationally as a most important visitor attraction, however if development is not carefully controlled there is a risk of destroying the very qualities which constitute its attraction. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
Having consideration to the above issues, it is therefore concluded that it has not been demonstrated satisfactorily by way of additional supporting information that the socio- economic benefits of this scheme outweigh the fundamental and primary objectives to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of this sensitive coastal site within the Gower Area of Outstanding Beauty, and other features of conservation value. As such it is considered that the scheme fails to meet the required criteria of Policies EV31 and EC17 regarding acceptable rural development, and fails the overriding objectives of Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV26, EV27 to protect this unique AONB landscape and environmental heritage from unacceptable development and visual degradation.
Highway Safety
Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering, there have been no reported issues as a result of the temporary permission and the overspill car park is considered beneficial when events are being held at the site. No highway objection is raised.
Other Material Considerations
In response to public consultation, the Gower Society has objected raising concerns regarding the visual intrusiveness of the development and the impact upon the wider landscape, and concerns that the marquee could become a permanent at the site. In addition the Society has raised further concerns that the marquee fails to meet particular criteria of Policy EC 17. A photograph of the marquee has been submitted to demonstrate the visual impact of the marquee on the surrounding bay environment as seen from a distant public vantage point.
In addition, letters have also been received from members of the public, including a local land owner and a visitor to the area who express a number of concerns regarding the impact of the marquee on the heritage and environment of this ‘iconic’ Oxwich Bay and edge of woodland location within the AONB. These issues have been addressed above in the main body of the report.
There is also suggestion that a more appropriate siting may be to the rear of the hotel in a less visually prominent location. This has not however been suggested by the applicant or his agent as an alternative siting, presumably because they want to maximise the selling point of the view of the bay from the current site.
The letter of support is noted but as addressed above the success of the use of the marquee as a fundraising venue is not considered to outweigh the overriding planning objections to its retention.
The comments raised by CCW are noted but the area referred to does not form part of the site’s redevelopment. If the applicant wanted to develop this land, planning permission and other consents would be required, including permission obtained from the landowner. However the CCW comments do underline the closeness of the marquee site to the national and international protected sites and there should be concern that this current development and the associated intensification of use of the site for weddings etc. may have longer term implications for the surrounding environment, including the effects on the sensitive ecology as well as drainage capacity in this area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
CONCLUSION
In summary, the application site is located in a particularly sensitive coastal location within Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, in close proximity to the Grade 2* Listed Church of St Illtyds, and landscape protected by national and international designations. Careful consideration has therefore been given to the additional information submitted by the applicant regarding his business case for this development. However, it is not considered that it has been has been demonstrated satisfactorily by way of additional supporting information that the socio-economic benefits of this scheme outweigh the fundamental and primary objectives to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of this sensitive coastal site within the Gower Area of Outstanding Beauty, and other features of conservation value.
Whilst the applicant’s agents has given every assurance that the structure is temporary, the fact that the structure has remained on site during the unauthorised winter months and the subsequent applications to retain it for both the summer and winter months, would infer that the intention is for the structure to remain on site permanently. Whilst the current application is for the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons only, no further information has been forthcoming about the applicant’s intentions for the site after this period. Moreover it is not considered that the marquee sited permanently on this site is an acceptable solution to the applicant’s accommodation needs in the long term.
In conclusion, therefore the current marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape and its retention during the summer months is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. In addition, due to its size, siting, and appearance, the marquee is considered to have a dominant and obtrusive impact on the immediate setting of the protected listed church and detracts from the character and appearance of Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and other features of conservation value. It is not considered that the proposed screening (or any change in colour) of the marquee would overcome the fundamental policy concerns.
Moreover, it is considered that approving this application for a more permanent function facility, would set a dangerous precedent for the consideration of other applications, the cumulative impact of which would erode the very qualities of the environment and natural beauty of the AONB that the Council seeks to protect.
In the light of the above considerations, it is considered that to allow the marquee to remain continuously on site during the summers of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 will result in a prominent, alien and incongruous feature, which causes significant harm to the landscape and natural beauty of the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, and the setting of the neighbouring Listed Church of St. Illtyds, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV27, EV31 and EC17 of the Unitary Development Plan. Refusal is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE for the following reason: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102
1 The proposed retention of the existing temporary marquee by virtue of its siting, size, design and appearance, from 1st April to 31st October during 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 represents an inappropriate form of development at this countryside location that results in significant harm to the rural character of the landscape and high scenic quality of this coastal area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB landscape, and the character and setting of the Oxwich Village Conservation Area and Grade 2* Listed Church of St. Illtyds, contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV27, EV31 and EC17.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV3, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV27, EV30, EV31, EV40, EC17, and AS6.
PLANS
1004.01B site location plan, 1004.02B landscape context, 1004.03B photography locations, 1004.04 site survey, 1004.05 landscape plan, 1004.06 design marquee area, 1004.07 design for marquee and hotel, 1004.08 overspill car park, 1004.09 sections, 2.01 site layout plan, 2.02 elevations, design and access statement received 8th November 2010
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2
Location: Land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd, Swansea SA4 3XA Proposal: Three detached dwellings with integral garages Applicant: Mr James Mainwaring
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on the 30th August 2011 in order to consider whether the development gives rise to a harmful overbearing impact on neighbouring residents. My Officer recommendation of APPROVAL remains unchanged.
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV35 Development that would have an adverse impact on the water environment due to: i) Additional surface water run off leading to a significant risk of flooding on site or an increase in flood risk elsewhere; and/or, ii) A reduction in the quality of surface water run-off. Will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that appropriate alleviating measures can be implemented. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV3 Proposals for new development and alterations to and change of use of existing buildings will be required to meet defined standards of access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV17 Within the boundaries of the large villages as identified on the Proposals Map, development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and, in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off, subject to the other defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV33 Planning permission will normally only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer or, where this system is inadequate, satisfactory improvements can be provided prior to the development becoming operational. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387
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)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 91/0994 PUBLIC FOOTPATH, CYCLEWAY AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS Decision: *HGDP - GRANT DEEMED PERMISSION Decision Date: 10/09/1991
90/1610/03 ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/02/1991
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
Neighbours: Seven neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted and 6 LETTERS OF OBJECTION and a 19 LETTER PETITION were received which are summarised below:
1. Loss of light due to height of dwellings. 2. Overlooking. 3. Drainage issues. 4. Sewerage system cannot take the proposal. 5. Loss of house values and loss of view. 6. Overdevelopment. 7. Noise and light pollution. 8. Highway concerns. 9. Proposal contrary to Policies EV17 and EV18. 10. Safety and access concerns. 11. Fire risk. 12. Size and scale of the proposal will have an unacceptable impact upon the landscape. 13. Not in keeping with the character of the area. 14. Impact upon wildlife migration. 15. Mature trees on adjacent land could impact and or be impacted by the proximity of the proposed development. 16. Work hours associated with the proposal. 17. Unacceptable urbanisation. 18. Estate like design in area that is characterised by properties of individual design. 19. Lack of parking. 20. Height of dwellings to large.
Highways: This proposal is for the erection of 3 new dwellings on land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd. Access is proposed in the form of a shared private drive and is indicated to conform with requirements for width, visibility and turning facilities. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387
Each of the new dwellings will have on site parking and all vehicles will be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear.
I recommend no highway objection subject to the shared private drive being completed prior to occupation of any dwelling within the site.
Llanrhidian Higher Community Council: Representations from the residents adjoining the proposed development were considered, including letters of objection and a petition. The Council agreed unanimously to support the residents objections and to raise its own concerning:
(i) Drainage onto Llanrhidian Higher Community Council property. The Community Council owns the football field at Dan Y Lan, adjacent to the proposed development. The field already suffers problems with drainage, especially after the construction of new housing behind the field. The Council would wish that any new development would include adequate drainage and sewerage provision. (ii) Fencing around the football field. The Community Council has fenced off part of the football field to prevent the ingress of footballs into the surrounding residential properties. This can provide a source of great frustration to all parties as residents object to the ingress of footballs (and the players following/searching for them) and the football club objects to the loss of footballs at approx £50 a time. The Council has no plans to extend its fencing to the land proposed for development. (iii) The Council has concerns over the increased danger to traffic and pedestrians that it feels would occur due to a large number of entrances in a small area of road. Access to the main road from any of the side roads can already be hazardous, especially to delivery vehicles or visitors with no experience of the roads.
Robert Hart, Assistant to Edwina Hart AM Gower: Mrs Hart has been approached by residents in the vicinity of the above development proposal who are concerned about its impact. I have visited the site on Mrs Hart’s behalf and I would like to make the following observations:
• The proposed dwellings would be of a height which would be overbearing on a number of properties in Llynfa Road and would greatly compromise the privacy of the gardens in particular of Llynfa Road residents. • The construction of three detached properties on the plot indicated would result in a cramped and overdeveloped site which would adversely affect the visual amenity of the area.
Countryside Council for Wales: CCW objects to the proposal, because there is not enough information for us to assess possible effects on the interest listed below:
Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet Ramsar.
Environment Agency: No objection subject to a condition relating to the utilisation of SUDs and a scheme for the separation of foul and surface water. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387
Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water: No objection subject to attached informatives.
Following the Objection from CCW, additional information was requested regarding drainage and the applicant agreed to remove the surface water drainage from the foul sewer and explore the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. A Habitats Regulation Assessment was also completed and submitted to CCW, who in light of this additional information have formally withdrawn their OBJECTION.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Tucker, in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring residents following the number of objection letters and letter of observation received from Robert Hart assistant to Edwina Hart AM Gower.
Description
Full planning permission is sought for three detached dwellings with integral garages at land to the rear of 2 Gowerton Road, Penclawdd, Swansea. The site is situated within the rear amenity space of this property and falls within the established residential area of Penclawdd. The area is characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached properties.
Issues
The main issues for consideration during the determination of applications such as this relate to the principle of development, the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the area, the impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, drainage issues and highway safety having regard for the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
Principle of Development
The site currently forms part of the residential curtilage of No 2 Gowerton Road. The land is within the established residential area of Penclawdd as identified on the Swansea Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map. As such Policy EV17 of the UDP in principle allows for appropriate residential infill development subject to compliance with the policy’s criteria.
Development will also be required to be appropriate to its location and will only be approved where it meets the criteria set out in Policies EV1 and EV2. These policies seek to ensure that new developments not only follows set objectives of good design and quality but ensure that it is appropriate to its local context and does not have an adverse impact on the landscape and heritage of the area.
Given the land falls within the settlement in land use terms the site is acceptable in principle for infill residential development. However it is essential that any scheme should seek to respect the character and appearance of the area in terms of siting, scale, design and materials. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387
Therefore, in land use terms on the basis of the information provided subject to careful siting, design and external appearance the land could accommodate residential development without prejudicing the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.
Visual Amenities
The site is considered to be of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed dwellings and will have a similar density to other dwellings within immediate vicinity.
As stated previously the area is characterised by a mixture of dwellings situated within varying plot sizes, fronting the highway. The proposal will involve the introduction of three dwellings which are situated behind the building line in a similar position to the dwellings situated along Llynfa Road. The levels of the site are relatively flat and the access will be gained via Gowerton Road. There is no prevailing characteristic or dominant house type to suggest a specific architectural response on this site, however the design of the dwellings are considered to complement the suburban character and appearance of the area. Furthermore whilst it is acknowledged that the dwellings are tall in height, they are sited in excess of 35m from the main highway and as such the dwellings will prove neither unacceptably dominant or prominent when viewed from the street-scene and will it is considered fit sensitively into the area. As such the proposal is considered to respect the visual amenities of the area in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP. Materials are proposed to include red brick, however a condition requiring the submission of materials is considered appropriate in order for the Local Planning Authority to maintain control.
Residential Amenity
Turning to residential amenities, it is considered that the siting of the dwellings in relation to the boundaries of the neighbouring properties and the distance from the neighbouring dwellings themselves will ensure the proposal will not give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing which could warrant the refusal of this application. The dwellings are sited a sufficient distance from the boundaries of the neighbouring dwellings to ensure the residential amenities of the neighbours will be protected. The front windows of the proposed dwellings will create no overlooking issues as they will overlook land already within the public domain. Ground floor overlooking can be overcome by agreeing a suitable level of boundary treatment between the proposed plots via condition. In terms of the rear facing windows, all windows at 1st floor level are approximately 10m from the boundaries of the neighbouring properties which is considered acceptable and satisfies normal standards. In terms of the flank facing windows, the staircase windows are not habitable rooms and as such will not result in a loss of privacy to the proposed dwellings or neighbouring properties. The development will therefore comply with Policies EV1 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP it is considered.
Highways
Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering it is acknowledged that access will be directly from Gowerton Road. Access is proposed in the form of a shared private drive and is indicated to conform with requirements for width, visibility and turning facilities. Each of the new dwellings will have on site parking and all vehicles will be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387
There are no highway objections subject to the shared private drive being completed prior to occupation of any dwelling within the site.
Drainage
In terms of drainage the applicant has indicated that surface water from the existing dwelling can be diverted to a soakaway, thus removing capacity from the main sewer. The site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea , as the competent authority , is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.
The TLSE has been undertaken and concludes that subject to the drainage conditions recommended, the development will not have a significant effect on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment area for the reasons set out in the TLSE. These relate to the compensatory hydraulic capacity which has been created in the catchment area and which is recorded in the Register of approvals kept by the Council in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by the City and County of Swansea (CCS), Carmarthenshire County Council (CCC), Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Environment Agency Wales (EAW), and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) on the 1st March, 2010. Also the phosphate stripping carried out at the Llanant WWTW which has created a capacity for 1000 new dwellings within that part of the catchment area in Swansea . A full Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations is not therefore necessary and the application can be approved subject to the drainage conditions indicated. This would satisfy the requirements of the Habitat Regulations.
Response to Consultation
Notwithstanding the above 8 individual letters of objection were received and a petition of 19 objectors which raised concerns in relation to visual and residential amenity, highway safety, parking, drainage and sewerage, wildlife, policy context, overdevelopment. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.
Concern was raised with regard the loss of house prices, the loss of a view and the potential fire risk due to previous fires in the area however these are not material planning considerations and were not therefore taken into consideration during the determination of this application. The hours of work are controlled under separate legislation and as such were not taken into consideration during the determination of this application.
Conclusion
In conclusion it is considered that subject to conditions the proposed development is compatible with the character, appearance and layout of the surrounding area and has an acceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, highway safety and drainage. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387
Therefore it is considered that the development complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV33, EV34, EV35 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP and approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Classes B, C and F of Schedule 2 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.
3 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage, including details of the soakaway proposals for the proposed dwelling, confirming that it is adequate in size, is not located within 10m of any watercourse/ditch and has sufficient permeability in accordance with BS 6297; and the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces draining to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise surface water run-off.
4 Foul water and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site and no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public foul sewerage system. No land drainage run-off will be permitted, either directly or indirectly, to discharge into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387
5 No development shall commence until further details of the sustainable drainage (SUDS) measures such as permeable paving for the driveway access and car parking area, and rainwater harvesting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented and retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.
6 Notwithstanding the plans and particulars permitted details of the external finishes for the proposed dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
7 No dwelling shall be occupied until the shared driveway serving the development has been completed in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
8 Before the development hereby approved is occupied the means of enclosing the boundaries of the site and individual curtilages of all dwellings shall be completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and general amenity.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV17, EV33, EV34, EV35).
2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
3 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1387
PLANS
Design and Access Statement, site plan and block plan, 101 plot 1 floor plans and elevations, 102 plot 2 floor plans and elevations, 103 plot 3 floor plans and elevations, drg no. 100 additional drainage plan received 9th June 2011.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825 WARD: Gower Area 2
Location: Oaklea Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU Proposal: Two storey rear extension, single storey side extension and glazed link extension. Applicant: Mrs Rachel Searle
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee meeting on 30th August 2011 to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area and neighbouring residents.
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV9 Development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area will only be permitted if it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV26 Within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area's natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2011/0281 Two storey rear extension with balcony and single storey side extension Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 27/04/2011
97/1498 TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND ERECTION OF ATTACHED SIDE GARAGE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 12/12/1997
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The proposal was advertised by way of press and site notice. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received their content is summarised below.
1. It cannot be guaranteed that the foundations of my property are of the standards expected of planning conditions today, and I am concerned that any development which would impinge upon the structure of my house would be potentially hazardous. 2. Having viewed the plans, it is obvious that the proposal is to directly link part of the development to the pine end of my house. I am very concerned with this, not just because of the potential structural problems which may arise as a result of this (as outlined in point 1 above), but also that my property would become a mid-terrace and no longer be a semi-detached house. This also gives rise to concerns of damp. This will inevitably also have an effect upon the value of my home. 3. The plans are incorrect and the measurements differ between plan Nos. 08 and 011. 4. The plans also show, on the floor plan of their property, a shed which will be converted into the single storey extension. This, would be increased in height at the front elevation and visible from the street view in the conservation area. 5. The double-storey proposal would also directly affect the light and view I currently have and enjoy at the rear of my house. I have a partial sea view (which was a selling point for me when I bought it and would be a selling point should I wish to do so at some time in the future – see attached simulation and photographs). This extension would remove that view from me and would result in a large part of my garden losing direct sunlight and be in permanently shadow of this proposed wall - as shown by the simulation photographs enclosed. 6. The proposed changes to the proposal moving the proposed wall off the boundary would still cause severe loss of light in my kitchen. I have a single small window and partially glazed door which would no longer receive direct sunlight. These are the only windows on the ground floor of this projection of the house (see photographs enclosed). This area of the house is used constantly by all members of my family, to sit in, prepare food, etc. to have this two storey wall in front of us would be overbearing and dismal. 7. I have also observed that the proposed plans show that the footprint of the two-storey extension appears to be virtually as large as the existing house. 8. The position of the balcony would result in a loss of privacy for the only section of my remaining garden in which I could enjoy direct sunlight. 9. Precedence to refuse a balcony in these circumstances has already been refused to a property in the immediate vicinity for the same reasons of privacy? 10. It is also easy to see, from the plans, that an alternative is available to my neighbour. The extension could be proposed to occupy the other side of their garden, which abuts a lane. I can only assume that they have chosen not to use this area because they would not be able to make best advantage of the available sunlight, something that will no longer exist for me and my family. 11. The property subject to the application; “Oaklea,” is a detached cottage originating from circa 1780. My home was once the “Welcome to Town” public house and formerly the home of the Gower folk singer Phil Tanner. So my home has social history within the area and it is especially upsetting to think this historical area should be compromised in this way. 12. The design is more in keeping with an urban or city environment and not at all in keeping with a small village in an area of outstanding beauty. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825
13. There is a lack of sympathy for the buildings in the area the designs do not add to or enhance the existing cottage or respect the rest of the properties within the community and conservation area. The proposals are discordant and out of character with the village , Gower AONB and conservation area. 14. The plans also show, on the floor plan of their property, a shed which will be converted into the single storey extension. This, would be increased in height at the front elevation and visible from the street view in the conservation area.
Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – No Objection
Gower Society - The amended scheme has made a minor attempt at addressing the initial objections to this proposal. The site and its setting is not appropriate for such a development. The reasons for refusal of the last application should still stand and approval of the application would be in breach of Policies EV9 and HC7 of the UDP.
Highways & Transport - Two parking spaces can be accommodated within the site which is sufficient for the size of dwelling. I recommend no highway objection.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order to assess the impact of the scale of the extension on the neighbour.
Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey rear extension with balcony, a single storey side extension and glazed link at Oaklea Cottage, Llangennith. The application site is bounded to the north by the dwelling known as ‘The Welcome’, to the south by an access track serving fields to the rear. On the opposite side of the track is No.1 Wellpark, with Oak Cottage abutting the application site to the rear.
The application site forms part of a group of dwellings that were constructed from the late 18th Century and to the south of the application site separated by an agricultural access track are a row of dwellings forming the part of the street known as Wellpark. Wellpark comprises a run of 5 No. dwellings of basic design and little architectural merit. The application dwelling lies in a relatively large plot within the Llangennith Conservation Area and Gower AONB where Development Plan Policy and National Guidance requires a high standard of design that conserves or enhances the character and appearance of these areas irrespective of how prominent a proposed form of development may be. The property also lies opposite St Cennydd’s Church, a Grade II Listed Building, dating from the 12th Century. However, the siting of the extension largely at the rear means that the setting of the Listed Building would not be adversely affected.
The application site currently comprises a cottage of traditional design which has remained largely unaltered with the exception of a lean to rear extension and an increase in window size to the front elevation. The application site received the grant of planning permission on 12th December 1997 Ref: 97/1498, for a two storey rear extension of a traditional design that allowed for a rearward projection of approximately 4.0 metres at eaves height and 6.5 metres at the ridge. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825
The proposed side extension would have a front wall approximately 2.0m in width that would abut the application property and the neighbouring dwelling known as ‘The Welcome’. To the rear of this wall the proposed side extension would run in a rearward direction for a distance of approximately 5.5 metres to form a utility room. The side extension would be approximately 1.3 metres wide at its narrowest point widening to the rear to approximately 2.4 metres in width and would be approximately 0.7 metres off the pine end off ‘The Welcome’ at its closest point. This part of the proposed scheme would incorporate a flat roof with a height of approximately 2.7 meters.
The two storey rear addition would have a maximum height of approximately 5.5 metres. A glazed link with a rearward projection of approximately 1.0 metres will run from the eaves backwards towards the proposed accommodation. The glazed link will be located fairly centrally in the rear elevation of the host building and would be stepped in from both side elevations by approximately 3.6 metres.
The proposed two storey living accommodation would have a footprint of approximately 37.5 square metres and would have a low solid to void ratio on the south and east facing elevations with the north east facing elevation comprising a solid wall of 4.5 metres in height and approximately 8.0 metres in length constructed approximately 3.2 metres off the common boundary with the adjoining property.
At first floor level the proposed extension would have a wrap around balcony located on the south east corner which would be set back from the end of the wall by approximately 1.6 metres. The rear elevation would have four sets of French doors, two located at ground floor level and two located at first floor level, with a similar arrangement to the side elevation.
The scheme currently before the Local Planning Authority is submitted in attempt to overcome the reasons for refusal issued in respect of Ref:2011/0281 determined by the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 19th April 2011.
In terms of the impact upon visual amenity, the proposed contemporary two storey rear extension will be separated from the main dwelling by virtue of the glazed link. The contemporary design of the rear block and the glazed link serve to break up the overall massing such that the building is considered proportionate in scale with the host dwelling, the plot and the wider area. The design concept sees a limited number of north facing windows, with the main expanse of glazing orientated south and east into the garden serving to maximise solar gain.
The principle differences from the scheme previously refused consent are that the north east facing wall has been significantly reduced in scale and moved approximately 1.8 metres further off the common boundary with ‘The Welcome’. This reduction in the size and scale of the predominantly masonry elevation serves to significantly reduce the bulk and massing of the development achieving a more sympathetic design outcome. The high-level windows set on the north facing elevation serve to provide some additional natural light but also serve to further break up the overall height of this elevation whilst achieving the required height to accommodate the fall of the roof. In visual amenity terms it is considered that the revised scheme, constructed in high quality materials would makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825
The link abutting the traditional host dwelling maintains the existing eaves level which is considered to be an acceptable design solution and as such is considered to respect the character of the existing dwelling which is of a traditional two-storey appearance. In terms of the detail, windows and doors are proposed to be of timber construction with the roof being finished to standing seam zinc. There are no details provided in respect of the front wall serving the side extension and it is recommended that should consent be granted that a condition is placed requiring detailed information be provided prior to commencement of development. The remaining proposed materials match the existing with render walls. Overall it is considered that the traditional character of the extant dwelling is preserved and when considered with the contemporary extension and the range of property types within the Conservation Area the proposal would not give rise to any adverse visual impacts.
The contemporary extension will be partially visible from the positions on the highway fronting the property and will be viewed in conjunction with the gable end of the host dwelling. It is considered that these partial views of the traditional and contemporary elements may serve to create a point of interest, thereby enhancing this part of the Conservation Area, without detracting or diminishing the outlook from the Listed Building opposite. The design and form of the contemporary element reflects modern living, namely space and light in a form that is sensitive to the Conservation Area character. As such the proposal is considered to be respectful of Policies EV1, HC7, EV9, and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
Turning to impact upon residential amenity, given the siting and location of the property and the change in levels in respect of its neighbours it is considered that the reduction of the area and movement off the common boundary of the proposed wall forming the north elevation of the proposed rear extension would no longer give rise to the same degree of impact that would have arisen from the previous proposal. Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be a degree of overshadowing in respect of the rear amenity area located directly outside the kitchen of ‘The Welcome’ this would be, given the separation distances and change in levels, fairly limited in area and not of sufficient harm to warrant a recommendation of refusal on this basis alone.
The proposed high level windows on top of the north facing elevation would be located a minimum of 1.8 metres above the internal floor level and as such it is not considered that they would of themselves give rise to any increase in overlooking in respect of the rear amenity area associated with ‘The Welcome’. The proposed first floor rear facing windows and balcony are orientated toward the rear of the plot and given the separation distances involved, the presence of an out building serving ‘ The Welcome’ at an elevated position and the fact that the balcony has been stepped off the north facing elevation by approximately 1.6 metres it is not considered that any increase in overlooking that may arise in respect of the private amenity of ‘The Welcome’ would be at distance and oblique in nature and as such on balance acceptable.
The balcony and first floor windows located on the south facing elevation would be orientated toward No.1 Wellpark however in addition to the balcony being located approximately 3.5 metres off the southern boundary, the application site and No.1 Wellpark are separated by an agricultural access track of approximately 6.0 metres in width with significant boundary treatment to either side. It is not therefore considered that the proposed scheme would give rise to an unacceptable increase in overlooking of No.1 Wellpark. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825
The property to the rear is, similarly, not harmfully impacted in terms of overlooking by virtue of the significant separation distance.
In respect of the concerns raised by third parties those that are considered to be material planning considerations have been considered in the main body of the report above. Should the proposal receive the grant of planning permission it is recommended that an informative be placed in respect of the Party Wall Act. In respect of loss of view the determination of the proposal has had regard to Planning Policy Wales, which states that the planning system operates in the public interest, and the findings of courts are that whilst the preservation of a public view may be an important material consideration, the protection of a private one seldom is.
Conclusion In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations, it is considered that the proposal by virtue of its siting, scale and design would respect the character and proportions of the host dwelling, preserving the character and appearance of the existing building, the Conservation Area and the Gower AONB in compliance with Policies HC7, EV1, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance “A Design Guide for Householder Development” and as such approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 Details of the external finish of the single storey side extension shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
3 Details of the colour and finish of the raised zinc roof shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0825
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, HC7, EV9, EV26.
2 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. If evidence of bats is encountered during site clearance, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).
3 Birds may be present in the roof of this building please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.
4 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
5 PARTY WALL ETC ACT 1996 The developer is advised that the provisions of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 may be applicable to the proposal and is advised to seek appropriate advice prior to any work commencing on site.
PLANS
Site location plan, existing block plan, existing ground floor plan, existing first floor plan, existing roof plan, existing elevations, proposed floor plans, 3D visualisation, proposed block plan, proposed elevations received 23rd June 2011
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243 WARD: Pennard Area 2
Location: 21 East Cliff Pennard Swansea SA3 2AS Proposal: Conversion of existing garage to living accommodation (variation of condition 1 of planning permission 2005/0146 granted on 19th July 2005), increase in height of front gable with timber cladding and two storey rear extension to existing garage, part single storey part two storey glazed link extension between house and garage, raised decked areas to front elevation, new chimney and single storey side extension with balcony to main dwelling Applicant: Mr & Mrs Ian and Catrin Pearce
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on the 30th August 2011 to consider the impact of the development given the planning history of the site.
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV26 Within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area's natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal A00/0835 Erection of a detached dwelling house with garage Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 08/02/2001
90/0532/01 ERECT A BUNGALOW Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 31/07/1990
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
2005/0146 Retention of dormer bungalow and detached garage (amendment to planning permission 2002/1382 granted on 1st November 2002, and 2003/0275, granted 11th April, 2003). Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/07/2005
2003/0944 Construction of a detached ancillary building to be used as bed and breakfast accommodation with ancillary use of room in existing dwelling for breakfast purposes. Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 06/01/2004
2002/1382 Demolition and reconstruction of one dormer bungalow and detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 01/11/2002
2003/0275 Construction of detached garage (Amendment to planning permission 2002/1382 granted on 1st November 2002) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 11/04/2003
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL – The application was advertised on site and neighbours were consulted:-
4 LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, the comments of which are outlined below:
1. The property is the most prominent on this cliff road due to its location and low boundary wall, clearly visible from quite a distance. This dominant location means that it is imperative that any development approved is appropriate for this rural location, because it sets a clear and very visible standard for future developments on this narrow cliff road.
2. The current application is the fifth for the site in less than 10 years. The original application was for the demolition and re-construction of one dormer bungalow and garage. The definition of a garage is a crucial factor. If a garage is ‘a building for storing or repair of vehicles, esp. cars’ then why should it include accommodation? If a building includes accommodation then surely that building is no longer a garage but a dwelling? The building erected on site following the last application was very thinly disguised as a garage by incorporating a garage door into the structure. The current application removes any pretence of this additional structure being a garage.
3. This massive development is wholly inappropriate for an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and should not be approved. The application is detrimental to the overall character of the immediate vicinity and is out of proportion to neighbouring properties in the lane and on Eastcliff. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
4. A neighbouring property had a year or so earlier been refused permission to extend their property with a garage next to the house with the first floor of the property extending above the garage to gain living accommodation. It was refused as it was considered to have a too imposing frontage and a compromise had to be made with a garage set back from the front of the neighbour’s house with no living accommodation above. It seemed at the time of granting the 2005 application for a large imposing house and garage was most incorrect given that the neighbour’s was much less imposing and had been refused.
5. A pergola in the garden and raise decking areas would even further take away from the present rural aspect of the neighbourhood.
6. The plan for East Cliff is that all further development should be strongly resisted. The application amounts to a request to put two dwellings on a plot that previously only had one dwelling. This constitutes considerable further development.
Pennard Community Council – The proposed development contravenes EV17 which resists further development along East Cliff.
The proposed development contravenes the original application conditions which stated that the garage was not to be used for domestic purposes.
The visual impact of the proposed development will be such that it will be easily visible from Oxwich Point. This is worsened by the fact that the house is located on a corner plot nearer the cliffs than many of the houses on the road.
The proposed development constitutes over development of the plot and a major increase in the footprint of the building. This house replaced what was a small cottage and was in itself a development with a major impact. This will have a further detrimental impact.
The design will be out of keeping with the other buildings on the cliff.
There was supposed to be screening around the building but this has proved to be ineffective.
Gower Society – The Gower Society has inspected the above application, visited the site and has the following observations to make:
1. The site is in a prominent and conspicuous location in the AONB and is highly visible from the coastal path. 2. This house is already intrusive into the landscape; any further development will compound this, as well as having an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. 3. We were extremely unhappy with the construction of the original garage (2005/0146) and what we suspected to be its actual purpose. 4. This development on this property fails miserably to satisfy the Draft Design Guide; it is unsympathetic to its location, to the AONB and to its neighbours. 5. To allow this further development would be detrimental to the AONB and locality.
2 LETTERS OF SUPPORT have been received, the comments of which are outlined below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
1. The proposed development is considered to add character to the existing buildings and also enhances the view of the property from the Cliffs.
2. The reason for the application is because of the weather conditions which prevail in the area.
3. The proposal to increase the roofline of the garage is a necessary consequence of linking the garage with the house. The combined roof level will still not be any greater than its neighbouring property to the north. In addition, it is considered that the use of glass is an imaginative and attractive solution to the problem.
4. It is not considered that the proposed development amounts to ‘intensification’ as stated in Policy EV17.
Highway Observations - Adequate room for parking will remain within the site. I recommend no highway objection subject to the proposed annexe remaining an integral part of the main property in perpetuity and not being let or sold as a separate unit of accommodation.
AMENDED PROPOSAL –
3 LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, the comments of which are outlined below:
1. The changes to the application plans appear to make this building more rather than less intrusive and out of keeping with the rest of East Cliff.
2. In an area in which the plan says ‘Further development is to be strongly resisted’ essentially the application asks to convert a single dwelling into two dwellings, this, therefore, cannot be construed as anything other than further development. The reason the plan does not allow further development on East Cliff is a good one as this is an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is a Site of Specific Interest within a few yards.
3. The application site is particularly prominent and can be seen quite clearly from Oxwich Bay, several miles away. It is considered that if approved it will set a very clear and visible standard for future development of this narrow cliff road.
4. There are a number of applications and retrospective applications for this site which covers a period of less than 10 years. There is a strong case to argue that this site has already been developed excessively in a short space of time. It is imperative that the amended application is viewed as part of the total development on this plot during the last few years. It is urged that the current application is compared against the aerial view of the site (which formed part of application 2005.1046) and it is considered whether ‘The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its location, prominent siting, excessive scale and design would appear as a dominant and incongruous feature within this part of East Cliff, detrimental to the character and natural beauty of the Gower AONB at this sensitive location contrary to Policies EV1, EV22, EV17 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan.’ AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
5. The current application is presenting you with an ‘existing property’ which is not a valid starting point, because 2 of the conditions attached to the previous application (2005/0146) were not adhered to: Condition 1 of the approval stating that ‘The garage shall be retained for the parking of vehicles and for purposes incidental to the use of the dwelling and hall not be used or converted to domestic living accommodation, unless prior consent of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained’. This has clearly already been breached since the house was marketed in the press in 2008 as ‘a detached family residence benefitting from a separate guest/granny annex’. Condition 4 of the approval stated that ‘The existing trees and hedgerow along the South East and West boundaries shall be retained and maintained as a screen boundary’. The photos included with the current application clearly show there is no screen of trees or hedgerow on the west boundary. In fact, since the last development, 21 East Cliff is visible from as far away as Penmaen.
6. The present property is still not in line with the planning permission which was granted previously in that it will still be an enormous mansion on an elevated position in a rural location.
7. The newly increased width of the property, associated with the amendment, will now stretch from one side of the land to the other – the full width, apart from the hedge next to the road.
8. Having the two storey connector from the ‘garage’ to the main house makes the property look particularly imposing – the fact that it is in glass is not considered to make a difference.
9. It is considered that the width of the single storey extension, next to the road, should be disallowed.
Pennard Community Council –
1. Initial planning permission prior to 15.02.2011 had precluded the use of the garage as living accommodation – this seems to be ignoring this condition. 2. Overdevelopment of the site and this seems to exceed the permitted development allowances in square meterage. 3. Visually this will become a visually intrusive package from all aspects within this area.
Gower Society – The previous comments still apply.
14 LETTERS OF SUPPORT have been received, the comments of which are outlined below:
1. The reason for the application is because of the weather conditions which often prevail in the area.
2. The proposal to increase the roofline of the garage is a necessary consequence of linking the garage with the house. The combined roof level will still not be any greater than its neighbouring property to the north. In addition, it is considered that the use of glass is an imaginative and attractive solution to the problem. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
3. It is not considered that the proposed development amounts to ‘intensification’ as stated in Policy EV17.
4. It is considered that the appearance of the property would be enhanced, giving the appearance of one coherent property rather than the two separate buildings at present.
5. The proposed works would provide an economic boost for many local tradesmen and suppliers during these times of austerity.
6. It is considered that great consideration has been given to the designs and materials used to ensure the final project will enhance the building and the area in which it is located within.
7. It is considered that none of the adjacent or nearby neighbouring properties would be affected by the relatively minor works proposed.
8. It is considered that the new plans would only serve to enhance the appearance of the house and the visual impression on the cliff.
9. It is strongly considered that our generation be allowed to leave its mark with new materials and new construction methods that this application is intending to use.
Highway observations – No additional comments to make.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Margaret Smith to consider the planning history of the site and the impact of the proposal on this sensitive location.
The application seeks planning permission for the conversion of the existing garage to living accommodation, increase in height of front gable with timber cladding and two storey rear extension to existing garage, part single storey part two storey glazed link extension between house and garage, raised decked areas to front elevation, new chimney and single storey side extension with balcony to main dwelling. The application site is located along East Cliff which is the road running parallel to the coastline at Pennard.
An application for the demolition and reconstruction of one dormer bungalow and detached garage was approved in November 2002. Following this an amendment to this application was approved (2003/0275), which related to alterations to the garage approved under the previous application. Subsequently an appeal was dismissed in respect of the construction of a detached ancillary building to be used as bed and breakfast accommodation with ancillary use of room in existing dwelling for breakfast purposes. The last application (2005/0146) for the site related to amendments to the 2002/1382 application for the retention of dormer bungalow and detached garage. This consent was approved with conditions, one of which related to the restriction of the garage use to be retained for the parking of vehicles and for purposes incidental to the use of the dwelling and not be used as or converted to domestic living accommodation. Part of this current application seeks to vary this condition. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
The main issues to be considered with regard to this application are the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area within the Gower AONB and the impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties having regard to Policies EV1, HC7 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional overriding issues for consideration having regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
The application has been amended due to concerns raised by officers primarily in relation to the domestic appearance of the building, the height of the building with glazed link and the balcony attached to the front of the garage structure. Concern was also raised with regard to the front pergola. The main changes to the current application include the reduction in height of the garage building and glazed link, changes to the appearance of the garage and removal of the front balcony and pergola. A single storey side extension with balcony above is also now proposed to be erected to the south of the dwelling; this was not, however, as a result of recommendations made by officers.
The alterations to the garage structure are considered to be in keeping with the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The structure will still be set down from the main ridgeline of the dwelling and as such will be considered to be seen as a subordinate extension of the main dwelling. The two storey rear extension to the garage is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact given that it will face towards Bosco Lane. The front elevation is considered to be the most prominent elevation with views possible from along the western element of Eastcliff. In terms of the use of timber cladding to the garage structure, this is also considered to be acceptable, being in keeping with the rural nature of the surrounding area. The increase in height of the front gable is also not considered to raise concern given that the proposed alterations are sympathetically designed and are considered to blend in with the character of the host dwelling. The use of timber cladding to the lower half of the garage structure ensures that the building incorporates a utilitarian appearance rather than a domestic appearance. The glazed link is considered to be a sympathetic solution in terms of providing a link between the host dwelling and the garage structure whilst maintaining the dominance of the main dwelling. The raised deck area is low lying and as such whilst located to the front of the dwelling is not considered to have an unacceptable visual impact. Similarly, the chimney is not considered to have an unacceptable impact given its minimal height and sympathetic materials utilised. As such the alterations considered above are not considered to have a detrimental visual impact on the Gower AONB.
In terms of the extension to the side of the existing dwelling, this is considered to be acceptable given its modest scale.
With regard to the use of materials, whilst a large proportion of the garage structure is now proposed to be clad in timber this is not considered to raise significant concern given that this form of material is considered to blend in with the surrounding rural environment.
The location of the proposals are considered to ensure that there will be no undue overbearance or overshadowing, with no neighbouring properties being located within close proximity of the host property. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
In terms of overlooking, there is considered to be no detrimental viewing from the north facing side of the extension with the rooflight within this elevation being located at relatively high levels and the large element of glazing within this side serving the games room being indicated on the plans as being glazed with obscure glass. An appropriate condition will be attached ensuring this obscure glazing is fitted. In terms of the viewing from the balcony area to the south side of the existing dwelling, there are no properties within immediate distance of this balcony area and as such there is not considered to be detrimental viewing from this viewing platform.
The Head of Transportation and Engineering Services has stated that adequate room for parking will remain within the site. Therefore, there is no highway objection subject to the proposed annexe remaining an integral part of the main property in perpetuity and not being let or sold as a separate unit of accommodation.
With regard to the concerns raised in relation to visual impact and impact on residential amenities, these have been covered within the context of the report and do not require further consideration in this instance. Whilst it is considered that the site is located within a prominent position it is also considered that given the sympathetic scale and design of the proposal, it will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Similarly in terms of the creation of a precedent, given the proposal is sympathetically designed it is not considered to create a detrimental precedent. Whilst accommodation is proposed to be incorporated into the garage structure and this does result in a variation of a previous condition attached to the 2005/0146 application, it is not considered to have adverse implications given that the accommodation is to be used in conjunction with the dwelling house. Therefore whilst the garage use may not be the primary use for this element of the property it is not considered that this is necessarily a negative aspect of the proposals.
Whilst the concerns about a neighbour’s proposal is noted, this is not considered to set a precedent as it has a different context to the current proposal. With regard to the concerns raised in relation to the pergola and the raised decked area, the pergola has been removed from the scheme and the raised decked area is not considered to raise concerns given that it is located at a low level. With regard to Policy EV17 of the Unitary Development Plan, this is considered to relate to proposals for new residential development rather than householder development and as such is not considered relevant in this instance. In terms of overdevelopment of the site, the plot in question is considered able to adequately accommodate a development of this size. The width of the dwelling in conjunction with the proposed extensions is not considered to be visually unacceptable. The use of glass in the glazed link is considered to be complimentary rather obtrusive given its transparent nature.
In conclusion, therefore, the proposals are considered to be appropriate forms of development that would not have any significant adverse visual impact upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the streetscene or impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and, therefore, complies with Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 The windows serving the games room in the north-facing side elevation, as indicated on Plan No: 1018/S202A shall be obscure glazed, and unopenable except for a fan light and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.
3 The extended garage building hereby permitted shall only be used in connection with and ancillary to the occupation of the existing dwelling and shall not at any time be severed and occupied as an independent unit. Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of the area and in order to prevent the establishment of an unrelated and/or independent unit on the site.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan)
2 Bats may be present in this building. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. If evidence of bats is encountered during site clearance, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0243
3 Birds may be present in this building and grounds please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.
4 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
PLANS
Site location plan, 1018/E001B existing site plan, 1018/E100A existing ground floor plan, 1018/E101 existing first floor plan, 1018/E102 existing roof plan, 1018/E200 existing front elevation, 1018/E201 existing rear elevation, 1018/E202A existing garage side elevations, 1018/E203 existing side elevation, 1018/E300 existing section A, 1018/D01 demolition site plan received 16th February 2011. Amended 1018/S001A proposed site plan, 1018/S102A proposed roof plan, 1018/S100A proposed ground floor plan, 1018/S101A proposed first floor plan, 1018/S200A proposed west elevation, 1018/S201A proposed entrance elevation, 1018/S202A proposed side (north) elevation, 1018/S300A proposed section AA, 1018/S301A proposed section BB, 1018/S302A proposed section CC received 14th June 2011. Additional 1018/S250A Coastline study, 1018/S251A Front entrance study received 14th June 2011. Additional 1018/S203 proposed south elevation received 25th July 2011.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2
Location: Land adjacent to Ty Croeso Salthouse Point Crofty Swansea SA4 3RP Proposal: Detached dwelling (outline) Applicant: Mr W Jones
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT a the Area 2 Development control Committee on the 2nd August 2011 in order to assess the site within the context of surrounding area and settlement boundaries. My report has been updated in order to expand upon the land level issue and the Section 52 legal agreement however, my recommendation of APPROVAL remains unchanged.
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV3 Proposals for new development and alterations to and change of use of existing buildings will be required to meet defined standards of access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV17 Within the boundaries of the large villages as identified on the Proposals Map, development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and, in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off, subject to the other defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV33 Planning permission will normally only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer or, where this system is inadequate, satisfactory improvements can be provided prior to the development becoming operational. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV34 Development proposals that may impact upon the water environment will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they would not pose a significant risk to the quality and or quantity of controlled waters. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
Policy EV35 Development that would have an adverse impact on the water environment due to: i) Additional surface water run off leading to a significant risk of flooding on site or an increase in flood risk elsewhere; and/or, ii) A reduction in the quality of surface water run-off. Will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that appropriate alleviating measures can be implemented. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2007/2036 Detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 31/10/2007
2001/0900 Erection of a detached dwelling house Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 03/04/2002
2004/0090 Construction of a detached dwelling house (amendment to planning permission 2002/2239 granted on 4th March 2003) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/05/2004
2008/1609 Detached garage (amendment to planning permission 2007/2036 granted 31st October 2007) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 05/09/2008
2002/2239 Construction of a detached dwelling house Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 04/03/2003
94/0353 ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED DWELLING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/06/1994
97/0326 Erection of a detached dwelling (outline) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 03/08/1999
98/0839 Erection of two dwelling houses (outline) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 03/08/1999
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
Neighbours: The application was advertised on site by a Site Notice and five neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. Eight letters of objection were received which are summarised below:
1. Covenants for properties in the area were intended for 1 only. 2. Appeal to Welsh Assembly in 1999 reiterates that plot for one dwelling upholding the one property per parcel land status (Application 98/0839), therefore there is a legal precedent regarding further applications of this nature which I expect the Planning Department in Swansea to uphold. 3. Proposed property and garage is ahead of the building line. 4. Fire safety issue, both from an entrance and egress perspective. 5. Highway safety. 6. Traffic. 7. Land levels have been re-profiled involving tons of materials being brought into the site. 8. Increase in vehicles would disturb our property and effect our level of residential amenity. 9. Mr Jones has provided reassurances to residents that he would never seek to develop the land. 10. Errors in the Design and Access Statement. 11. Enforcement issues in relation to the build up of the land. 12. Proposal will prove detrimental to the skyline and to his neighbours enjoyment of such a beautiful area. 13. Proposal would result in the outward sprawl of Crofty. 14. Precedent for further sprawl in Crofty. 15. Unacceptable visual impact. 16. Garage/store room is larger than some of the bungalows in the area. 17. Loss of light and overbearing impact. 18. Loss of view. 19. Noise disturbance. 20. Applicant has failed to complete bund in accordance with the Section 106 agreement. 21. Traffic congestion. 22. Astounded that a two-storey dwelling has been allowed retrospectively in the site.
Environment Agency: There is no information included on the application form regarding the proposed means of foul water drainage from the site. Although the site is located in an area served by the main public sewer, information available to us indicates that the nearest connection point may be some distance away. It is probable that private system such as a septic tank or package treatment plant will be required. Section 1.2.7 of the Design and Access Statement suggests the use of a package treatment system which would be acceptable, provided that the applicant has undertaken a satisfactory non-mains drainage assessment (Welsh Office Circular 10/99).
The Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru plans indicate that the proposed dwelling would be in excess of 100m from the nearest foul sewer and following further consideration with the EA, they have confirmed that a non-mains drainage assessment is not required. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
Highways: This application is for the erection of a new dwelling to the rear of Ty Croeso, Pencaerfenni Park, Crofty. Access is intended to be in the form of a shared private drive, although the access statement describes a drive of substandard width. The site is large enough to accommodate parking for each plot and provided that the access width is increased to 4.5m for its shared length, the proposal is acceptable from a highway safety and parking viewpoint.
I recommend no highway objection subject to the access drive being widened to a minimum of 4.5m for its shared length.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Tucker in order to assess the site within the context of the surrounding area.
Description
This application seeks outline planning permission for a detached dwelling at land adjacent to Ty Croeso, Salthouse Point, Crofty, Swansea. Only details relating to access are being considered at outline stage. The land is situated within the settlement of Penclawdd/Crofty and the site has a long and varied planning history.
Planning History
The site has a long and varied site history and the original planning consent being granted under (Ref: 87/1377) for the erection of 15 units. Originally this consent incorporated the erection of four detached bungalows at the end of the cul-de-sac to which this previous application relates. This application was granted subject to the signing of a Section 52 agreement, which required the owner to reinforce the existing hedgerow along the south west boundary of the part of the site edged in blue on the plan ‘A’ annexed hereto and to plant along the newly formed mound to the South West of the existing lane to the Sewage Works.
A subsequent application was submitted (Ref: 93/1326) for the erection of one dwelling house to the rear of plot 2, which was subsequently refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would represent un-coordinated outward sprawl of the village of Crofty, contrary to Local Plan Policy GV4 and Structure Plan Policy C1 which seek to resist development outside the settlement boundary.
2. The proposed development, by virtue of its exposed prominent siting, would be seriously detrimental to the character and visual amenity of this sensitive coastal location adjoining the Bury Inlet and Loughor Estuary SSSI.
3. The proposal, if approved, would set an undesirable precedent for the consideration of future development proposals of a similar character in this area that would have an unacceptable cumulative impact on the landscape.
A further application was submitted (Ref: 94/0353) for the erection of one detached dwelling in order to try and overcome the previous reasons for refusal. This application was entirely within the settlement boundary of Crofty and subsequently approved. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
Planning permission was sought for the erection of two dwellings (Ref: 98/0839) and refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development fails to provide for an adequate buffer zone between dwelling B and land to the north allocated for industrial development in the Swansea Local Plan Review No1 (Draft). As such it fails to protect the residential amenity of future residents and would put an unreasonable constraint upon potential future industrial users of the land to the north.
2. The development of the site for two dwellings within area allocated for development in Policy V7 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No 1 (Draft) whilst providing for an adequate buffer zone to the allocated industrial land to the north would result in a cramped form of development out of keeping with the general low density pattern of development at Salthouse Point and detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupants of the existing properties.
3. The proposal does not represent an acceptable form of rounding off of the Salthouse Point development. It captures additional residential curtilage beyond that previously approved and generally extends residential development into the surrounding open countryside contrary to Policy GV2 and GV4 of the Swansea Local Plan and Policies V1 and V7 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No1 (Draft).
The application was subsequently appealed to the Welsh Office and dismissed as it was considered that there was a sound and clear policy objection to any further encroachment of housing development beyond the recently adopted settlement limits and that new dwellings here would encroach onto land which intended to be kept open and undeveloped and would thus materially detract from its rural character and appearance contrary to SLP Policy V7 (ii) and the design objectives of the 1989 permission.
On the second issue the Inspector concluded that any form of backland development can give rise to overlooking, loss of privacy and noise disturbance from vehicular traffic using private access drives which pass close to neighbouring properties. However, the access drive proposed is capable of being moved closer to the north eastern site boundary and provided that it is only required to serve a single household, it need not be designed to take two way traffic. Even allowing for the siting shown to be treated as illustrative the Inspector concluded that the southernmost dwelling would be too close to The Haven and it would appear overbearing and oppressive. Moreover the erection of two dwellings in this awkwardly shaped plot would fail to preserve the spacious appearance and character of the group as a whole and appear unduly cramped. He therefore concluded that Appeal scheme B would unduly detract from the amenity of those living nearby due to noise disturbance and loss of privacy.
On the third issue relating to the close proximity to the Crofty Industrial Estate the Inspector concluded that prospective purchasers would be aware of local conditions, and therefore could be argued that some disturbance is to be expected where housing adjoins an established general industrial estate.
In April 2002, planning consent was granted under Ref: 2001/0900 for the erection of a detached dwelling. The proposal included the landscaping and enhancement works to the west of the site in accordance with the Section 52 Agreement. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
In addition to this planning consent was granted in March 2003 (Ref: 2002/2239) and May 2004 (Ref: 2004/0090) for redesigned dwellings, with the latter being of a more traditional Gower Style vernacular which has been constructed on site. The current proposal will follow this traditional design.
Main Issues
The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relate to the principle of development having regard for the site history, the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the area, residential amenity, highway safety and drainage, and the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008. There are considered to be no issues arising from the content of the Human Rights Act.
Principle of Development
The site currently forms part of the residential curtilage of Ty Croeso and the land to the rear which is outside the recognised curtilage. In 2008 the Swansea Unitary Development Plan was formally adopted and this crucially incorporated all the land to the rear of Ty Croeso within the village envelope, within the fringe settlement of Crofty. There has therefore been a material change in planning circumstances since the previous refusals and as such when considering applications such as this Policy EV17 (Large Village Policy) is the most relevant policy. Policy EV17 ensures development is contained within the settlement boundaries as defined on the proposals map and limits development within the area to small infill plots, existing commitments and in locations outside the Gower AONB to small scale rounding off. Development which involves:
(i) The ‘capturing of surrounding countryside’ through an extension of the built up area and residential curtilages, (ii) The extension of a settlement in the form of ribbon development, Or (iii) The coalescence of villages, will not be permitted
Development will be required to be appropriate to its location and will only be approved where it meets the criteria set out in Policies EV1 and EV2. These policies seek to ensure that new developments not only follows set objectives of good design and quality but ensure that it is appropriate to its local context and does not have an adverse impact on the landscape and heritage of the area.
Given the land falls within the settlement of Crofty, the Large Villages Policy (EV17), in land use terms on the basis of the information provided the land is acceptable in principle for infill residential development subject to compliance with the Section 52 Legal Agreement which runs with the land. It is essential that any scheme should seek to respect this agreement and the character and appearance of the area in terms of siting, scale, design and materials.
Visual Amenity
In visual amenity terms the proposed development will relate most closely to the adjacent Ty Croeso, which is a stone double fronted two storey dwelling with detached garage. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
The scale parameters indicate that the proposal will have a similar size and scale to the existing dwelling and given this application is in outline form only with details relating to appearance, layout and design reserved for future consideration it is considered that the plot is capable of accommodating a dwelling of this size without giving rise to an unacceptable impact upon visual amenities, in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP. In order to ensure that the scheme takes into account the legal agreement at reserved matters stage, a fully comprehensive landscaping scheme is considered necessary to be submitted to accompany the application and this will be controlled via condition.
Residential Amenity
In terms of residential amenity, the indicative siting of the proposed dwelling indicates that a dwelling could easily be accommodated on site without giving rise to an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties by virtue of overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing. Whilst it is acknowledged the site is within close proximity to the Sewerage Station and the Industrial park, like the previous Inspector’s decision it is not considered that these are factors which could warrant the refusal of this application.
Highway Safety
This application is for the erection of a new dwelling to the rear of Ty Croeso, Pencaerfenni Park, Crofty. Access is intended to be in the form of a shared private drive, although the access statement describes a drive of substandard width. The site is large enough to accommodate parking for each plot and provided that the access width is increased to 4.5m for its shared length, the proposal is acceptable from a highway safety and parking viewpoint.
Drainage
In terms of drainage the site is large enough to accommodate soakaways and the existing dwelling drains surface water to soakaway, with foul draining to a septic tank. The dwelling is situated in excess of 100m from the main sewer and therefore a non-mains drainage assessment is not considered necessary. Conditions will be attached to any approval requiring the use of soakaways and additional information required for the foul sewer in order to ensure there will be no increase in water draining to the main sewer. The site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea, as the competent authority, is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.
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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
A full Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations is not therefore necessary and the application can be approved subject to the drainage conditions indicated. This would satisfy the requirements of the Habitat Regulations.
Response to Consultations
Notwithstanding the above 8 letters of objection were received which raised concerns relating to the pattern of development, the principle of development, the site history, highways, covenants, traffic, residential amenity, visual impact, size and scale of the proposed development. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.
Concern has been raised with regard to the loss of a view, fire safety and covenants. However these are not material planning considerations. In addition to this precedent has been sited as a concern in allowing this development. However each application is determined on the basis its merits and relevant policies. As such this was not taken into consideration during the determination of this application.
The level of information contained in the Design and Access Statement has been brought into question, however it is considered sufficient in order to determine the application.
It is clear following the site visit that part of the site’s land levels have been raised. The majority of the land which has been raised falls outside the application site, within the ownership of the applicant. The applicant has stated that the land was raised in excess of 5 years ago and the Local Authority to date has no evidence to dispute this.
In terms of the Section 52 Agreement, as state previously this agreement runs with the land and whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant has not complied fully with this agreement, the planting and landscaping which is required as part of this legal agreement, whilst within the ownership of the applicant, falls outside the application site and the introduction of a dwelling at this location would not conflict with the provisions of this Section 52 Agreement, however the applicant has a legal obligation to abide by it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is considered that in land use terms given the revised settlement boundaries adopted in the Swansea Unitary Development Plan proposals map the principle of residential development is acceptable and subject to further consideration being given at reserved matters stage the proposal could have an acceptable impact upon the visual and residential amenities of the area in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2, EV3 and EV17. Approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
2 The development shall be commenced not later than 5 years from the date of this permission and shall be completed and brought into beneficial use in accordance with the said application, plans and conditions and a programme of phasing to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans and scheme of phasing approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
3 Detailed plans and drawings with respect to the matters reserved in condition (01) shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is determined within a reasonable period.
4 The dwelling(s) shall be constructed to achieve a minimum of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve a minimum of 1 credit under category "Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate" in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. Reason: In the interests of sustainability.
5 The construction of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted and any external works shall not begin until an "Interim Certificate" has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 3) and a minimum of 1 credit under "Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate", has been achieved in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Technical Advice Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). Reason: In the interests of sustainability.
6 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes "Final certificate" shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 3) and a minimum of 1 credit under "Ene1 – Dwelling Emission Rate", has been achieved in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Technical Advice Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). Reason: In the interests of sustainability.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
7 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of the following:- a) details of the foul water disposal, and long term management and maintenance arrangements for the treatment plant;b) details of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage, including details of the soakaway proposals for the proposed dwelling, confirming that these are adequate in size, and have sufficient permeability in accordance with BS 6297, and are not located within 10m of any watercourse/ditch nor within 50m or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply; and the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces draining to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise surface water run-off.
8 Foul water and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site and no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public foul sewerage system. No land drainage run-off will be permitted, either directly or indirectly, to discharge into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.
9 No development shall commence until further details of the sustainable drainage (SUDS) measures such as permeable paving for the driveway access and car parking area, and rainwater harvesting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented and retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.
10 No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of a scheme for the landscaping of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out within 12 months from the completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, become seriously diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
11 Prior to the dwelling being brought into beneficial use, the proposed access drive shall be widened to a minimum of 4.5m for its shared length and shall be completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (EV1, EV2, EV3, EV17, EV33, EV34, EV35)
2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
3 The applicant should be advised that in addition to planning permission and building regulations approval, a permit is required for discharges of sewage with a volume of 5m3/day or more to a river, stream, estuary or the sea (package treatment plant only) and for discharges of 2m3/day or more to soakaway or drainage field. Permits can take up to four months to determine and there is no guarantee that consent will be granted. They are advised to contact our National Permitting Team on 08708506506 at the earliest opportunity to discuss the requirements and to avoid any unnecessary delays. For discharges of less than 5m3/day to water and 2m3/day to ground, the applicant may be able to register as exempt from the requirements for a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. This provided that the installation meets certain criteria. Further guidance is available on the website at http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/117485.aspx or by contacting our National Permitting Team. Please note the following: - There must be no connection to a watercourse or land drainage system from a septic tank. - No part of the private system to be located within 10m of any ditch or watercourse. - No siting of the private system within 50m or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply. If planning permission is secured, then appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase to ensure the protection of controlled waters (surface and groundwaters). It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure no contaminated water or material is allowed to enter and pollute surface or groundwaters. Pollution prevention guidance notes (PPGs) are available from www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/links/107968.aspx. If any controlled waste is to be removed off-site, then a registered waste carrier must be used to convey the waste material off-site to a suitably auth
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0235
PLANS
Design and access statement, site location plan, block plan, flooding information, domestic rainwater harvesting information, maple timber frame information, low energy house loft insulation information, low energy house rigid urethane insulation information received 21st February 2011.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092 WARD: Gorseinon Area 2
Location: Cross Marble and Stone Ltd Gorseinon Road Gorseinon Swansea SA4 9GE Proposal: Construction of 4.No retail units Applicant: Mr David Jeffreys
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee meeting on 30th August 2011 to consider the impact of developing the site given that it is currently an eyesore and to assess the highway access implications of the proposal.
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy SP6 New retail development outside District Centres will not generally be supported.
Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EC4 All new retail development will be assessed against need and other specific criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EC8 The development of new retail warehouses will be directed to suitable locations firstly within and then on the edge of existing centres. Where such sites are not available, suitable locations at established retail parks will be considered. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EC9 Retail development at out of centre locations will be restricted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy AS1 Accessibility - Criteria for assessing location of new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy AS2 Accessibility - Criteria for assessing design and layout of new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092
Policy AS5 Accessibility - Assessment of pedestrian and cyclist access in new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV33 Planning permission will normally only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer or, where this system is inadequate, satisfactory improvements can be provided prior to the development becoming operational. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV34 Development proposals that may impact upon the water environment will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they would not pose a significant risk to the quality and or quantity of controlled waters. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV35 Development that would have an adverse impact on the water environment due to: i) Additional surface water run off leading to a significant risk of flooding on site or an increase in flood risk elsewhere; and/or, ii) A reduction in the quality of surface water run-off. Will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that appropriate alleviating measures can be implemented. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal LV/88/0648/03 ALTERATION TO FRONT ELEVATION IN CARPORT Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 05/01/1989
LV/91/0551/11 CHANGE OF USE TO INCLUDE RETAIL AND FURNITURE CARPETS FURNITURE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 02/01/1992
LV/94/0290/03 RECLADDING OF EXISTING RETAIL SHOP Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 22/09/1994
LV/87/0049/01 DEMOLITION OF J B FURS BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF NEW RETAIL WAREHOUSING Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 01/01/2001
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
Application advertised on site and in local press as a development not in accordance with the provisions of the development plan. No response.
Environment Agency Wales – OBJECT to the proposal in the absence of a detailed drainage scheme.
Countryside Council for Wales - NO OBJECTION
Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – NO OBJECTION subject to standard conditions.
Health and Safety Executive – The development location is within the Consultation Distance of the Notified Hazardous Installation of 3M UK Ltd. and Brisco Williams Ltd. However HSE does not advise on safety grounds against the granting of planning permission in this case.
Gorseinon Community Council – No response.
Highway Observations – This proposal is for the demolition of the industrial unit and redevelopment to 4 retail units totalling 1,240 Sq M Gross at J47 Retail Park, which is located at the junction of Hospital Road with Gorseinon Road, Gorseinon.
There are two accesses to the site currently, one on Gorseinon Road, approximately 50m from the mini roundabout junction and another at the roundabout itself. This is the main road from Penllergaer and Junction 47 of the M4 down into Gorseinon and beyond and therefore carries a relatively high volume of traffic. The current retail development on the adjacent site whose access is over 100m away from the mini roundabout does on occasion present difficulties for customers entering and leaving the premises due to the high volumes of traffic. I am concerned that a retail development at this location, with the standard of access indicated will result in a level of additional turning movements that cannot be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of traffic at that location.
I recommend that the application is refused on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the traffic movements and parking demand generated by the development can satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity.
APPRAISAL
The application is reported to committee for determination at the request of Councillor Wendy Fitzgerald to consider the application in light of the adjacent J47 Retail Park.
Full planning permission is sought for the erection of four attached retail units on the site formerly occupied by Cross Marble and Stone Ltd. on the northern side of Gorseinon Road within the Garngoch Industrial Estate. The existing building is located some 550- 600m outside the Gorseinon Shopping Centre within the Gorseinon Road/Garngoch Industrial Estate employment area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092
The use of the former building is defined as a retail warehouse i.e. a large single storey retail outlet, normally of 10,000 sq.ft (930m²) gross or more, specialising in the sale of bulky household goods (furniture, carpets and electrical goods) and offering free adjacent ground level car parking.
The site lies within an established industrial area which is bisected by the A4240 which is a busy arterial route linking the urban areas of Gorseinon and Penllergaer and leading to Junction 47 of the M4. Neighbouring outlets bordering the site include a parade of three retail outlets including Farm foods, Pound Stretcher and Pets Ahead constructed under planning permission reference (2003/2327 dated 6th May 2004), now known as J47 Retail Park. Kicks Fitness Centre is immediately east with the 3M complex some 130m further east. D.W.W Fencing and Gowerton Concrete Building Merchants to the north and Bako Wales further to the west.
The previous retail warehouse amounting to some 1275m² of floorspace has already been demolished and the proposal seeks consent for the construction of four smaller attached units amounting to 1263m² of retail floorspace, on roughly the same footprint as the previous building.
The units are identical in design to the three existing neighbourng units, single storey and sub-divided internally creating four separate retail units with the floorspace distributed fairly evenly. Although external finishes are not specified, in order to match the adjoining shops a combination of ‘buff’ colour facing brick and coloured steel cladding to the elevations and a colour coated profiled galvanized steel cladding to the roof would be sought. The front (south) elevation would feature four separate steel-framed entrance canopies with provision above each canopy for high level signage. The overall scale, siting design and external appearance of the proposed building is considered visually acceptable and is considered to relate satisfactorily to the surrounding area.
There are two accesses to the site currently, one on Gorseinon Road, approximately 50m from the mini roundabout junction and another at the roundabout itself. This is the main road from Penllergaer and Junction 47 of the M4 down into Gorseinon and beyond and therefore carries a relatively high volume of traffic. The current retail development on the adjacent site whose access is over 100m away from the mini roundabout does on occasion present difficulties for customers entering and leaving the premises due to the high volumes of traffic. The Head of Transportation and Engineering is concerned that a retail development at this location, with the standard of access indicated will result in a level of additional turning movements that cannot be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of traffic at that location.
The Head of Transportation and Engineering recommends that the application is refused on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the traffic movements and parking demand generated by the development can be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity.
Further issues to be considered concern the suitability of this site for the proposed retail uses, having regard to prevailing Development Plan Polices. These are directed towards maintaining and strengthening the established shopping structure in the area, and consolidating the convenience goods shopping centre at Gorseinon District Centre, whilst allowing consideration of small scale shopping development where necessary to meet local community needs. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092
Retail developments on established industrial land are generally resisted, with specific exceptions where other development plan objectives are not prejudiced.
One of the Assembly Government’s objectives for retailing and town centres is to promote town, district, local and village centres as the most appropriate locations for retailing. Planning Policy Wales states that when determining an application for retail use Local Planning Authorities should take into account, amongst other things; the need for the development, the sequential approach to site selection and the impact upon existing centres. The sequential approach means that the first preference should be for town centre locations followed by edge-of-centre, then district and local centres and, then only, out-of-centre sites accessible by a choice of means of transport. The onus of proof that options have been assessed using the sequential approach rests with the developer.
Strategic Policy SP6 of Part 1 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan states that new retail development that is best located within the City Centre District or Local Centres will not generally be supported at out-of-town centre sites. Additional edge of centre shopping should be restricted to that which would not prejudice established shopping centres. Policies EC4 and EC9 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan Part 2 presume against the establishment or expansion of retail outlets outside defined shopping centres, thereby supporting the aim of improving and strengthening the role of established centres which is supported by recent National Guidance. The proposal is clearly contrary to Policies EC4 and EC9 as it would result in the introduction of four retail units in an out of centre location which would be best located within a town centre and as such the proposal would not contribute to the aims of either National Guidance or established Development Plan Policy which seek to support and improve existing shopping centres.
The applicant has not attempted to demonstrate a local need for the retail development at this particular location and the application site is located in an industrial estate outside the defined residential settlement limits of Gorseinon and Penllergaer and is likely to cater primarily for car-borne shoppers. Furthermore, in respect of this out-of-centre location, no evidence has been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that a sequential test for retail development has been applied in this case. Government planning policy guidance recommends that a sequential approach should be followed when considering out-of- centre retail development, to demonstrate that firstly there are no central locations and secondly edge-of-centre sites which are preferable, being more suitable viable and available than the proposed out-of-centre site.
The Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) requires that applications should be determined in accordance with development plan policy unless there are material considerations, which outweigh that policy. The proposed new retail units would provide a visual enhancement to the area and the site has an established use as a retail warehouse. However, it is not considered that this justifies departing from the adopted retail polices aimed at retaining and consolidating the established shopping structure of the area. Moreover to approve the application would establish an undesirable precedent for the consideration of similar applications for retail development, particularly within the Garngoch Industrial Estate which would undermine the vitality, attractiveness and viability of the nearby existing shopping centre. The applicant has been advised that more favourable consideration would be given to the development of the site for a retail warehouse development restricted to the sale of bulky household goods/DIY which would not compete directly with the range of convenience and comparison goods available in the nearby Gorseinon Centre. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092
However, he wished the application to be considered on the basis of unrestricted retail sales. Refusal is recommended therefore on the grounds that the proposal conflicts with established Policies aimed at strengthening the role of the Gorseinon District Shopping Centre.
Notwithstanding all of the above the site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea, as the competent authority, is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.
Environment Agency Wales has raised concern in relation to the potential impact of this proposal on water quality, and has requested a detailed drainage scheme be submitted prior to the determination of the application. In this particular case, given the overriding planning objections to the scheme detailed above, it has not been considered reasonable to request the submission of a full site drainage plan and full surface water management plan, however, this does not negate the need for such information in the event that planning permission were to be given.
Whilst some drainage information has been submitted, the TLSE has been undertaken and concludes that this is insufficient to enable the Authority to conclude that the development will not have a significant effect on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment area.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE, for the following reasons:
1 The proposed development would result in the establishment of a significant retail development within a primarily industrial area outside of the established Gorseinon District Shopping Centre and would be contrary to strategic Policy SP6 and Policies EC4 and EC9 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 which aim to improve and strengthen the role of this established centre.
2 The approval and formation of this retail development within the Garngoch Industrial Estate would establish an undesirable precedent for the consideration of applications for development of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would result in the sporadic development of retail units outside the district shopping centres, for which there is no proven local need and which would undermine the future vitality and attractiveness of those centres contrary to the aims of Policies SP6, EC4 and EC9 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0092
3 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the traffic movements and parking demand generated by the development can be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the safe and free flow of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity, contrary to Policies EV1 and AS6 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.
4 The applicant has failed to provide evidence that the proposal would not on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment have a significant adverse effect upon the integrity of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS) contrary to Policies EV33, EV34 and EV35 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies SP6, EV1, EV2, EC4, EC8, EC9, AS1, AS2, AS5, AS6, EV33, EV34, EV35 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
2 Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires the competent authority, in this case the City and County of Swansea to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of all projects which alone or in combination with other projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a protected European Site, in this case the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Marine Site (CBEEMS), before granting planning permission for any such project. This application comprises development which drains into the catchment area of the CBEEMS and which may, in combination with other projects, have a significant effect on this European Site. However, the information required to enable an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken has not been sought as planning permission is not being granted by the Council in this case and it is not considered necessary to do so in these circumstances.
PLANS
Drawing No 01 Existing layout, 02 Existing section, front and rear elevations and location plan, 03 Proposed l floor plan and section, 04 Proposed elevations, 05 Site/Block plan, Design and Access Statement : Received 13th April 2011
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2
Location: Tircoch Isaf Farm Llanmorlais Swansea SA4 3UQ Proposal: Construction of an agricultural stock barn Applicant: Mr M Rees
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
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 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)
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 – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2006/1917 Retention and completion of storage building Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 24/05/2007
2002/0946 Construction of detached garage/store Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 16/08/2002
98/0238 ALTERATION AND CONVERSION OF BARNS TO PROVIDE AGRICULTURAL WORKERS DWELLING AND 2 NO SELF CONTAINED HOLIDAY COTTAGES Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 07/04/1999
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The application was advertised on site and seven individual properties were consulted.
1. There is no one by the name of Mr M Rees according to the land Registry. 2. The Certificate is wrong as part of the land edged red belongs to my client. 3. The stock barn will be within 150ft of the holiday cottages and if it is necessary should be placed at the bottom end of the farm away from Tir Coch Isaf farmhouse which lies within 180 ft of the proposed stock barn. 4. The current agriculture building has been erected without planning permission. 5. The existing and proposed building would have the cumulative effect of creating a dense range of large buildings. 6. 32 tractors could be housed in the proposed building – the farm has one tractor. 7. The farm has an existing farm building partly used for the storage of animals and fencing materials. 8. The description has been changed and is misleading. Is it for livestock or storage? 9. The applicant runs a fencing business and it is hoped that there are no ulterior motives to use this building in connection with that business. 10. The justification for the building must be judged against the size of the building as the farm only has 40 grazing cattle. 11. The council must be satisfied that he building is necessary for the current agricultural business. 12. There is potential for nuisance from the building of adjoining residential properties. 13. The applicant has not considered the possible effects of the disposal of slurry and silage from the site. 14. It is clear that there are a number of overriding reasons why the proposed building does not meet local or national policy. 15. There is an existing building on site that has been erected without planning permission. 16. The building is fully enclosed there would be no ventilation for the livestock housed within. 17. I would expect the DAS to detail the existing farming business enterprises. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192
18. There is no indication as to how the existing buildings are used. 19. There is a belief that there is only 70 acres owned by the Rees family not 180.
The Gower Society – comments as follows:
1. We note that there is a significant amount of land associated with this application. 2. In the AONB, such a building could be in a prominent position in the open countryside although we note that it is within the confines of an existing complex. 3. If allowed, there be a full appraisal of its size, impact and proven need.
The Gower Society further comments:
1. In our previous letter, we stated that there appeared to be a considerable amount of land associated with this proposal. This statement, we are advised, may be incorrect and requires a detailed checking. 2. We were under the impression, when making our inspection that the proposal was within an existing farm complex. However, the plan on the original application was misinterpreted by our searchers – part of this complex was inaccurately shown and we are told is not in the applicant’s ownership. 3. We are concerned about the close proximity of this structure to Tircoch Isaf Farmhouse. We ask that you take note of our paragraph 3 in our March letter where we stated that should be a full appraisal of its size, impact and proven need. 4. With regard to proven need, we are advised that there us already at least one large structure on this farm and that the application may not be proposing to use this shed in connection with Tir Coed Isaf, but in order to carry out an independent fencing contractor’s business. This should be thoroughly investigated. 5. It is clear to us that when we carried out the initial planning search in March of this year, we were not in possession of all the relevant information. 6. If there is a proven agricultural need for this structure to be on the land holding upon which it is situated, then we have no grounds for objection, but we remain most concerned re its impact on its neighbourhood and the AONB. 7. If the structure is proven to be legitimately needed, then it should be positioned well away from Tircoch Isaf Farmhouse.
Countryside Council for Wales – No objection.
Highway Observations – No objection
Pollution Control – No objection/conditions.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order to consider the agricultural justification for another barn at this location.
Full planning permission is sought for the construction of an agricultural stock barn a Tircoch-Isaf Farm, Llanmorlais. The building would measure 22.86m x 12.19m with an overall maximum height of 5.518m. It would be sited to the east of the existing detached agricultural building and would have a grey fibre cement roof and the elevations would be clad in green box profile sheeting. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192
The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposed building upon the visual amenities of the area and the wider AONB as well as its impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties having regard to the relevant policies of the prevailing development plan.
Policies EV1, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13, EC14 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 are the most relevant to the consideration of this planning application. Policy EV1 refers to new developments according with objectives of good design and sensitively relate to existing development patterns and protect natural heritage. Policy EV22 refers to the countryside being protected for its own sake and Policy EV26 refers to the Gower AONB and the primary objective to conserve and enhance its natural beauty. Policy EV21 refers to non residential development in the open countryside and that it would only be permitted where it is beneficial for the rural economy or employment. Policy EC13 states that developments that would result in the loss of the best agricultural land will not normally be permitted. Policy EC14 specifically refers to agricultural development that require planning permission should be sensitively sited and designed and for those to accommodate livestock, will normally be permitted except where residential amenity or environmental quality would be affected or compromised.
Comments have been made that the proposed building is not for agricultural purposes but will be used in connection with the applicant’s fencing business. The application however, has been made for an agricultural building to “accommodate the immediate and future needs of the business to expand and grow the business”. The application has always acknowledged that the proposed building will be to house livestock and as such, the application must be taken at face value and there is no immediate evidence of a timber business being run from the site, irrespective of the comments made by the objector. If the building, if approved, is not used for agricultural purposes, it would be unlawful and enforced against. Comments have also been made that the applicant himself does not own the land but he resides on the farm in a caravan, which has been on site for many years. In addition, he is the son of Mr and Mrs Rees who live at Forest Cottage, and which is included within the blue line area of the site location plan.
The building would be sited approximately 50m from the rear boundary of the nearest property at Tircoch-Isaf Farm House but would be within 3m of the boundary with their field to the rear of the house, which does not form part of their residential curtilage. In addition, the neighbours have a large outbuilding within this field which will shield the development to some extent from their rear garden. It is considered that therefore that whilst some impact would be experienced by the occupiers of Tircoch-Isaf Farm House in terms of noise and disturbance, it would not be to an extent that would warrant a recommendation on this issue alone. Indeed, it would be something that would be expected when living next to a working farm. In addition, the Head of Environmental Management and Protection raises no objection to the building, its use or its siting.
In terms of drainage associated with the proposed building the DAS indicates that all surface water will be disposed of to soakaways, although no mention is made of foul water associated with slurry. In this respect it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring all such details to be agreed before development commences.
The proposed building would be site in close proximity to an existing building on site and notwithstanding the fact that it is unauthorised, it would be grouped with other buildings to minimise any visual impact upon the landscape. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192
It is considered that the siting, scale and design of the building would not appear unacceptably prominent or incongruous within the wider landscape, and would not therefore have an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenities of the AONB. It is recognised that the existing building on site is unauthorised but it did replace another building that was previously on the site in the same location. This matter is however, being investigated by the Enforcement Section.
In light of the comments made by the objectors, the applicant’s agent completed an Agricultural Questionnaire. Within this questionnaire, it is stated that the farm comprises of 180 acres with 60 acres conserved for hay and has a total of 180 head of beef cattle. It also states that between 60-80+ hours are worked on the farm and that 10-20 hours are spent on fencing. There are also holiday cottages on site which have been put into former barns. The justification for the building is “to increase beef yield by overwintering to provide slaughter animals rather than store”. It is considered therefore that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed building is necessary for the purposes of agriculture.
It is acknowledged that the main objector is adamant that the development would not be used for agricultural purposes and that the farm is not as active as the applicants contend that it is. However, the Local Planning Authority has to consider all applications on the information that is submitted to them and has taken reasonable care to assess the situation at the site. Therefore, unless it is proven otherwise and whilst the comments made are noted, it would be unreasonable for the scheme to be refused on these grounds.
In conclusion therefore, and having regard to all material considerations, on balance, the proposed agricultural building is an acceptable form of development at this location that complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13, EC14 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 The building hereby approved shall be used solely for agricultural purposes (as defined by Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) in association with the holding. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that no inappropriate use is introduced into this countryside location, and to protect the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192
3 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
4 Notwithstanding details of external finishes submitted with the application, samples of 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 of the area and in the interests of protecting the sensitive landscape character of the Gower AONB.
5 Development shall not commence until details of foul, surface and land drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into beneficial use until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13, EC14
2 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 is in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird You are advised that any clearance of trees, shrubs, scrub (including gorse and bramble) or empty buildings should not be undertaken during the bird nesting season, 1st March - 31st August and that such action may result in an offence being committed.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192
3 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
PLANS
1210/TI/02 site plan, proposed front, side & rear elevations with roof plan, proposed floor plan and east elevation received 11th February 2011. Amended plan 1210/TI/01A site location plan, received 7th April 2011
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2
Location: 11 William Gammon Drive Mumbles, Swansea SA3 4HR Proposal: Alterations to roof design incorporating increase in eaves and ridge height with the addition of three front dormer windows and rear dormer extension Applicant: Mr Gary Cairns
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 95/0144 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (OUTLINE) Decision: *HWD - WITHDRAWN Decision Date: 02/03/1995
2004/1532 Construction of 42 dwellings (details of siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping, pursuant to condition 01 outline planning permission 2001/1035 granted on 14th August 2001) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 16/11/2004
2001/1035 Residential Development (Outline) (Council Development Regulation 4) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/08/2001
2004/1744 Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act to vary the conditions under the development permitted by the outline planning permission 2001/1035 with regard to the following condition 04 (completion of development before occupation), condition 06 (means of enclosure), condition 10 (footpath link), condition 11 (landscape management plan), condition 12 (hedgerow retention) Decision: Approve Conditional (S73) Decision Date: 14/09/2004 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The neighbouring properties were consulted individually. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received. Their content is summarised below:
1. The proposed dormer windows would directly impact upon our privacy 2. The increased height would partially block our view 3. The proposal would have a negative impact upon parking
Mumbles Community Council: OBJECTS for the following reason;
1. Visual aspect and overlooking local houses and out of keeping with local building.
Highways Observations – The additional living space proposed does not include for any more bedrooms. Therefore in this instance parking requirements are unaltered. No objections.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Tony Colburn in order to assess the impact of the development on the site and surroundings.
Full planning permission is sought for an increase in eaves height with an associated increase at the ridge, with three dormer window extensions to the front roof plane and a dormer roof extension to the rear roof plane. The dwelling may be characterised as a flat above a garage. The unit currently comprises a ground floor consisting of 3 No. garages two of which are in separate ownership and a first floor providing the principle living accommodation with a height to the eaves of approximately 5.0 metres and 7.4 to the ridge. The proposal would see the floor area of the available living accommodation increased from 50.7 m2 to 94.7 m2.
The estate development in which the dwelling is located was granted consent under planning application Ref:2001/1035 the detail of which was considered under application Ref:2004/1532. The site is one of three Flat Over Garage Units. The site boundaries approved under these previous consents show a more restricted boundary than that indicated by the site location plan provided under the current application.
When measured on the front elevation the proposal would see the eaves height increased from 5.1 metres to approximately 5.8 metres with an associated increase in ridge height from 7.35 metres to approximately 8.1 metres. In addition to this the hipped roof would be redesigned to incorporate gables to the north west and south east facing roof planes.
Three dormer window extensions would be located on the south west facing roof plane with a dormer roof extension located on the north east facing roof plane. The rear elevation of the rear dormer roof extension would be extensively glazed to below eaves height consistent with the internal floor level. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479
With the exception of the front dormer windows the proposal is similar to a previous proposal that was submitted to the Local Planning Authority under the Pre Application Advice process. The applicant was advised that the scheme as proposed would be unlikely to gain a favourable recommendation at officer level in respect of both visual and residential amenity impacts.
A lengthy period of negotiation has been undertaken with the agent for the proposed scheme, which saw several variations proposed that would have incorporated a reduction in the scale of the dormer additions and maintenance of the existing eaves height. However after careful consideration the agent has instructed the Local Planning Authority to progress the application as originally submitted.
The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider.
In terms of visual amenity the front elevation would be visible from vantage points along William Gammon Drive and the circulation/parking area located to the front of the application site. The rear elevation of the building to which the application relates would, given its prominent location be widely visible from public vantage points in the surrounding area. The increase in eaves height in combination with the gabling of the side roof planes and the construction of a large rear dormer roof extension would it is considered give rise to a visually incongruous form of development that would be detrimental to the character of the building and to the area in which it is located.
The proposed front dormer additions serve to dominate the front roof plane and being constructed off the wall plate brings them into conflict with the provisions of section 5.6 of the Design Guide for Householder Development. Whilst they are set slightly below ridge height, the three dormer roof extensions are considered to give rise to a top heavy cluttered form of development that is at odds with the overall character of the estate in which the building is located. It is acknowledged that buildings in the vicinity may have dormer roof extensions but it is considered that these additions punctuate largely unaltered rooflines and as such they do not constitute the overriding character of the area.
The rear dormer roof addition would occupy the majority of the rear roof plane with the rear facing elevation being predominantly glazed. The rear elevation of the dormer would extend below the eaves height by approximately 0.7 metres and be approximately 0.5 metres below the ridge of the host property. It is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed alteration fails to respect the character of the dwelling and as such would have an adverse visual impact on both the host property and the street scene to which it relates.
Turning to residential amenity, the rear amenity area serving No.17 William is located approximately 10.0 metres to the west of the application site and whilst the existing first floor level is not considered to give rise to any adverse overlooking impacts the introduction of an additional level is considered to give rise to overlooking impacts in respect of the rear of No.17 William Gammon Drive. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479
To the rear of the application site the proposed rear dormer extension would afford views over the rear amenity areas of several properties fronting onto Plunch Lane. Whilst it is noted that the properties are separated by an area of scrub land, and garages serving properties in Plunch Lane with separation distances of approximately 20.0 metres to the rear boundaries of these properties it is not considered that the proposal would result in a loss of privacy in respect of these properties.
In addition to the above it is considered that the increase in eaves height and the gabling of the roof would introduce an overbearing form of development in respect of No.9 William Gammon Drive that would give rise to an oppressive outlook from the windows located in the front elevation of this property detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of this property.
The additional living space proposed does not include for any more bedrooms therefore in this instance parking requirements are unaltered and there are no highway objections.
In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an unsatisfactory form of development which fails to comply with current development plan 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 unacceptable impact on the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and area in which it is situated and the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Refusal is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE, for the following reasons:
1 The proposed alterations would present as a dominant, visually incongruous additions to the host building that fails to relate sufficiently well to the character or proportions of the host building contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and Supplementary Planning Guidance A Design Guide for Householder Development.
2 The proposed front dormer roof extensions would give rise to an unacceptable increase in overlooking with regard to the rear amenity area serving No.17 William Gammon Drive contrary to the provisions of Policy EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and Supplementary Planning Guidance A Design Guide for Householder Development.
3 The proposed roof alterations with associated increase in eaves and ridge height would present as an overbearing structure giving rise to an oppressive outlook in respect of No.9 William Gammon Drive, having a negative impact upon the levels of residential amenity currently enjoyed by that property contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and Supplementary Planning Guidance A Design Guide for Householder Development.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, HC7 and Supplementary Planning Guidance A Design Guide for Householder Development.
2 The boundary indicated on the site location plan has not formed any part of the consideration of this application.
PLANS site plan, AL (99) 01existing and proposed floor plans, AL (99) 02 existing elevations, AL (99) 03 proposed elevations, 3d perspective front elevation, 3d perspective front elevation, 3d perspective rear elevation, 3d perspective rear elevation, Design and Access Statement received 4th April 2011
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0564 WARD: Newton Area 2
Location: Land adjacent to 26 Highpool Lane. Newton, Swansea SA3 4TX Proposal: Detached dwelling with integral garage Applicant: Mr & Mrs B Garnet Jones
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (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 EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy HC2 Housing development within the urban area will be supported where the site has been previously developed, its development does not conflict with other policies, does not result in ribbon development, and the coalescence of settlements, overintensive development, loss of residential amenity, adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, loss of urban green space, harm to highway safety, adverse effects to landscape, natural heritage, security and personal safety, infrastructure capacity, and the overloading of community facilities and services. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2010/0147 Four detached dwellings and associated works Allowed at Appeal 06/12/10
2010/1767 Detached dwelling with associated access works Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/02/2011
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0564
2011/0715 Detached dwelling Decision: Officer Consideration Decision Date: 12/08/2011
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
ORIGINAL SCHEME
TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received which are summarised as follows:
1. The original plan had several small first floor windows to help maintain our privacy however the new plans have seven first floor windows which will look directly into our rear ground floor bedroom windows. 2. We will have no privacy in our back garden. 3. If a new hedge is planted we would not want it to be the conifer variety which will block out our light and cause problems for our garage. 4. On a new estate I observed that while the houses are close to each other none of them directly overlooked each other so everyone’s privacy has been maintained. 5. The two storey building is so close to my boundary, I am concerned it will restrict the light considerably on my single storey property and invade my privacy.
AMENDED SCHEME (where dormers were removed from the garage roof slope)
ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION was received re-iterating previous concerns.
Mumbles Community Council – No objection
Highways Observations - The principle of this development has already been granted outline consent. Access is to be gained via a shared private drive from Highpool Lane. The access will conform to recommended standards for shared private drives.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Miles Thomas in order to consider the overlooking impact of the proposal.
Full planning permission is sought for a detached dwelling at 26 Highpool Lane, Newton. The site has planning permission for 4 dwellings that was allowed on appeal – 2010/0147 refers. The dwelling is larger than that previously approved on this plot and would measure 12.6m x 9.2m with an eaves height of 4.2m and an overall gable roof height of 8.4m. The previously approved dwelling measured 11.6m x 8.7m with a maximum overall height of 7.8m. The proposed dwelling would have a slate roof with rendered walls.
The main issues to be considered therefore is the impact of the current scheme on the visual and residential amenities of the area having regards to the requirements of Polices EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and having regard to the fall back situation offered by the previous approval. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0564
Policy EV1 refers to developments according with the objectives of good design, Policy EV2 refers to preference being given to the use of previously developed land over greenfield sites, having regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. Policy HC2 states that housing development in the urban area will be supported subject to specified criteria.
In terms of visual amenity, the siting, scale and design of the proposed dwelling, whilst maintaining some elements of the previously approved house e.g. the cat slide roof features, does differ in that the window openings have increased, the main body of the house is higher and the side addition is both wider and higher. However, notwithstanding this, the redesigned dwelling is still considered an acceptable form of development at this location that would not appear as a cramped form of development or a discordant feature within the area. In addition, the proposed materials of rendered walls and grey slate roof are considered acceptable and appropriate at this location.
The siting of the proposed dwelling would allow approximately 14m to the rear boundary with nos. 2 and 4 Highmead Avenue which exceeds the recognised distance of 10m to prevent unacceptable loss of privacy. Despite the increase in numbers of windows to the rear, these windows serve the same number of rooms as the previously approved scheme. It is recognised that the proposed dwelling would be 0.6m higher that than the previously approved dwelling on the site but this is considered to be a modest increase which would not create any unacceptable overbearing physical impact for surrounding occupiers. Whilst the side addition to the dwelling is wider and higher than previously approved, it is not considered that this element would result in loss of light or overbearing physical impact upon the occupiers of no.5 Highmead Close to an extent that would warrant a recommendation of refusal. In addition, the removal of the dormers in the roof plan of this side addition also reduces the physical impact that may have been caused and prevents any loss of privacy for the occupiers of no.5 Highmead Close.
With regards to loss of light, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would unduly impact upon the property at no.5 Highmead Close significantly over and above the dwelling that was previously approved.
With regards to the issue of highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection as the access will conform to recommended standards for shared private drives.
Turning to the issues raised by the objectors, they have been addressed above in the main body of the report.
In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations and on balance, the proposed dwelling, although difference to that previously approved on the site is still an acceptable form of development at this location which complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0564
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to 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.
4 The dwelling(s) shall be constructed to achieve a minimum of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve a minimum of 1 credit under category "Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate" in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. Reason: In the interests of sustainability.
5 The construction of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted and any external works shall not begin until an "Interim Certificate" has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 3) and a minimum of 1 credit under "Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate", has been achieved in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Technical Advice Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). Reason: In the interests of sustainability.
6 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes "Final certificate" shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Level 3) and a minimum of 1 credit under "Ene1 – Dwelling Emission Rate", has been achieved in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes; Technical Advice Guide (November 2010 - Version 3). Reason: In the interests of sustainability.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0564
7 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the position, design, material and type of boundary treatment to be erected. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the occupation the dwelling and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of visual and general amenity.
8 The dwelling shall not be occupied until that part of the service road which provides access to it has been constructed hard surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interest of highway safety
9 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, HC2, EV3, AS6.
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 in the roof of this building please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.
4 To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System, foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.
5 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment, no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0564
6 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.
7 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.
PLANS
Design and Access Statement, L(90)01 site plan and block plan received 20th April 2011. Amended plans: L(99)01 proposed floor plans, front and rear elevations, L(99)02 proposed side elevations and section received 11th July 2011
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869 WARD: Newton Area 2
Location: The Spinney Caswell Road Caswell Swansea SA3 4RT Proposal: Addition of first floor and associated increase in ridge height providing accommodation in roof space with two front and one rear dormer, front bay window, front porch and front canopy Applicant: Mr Morton
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description 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 EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
SITE HISTORY
None
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The neighbouring properties were consulted individually. EIGHT LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received in respect of the initial proposal and a further FOUR letters were received in respect of additional information provided by the applicants. One letter of support was also received. The content of this correspondence is summarised below:
1. The proposal will be out of keeping with the character of the area. 2. The proposal will result in a loss of privacy for properties to the rear of the application site. 3. The proposal would result in a loss of view. 4. The proposal would result in a loss of light. 5. The description is wrong this is a three storey building not two storeys with accommodation in the roof space. 6. The proposal will see the increasing urbanisation and encroachment on the unspoilt margins. 7. There is a history of drainage problems in the area these will be exacerbated by the proposal. 8. Several houses in the area have required underpinning and the foundations of the current dwelling will not support the proposed development. 9. The proposal will result in a loss of light compromising solar panels I intend to install in the future. 10. There is a covenant on the site prohibiting the construction of the proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869
11. The trees should be subject to a tree preservation order
The letter of support made the following observations:
1. The proposed changes would improve the visual aspect of the property and the area. 2. The proposal would be more in keeping with the majority of buildings in the area. 3. I hope the application is supported by planners without objection.
Highways Observations – The site is sufficiently large to accommodate in excess of the maximum 3 space requirement for residential dwellings. 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 that the impacts upon residential amenity may be fully considered, particularly in relation to overlooking and overbearing issues.
Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a first floor and associated increase in ridge height providing accommodation in the roof space with two front and one rear dormer, front bay window, front porch and front canopy at The Spinney, Caswell Road, Caswell. The property may be characterised as a single storey bungalow located on the fringe of an established residential area. The property is the only single storey dwelling in the vicinity, Gower Coast Lodge to the front of the application site and No.80 are two storey dwellings as is Somerset Lodge to the north east. The properties to the rear of the application site front onto Havergal Close and are located at a slightly higher level, as the land rises to the north of the application site. The principle property type to be found on Havergal Close is dormer bungalows. The application site is located close to the boundary of the AONB and Bishopston Valley however its proximity to these areas does not raise any additional issues over and above the normal planning considerations.
The proposed scheme would see a first floor added to the existing dwelling which would be finished to a hipped roof. The front elevation would be finished to a central gable to the north of which would be a two storey front bay window. A canopy would run southwards from the central porch to the side elevation of the host dwelling. Three first floor windows would be located on the front elevation overlooking an open street frontage with two dormer windows located on the front roof plane serving accommodation in the roof space.
Four rear facing windows would be located at first floor level, the two smaller centrally located windows would both serve bathrooms with the remaining windows serving bedrooms 2 and 3. One rear facing dormer window would be located in the rear roof plane which would serve the stairwell into the loft area. The proposed dwelling would occupy the extant footprint of the host dwelling.
The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869
In respect of visual amenity the proposed scheme would result in a significant alteration to the existing street scene in so far as the extant unit is a single storey unit which will be modified to form a two storey dwelling. The extant unit is currently the anomaly in the street scene as all other dwellings in the immediate vicinity are two storeys with the exception of those to the rear which are dormer bungalows and located at a slightly higher level. To the rear of the application site there is a large conifer hedge in excess of 3.0 metres in height which obscures views to and from the rear. As such the proposals are considered to be of a scale, design and external appearance that are in keeping with the overall character and appearance of the existing street scene to which they would relate.
Turning to residential amenity given the separation distance in respect of Somerset Lodge it is not considered that any harmful impacts would arise from the proposed scheme. No.80 Caswell Road occupies a position slightly forward of the application site. Given that no new windows are proposed in the first floor side south east facing elevation it is not considered that any overlooking issues will arise in respect of this property. Further to this the separation distances and more northerly position relative to the passage of the sun ensure that no significant adverse overshadowing impact would arise in respect of this property.
The properties to the rear forming Havergal Close occupy a staggered building line to the rear of the application site. The properties No.5 through to No.8 are those that may be considered most likely to be affected by the proposal. In respect of No.8 the plot serving this property is inset in the northern corner of the application site. Tthe proposal will occupy the same footprint as the extant unit and as such would not be any closer to the common boundary than is currently the case. In addition to which it is noted that the dwelling at No.8 Havergal Close is located in excess of 6.0 metres off the common boundary with the application site. Four new windows are proposed at first floor level on the rear elevation. The two central windows would serve bathrooms and as such may be fixed and obscure glazed by condition. The rear facing bedroom windows would be orientated toward the rear of the plot and would reflect the typical arrangement in a residential setting. It is considered that views may be afforded across to No.8 Havergal Close but the angle involved would be so acute that no significant harm would accrue in this regard, it is considered.
The properties located directly to the rear occupy a slightly higher level than the application site with the application dwelling being located approximately 15.0 metres off the rear boundary with a distance of approximately 27.0 metres back to back with the closest dwelling on Havergal Close. It is therefore considered that the first floor windows proposed under the scheme currently before the Local Planning Authority comply with the provisions of the Design Guide for Householder Development and as such it is not considered that any unacceptable overlooking impacts will arise.
The rear facing dormer window placed centrally within the rear roof plane serves to provide headroom and lighting to the internal stairwell and is considered to serve internal circulation space and not form part of a habitable room and given the level of use likely it is not considered that any significant overlooking will arise from this proposed addition.
It has been noted that there is a significant conifer hedge to the rear of the application site that currently screens properties to the rear however, notwithstanding its presence, it should be noted that adequate separation distance exists such that the application could not reasonably be refused on this basis alone. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869
It is therefore considered that the proposal would not, given the distance and relationship of the existing surrounding properties introduce any unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties that were sufficiently harmful to warrant a recommendation of refusal.
Those objections raised that are material to the determination of the proposed scheme have been considered in the main body of the report above. The issues raised that fall outside of the remit of the planning process are covered by alternative legislation and have not formed part of decision making process in respect of the proposed scheme.
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 has an acceptable impact on the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and area in which it is situated and the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Approval is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 The first floor bathroom windows in the north west and north east facing elevations, as indicated on Plan No: P06 Rev A dated 17th June 2011 shall be obscure glazed, and unopenable except for a fan light and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application:EV1, HC7
2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869
3 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. If evidence of bats is encountered during site clearance, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).
4 Birds may be present in the roof of this building please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.
PLANS
P01- Rev A-existing ground floor plan, P02-Rev A- existing elevations, P04-Rev A- site location plan, P05-Rev A- proposed floor plans, P06-Rev A- proposed elevations received 17th June 2011. Additional plans: P07 - A -street elevations, P08 A - side elevations received 22nd July 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 IE Jones Ceinwen Thomas Erika T Kirchner Des W W Thomas
Conservative Councillors: Anthony C S Colburn C Miles R W D Thomas Margaret Smith
Communities of Swansea Councillor: Mair E Gibbs Glyn Seabourne
Copies Needed - 100