CITY AND COUNTY OF

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

At: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, SWANSEA

On: Tuesday 25 October 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 27 September 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 18 October 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 27 SEPTEMBER 2011 AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor D P Tucker (Chairman) presided

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

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

39. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A M Day, M E Gibbs, M H Jones, E T Kirchner, R J Lloyd, P M Matthews and N J Tregoning.

40. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

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

Councillor R D Lewis - Personal - Items 1 and 2 - 2010/1101 and 2010/1102 - my daughter’s wedding is to be held there and will withdraw.

41. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 30 August 2011 be agreed as a correct record.

42. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL

(1) NOTED that the undermentioned planning applications be DEFERRED/WITHDRAWN for the reasons outlined below:

(Item 1) Application No. 2010/1101

Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1 November 2010 to 31 March 2011, 1 November 2011 to 31 March 2012 and 1 November 2012 to 31 March 2013 at land at Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (27.09.2011) Cont’d

Reason

To enable officers the opportunity to consider additional late financial information supplied by the applicant.

(Item 2) Application No. 2010/1102

Temporary siting of marquee, associated overspill car park and associated landscaping from 1 April 2011 to 31 October 2011, 1 April 2012 to 31 October 2012, 1 April 2013 to 31 October 2013 and 1 April 2014 to 31 October 2014 at land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea.

Reason

To enable officers the opportunity to consider additional late financial information submitted by the applicant.

(Item 8) Application No. 2011/0192

Construction of an agricultural stock barn at Tircoch Isaf Farm, Llanmorlais, Swansea.

Reason

To enable further consideration to be given to the residential amenity impacts associated with the proposal.

(2) RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning applications to be DEFERRED/WITHDRAWN for the reasons outlined below:

(Item 7) Application No. 2011/0092

Construction of 4 no. retail units at Cross Marble and Stone Ltd. Gorseinon Road, Gorseinon, Swansea.

Reason

To give the applicant the opportunity to submit additional information to address the highway concerns and need for retail/sequential assessments.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (27.09.2011) Cont’d

43. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS

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

(Item 9) Application No. 2011/0479

Alterations to roof design incorporating increase in eaves and ridge height with the addition of three front dormer windows and rear dormer extension at 11 William Gammon Drive, , Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area and on neighbouring residents.

(Item 10) Application No. 2011/0564

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

Reason

To assess the overlooking impact of the development.

(Item 11) Application No. 2011/0869

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 at The Spinney, Caswell Road, Caswell, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the overlooking and overbearing impact of the development.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (27.09.2011) Cont’d

44. 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 outlined below by (#).

RESOLVED that:

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

(#) (Item 3) Application No. 2010/1387

Three detached dwellings with integral garages at land to the rear of 2 Road, , Swansea.

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

Mrs F Reynolds (objector) addressed the Committee.)

(#) (Item 4) Application No. 2011/0825

Two storey rear extension, single storey side extension and glazed link extension at Oakley, .

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

• A late letter of objection was reported.

• Mr Harris (agent) addressed the Committee.)

(Item 5) Application No. 2011/0243

Conversion of existing garage to living accommodation (variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission 2005/0146 granted on 19 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, .

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (27.09.2011) Cont’d

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

Mr I Pearce (applicant) addressed the Committee.)

(#) (Item 6) Application No. 2011/0235

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

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

The meeting ended at 3.10 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 27 September 2011 (GB/EJF) 27 September 2011

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: 25TH OCTOBER 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 2011/0564 Land adjacent to 26 Highpool Lane. Newton, Swansea APPROVE SA3 4TX Detached dwelling with integral garage

4 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

5 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

6 2010/0332 Mermaid Cottage Caswell Road Caswell Swansea SA3 APPROVE 4RH Replacement detached dwelling house

7 2011/0192 Tircoch Isaf Farm Llanmorlais Swansea SA4 3UQ APPROVE Construction of an agricultural stock barn

8 2010/0914 North Gower Hotel Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EE APPROVE Construction of 14 dwellings (outline)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

9 2010/1708 178 Bishopston Road Bishopston Swansea SA3 3EX APPROVE Two storey side extension incorporating two dormers, part two storey part single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and two front dormers

10 2010/1835 Gelliorllwyn Farm Llanmorlais Swansea SA4 3SX APPROVE Replacement dwelling and conversion of one barn to 3 holiday let units and construction of a detached two storey building to provide 2 holiday let accommodation units

11 2011/0250 Bishopswood Farm Bishopston Swansea SA3 3DW APPROVE Modification of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission 2/1/89/1910/03 granted on 26th April 1991 to permit amendments to Schedule 3 of the agreement to enable the amount of land tied to agricultural purposes to be reduced

12 2011/0366 Penyfro, Penuel, Llanmorlais, Swansea SA4 3UQ REFUSE Removal of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission 89/0557 granted on 2nd December 1991 to remove the agricultural occupancy condition

13 2011/0371 17 Higher Lane Swansea SA3 4NS APPROVE Alterations to existing side porch, replacement rear dormer, raised decking with undercroft parking area and formation of new access

14 2011/0625 Windmill Farm, Llanrhidian, Swansea, SA3 1HB REFUSE Retention of conversion and extension of barns to form wedding venue facility with ancillary accommodation and car park

15 2011/0957 The Seafarer Gower Swansea SA3 1NN REFUSE Retention of one internally illuminated fascia sign and one internally illuminated double sided projecting sign

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

16 2011/0982 27 Mydam Lane Gorseinon Swansea SA4 4YA REFUSE Single storey side extension, first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers

17 2011/0990 2 Frogmore Lane Knelston Gower Swansea APPROVE First floor rear extension

18 2011/1012 11 Glanyrafon Close Penllergaer Swansea SA4 9AS REFUSE Increase in eaves and ridge height of existing side extension

19 2011/1091 2 Malt Hall Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EN APPROVE Retention of single storey side/rear extension and detached garage

20 2011/1093 Land at Wellpark Farm Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU REFUSE Detached dwelling (outline)

21 2011/1108 Leason Farm Leason Swansea SA3 1HB APPROVE Single storey triple garage

22 2011/1221 Oyster Gallery 70-72 Newton Road Mumbles Swansea APPROVE SA3 4BE Part two storey part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension

23 2011/1241 Coombe Cottage, Overton Lane, Port Eynon, Swansea APPROVE SA3 1NR Replacement garage

24 2011/1276 Entrance Gate to Field 0042 Oxwich, Swansea REFUSE Retention of directional sign

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 25TH OCTOBER 2011 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 DC Committee on the 27th September 2011 to enable the officers the opportunity to consider additional late financial information submitted by the applicant. My report has been updated to include this additional information.

In addition, 46 further letters of support have been received from members of the public and local businesses together with additional comments from the Economic Regeneration Section. My report has been updated to include reference to this further correspondence received.

My recommendation of REFUSAL remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

Policy 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 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) AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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)

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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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 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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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

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.

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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

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: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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 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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

Additional letters of support are summarised below:

1. Notwithstanding the exceptional qualities of Gower AONB, every support should be given to local businesses. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

2. The wedding aspect of the business brings considerable income both to the hotel and Swansea area and we feel that the loss of the marquee would be to the detriment of the area and any issues such as the visibility of the marquee could be easily resolved by appropriate camouflage. 3. It is a superb facility and the business is an excellent employer of many people in the surrounding areas. 4. Mr Williams has grown a business that has provided employment for many locals as well as bringing tourist like ourselves to the Gower to spend our money not just at the hotel but at all the other local attractions, pubs and restaurants. 5. We consider it in no way affects the environment and in many ways helps the locality by attracting people who attend the weddings to return. 6. A lot of people will be out of a job if planning consent is not given. 7. The marquee is not a permanent structure and is more attractive that the many acres of caravan that blot much of our coastline. 8. Gower is an important tourist area and the development has been carefully planned and is a super additional facility. 9. Granting all year round planning to the marquee will contribute to the success of the marquee. 10. We cannot afford to lose this landmark enterprise which is a substantial local wealth and employment creator. 11. It is a highly successful local business bringing much needed money in to the area. 12. The owners of the hotel could cover the marquee with some form of green covering and trees could be planted. 13. It begs the question as to whether you want to see the demise of what is the only beachside hotel remaining in Gower. 14. Mr Williams has been very generous with charities and parishioners by allowing them the use of the marquee. 15. Many of the Gower businesses are heavily involved with tourism and the summer months may be profitable but they do not always cover the expenditure of the winter months; diversification and growth are surely in the best interest of local residents and local council. 16. The LPA should give full support to their own policy EC18 of the UDP. 17. Loss of this facility may jeopardise the viability of the hotel and to lose this would be an economic blow to the area. 18. I am impressed with the way the Oxwich Bay Hotel has re-invented itself over the past 5-10 years to cater for the major business of the hotel and people coming into the area with a high spending capacity. 19. If the walls were also olive green and maintained through the year then the structure would blend in with the landscape. 20. The placement of the marquee allows couples to enjoy this fabulous view on their special day. 21. The nurturing of this non-seasonal visitor destination business has been done in a way the perfectly compliments the objectives of the City Councils own tourism strategy. 22. There is no evidence from our members that any of their members have complained about the marquee. 23. There seems to be little support for any initiative which encourages growth in the local economy. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

24. It would be such a shame to see the Oxwich Bay marquee gone when there is such a lack of beautiful hotels in Swansea with such stunning views. 25. The marquee is pivotal for the continuing success of the business and if refused then the business may fail. 26. Gower can’t afford to lose any more hotels. 27. Visitors from the Cambridge area are looking forward to returning to Gower and also encourage friends to visit the area. 28. Saying that the church is in close proximity and the marquee looking at it is very strange as the woods are very dense between the two structures. 29. It is after all a tent providing a tasteful facility in very well landscaped grounds. 30. The controlled and sympathetic developments that have taken place over the years have undoubtedly enhanced the local landscape surrounding the property. 31. A temporary marquee has been located at the above site since 1992 when a firm I was employed by enjoyed the full use of the facilities and a barbeque. 32. The marquee is a huge part of the hotel’s business and refusing the planning would make these people unemployed and at worst there is a possibility that the hotel may close. 33. I am due to get married in the marquee in November 2011 and have had the wedding booked for well over a year and a lot of time effort and money has gone into the preparations and I would be devastated if I could not have my dream day. 34. We don’t find the marquee an eyesore and it certainly has not been detrimental to the view from our home. 35. The Hotel keeps many people employed and brings tremendous amount of business to the area. 36. I disagree with the opine which ignores the crudity of a sprawling blot on the landscape car park ornamented with two extremely large ugly, garish yellow containers adorning a metallic scar that rips across another wise superb stretch of beach. If that is acceptable to service the needs of Gower visitors why then the objection to the delightfully maintained marquee?

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

Economic Regeneration additional comments – “The hotel directly provides a significant number of jobs for local people (over 80 in the past season), and supports other local businesses through its purchasing of supplies and maintenance services. In addition, it attracts large numbers of visitors to Gower (10,000 attending weddings in the hotel this year, with 70% staying in the area), thereby generating additional visitor spend in the local economy and raising the profile of the Gower as a tourist destination.

To try and get some idea of the Hotel’s importance to the local economy I’ve reviewed the latest official ONS ward level employment data. It shows that employment (defined as employees and working proprietors) in the Gower ward stood at 900 in 2010 (although this data excludes agricultural employment). Clearly then, if the Oxwich Bay Hotel employs over 80 people, it is a significant employer in its local area.

The wedding market appears to be essential to the viability of the business, and without the marquee the hotel will not meet the needs of the wedding market. The applicant indicates that 60 jobs would cease to exist at the hotel if they are unable to continue providing wedding facilities in the marquee. In the current economic climate, it is difficult to see where 60 new jobs could be created in the local area to replace those lost at the hotel, and as such it is more important than ever now to try and retain employment whenever possible.

Therefore, given its importance to the local economy I would continue to support the retention of the marquee at the Hotel.”

Tourism Observations - summarised as follows:- AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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, , , 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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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 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 – 25TH OCTOBER 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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

Further Supporting Information has been submitted by the applicant following the deferral of the application from the Area 2 DC Committee in September 2011.

1. “In excess of 150 people are directly dependent upon our business. 2. Local skills are called upon to provide maintenance services essential in the up keep of the hotel fabric e.g. electrician, gardener, painter, builder, carpenter. 3. Bread/dairy products/fish products/meat are all sourced locally. 4. 25 traditional Gower hotels have closed and Swansea Tourism readily acknowledges that diversification has kept us in business. As a family, since 1959, we have a track record of having built the business through re-investment and it is our wish to continue in this manner. 5. The wedding market has changed and it is no longer just two people from the same locality that marry. The result is that people travelling into Gower to attend weddings and this year alone we are on target to service more than ten thousand guests, 70% of whom are booking accommodation in the area. 6. We have already produced figures to your officers that show business trading losses of £103,000 in the months of November 2010 to March 2011. As a result, the business is certainly not moving forward and further investment is almost certainly impossible. 7. At this moment normal hotel bookings are at a poor level the like of which we haven’t experienced in previous years, although the groups of ramblers and bird watchers traditionally seen in the autumn have made tentative enquiries. 8. Support has already been shown of our active participation in the well-being of our community, and being very much a family operation, we would like to see this continue for the people in our area. 9. It has been acknowledged by Economic Regeneration and the Head of Tourism that as a result in market changes many hotel businesses in the area have failed in recent years. We are convinced that we have only been able to keep afloat by diversifying and re-investing in the wedding market. 10. During the past season we have given direct employment to in excess of 80 people, all of whom reside in the area. There is no doubt that if we are unable to continue providing wedding facilities in the marquee at least 60 of these jobs will cease to exist. This concern is confirmed by occupancy levels of 98% in August reducing to 16.7% in November at this moment in time.

In the past 12 months the following has occurred: 13% increase in energy costs 8%increase in insurance 2.5% increase in the minimum wage VAT has increased to 20% 12% decrease in room revenue 40% decrease in daily foot fall due in part to an increase in fuel prices of 16% 77% decrease in capital re-investment November 10 to March 11 business losses increased by 7%, HM Revenue and Customs provided support.

Hotels that have closed Port Eynon Bay Hotel, Culver House Hotel (now self catering) The Springfield Hotel The Hollies Hotel AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

Seabeach Hotel Nicholaston House Hotel Winston Private Hotel (in receivership) Caswell Bay Hotel Langland Court Hotel The Old School House The Langland Bay Hotel The Osbourne Hotel Harbour Winds Hotel St. Anne’s Hotel Mermaid Hotel Brynfield Manor Hotel Heatherslade Bay Hotel Hill Crest Hotel Cefn Goleu Langrove Motel (now health club) Nab Rock Hotel Little Langland (for sale) The North Gower Hotel (pending redevelopment) Ael Y Don Hotel Redcliff Hotel”

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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). 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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 . 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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

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 and the further information submitted by the applicant, 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

The comments in the letters of support are noted but as addressed above the success of the use of the marquee 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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.

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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1101

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 DC Committee on the 27th September 2011 to enable the officers the opportunity to consider additional late financial information submitted by the applicant. My report has been updated to include this additional information.

In addition, 46 further letters of support have been received from members of the public and local businesses together with additional comments from the Economic Regeneration Section. My report has been updated to include reference to this further correspondence received.

My recommendation of REFUSAL remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

Policy 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 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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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)

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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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 Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 27/09/2011

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 begining 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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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

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 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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

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: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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.

Additional letters of support are summarised below:

1. Notwithstanding the exceptional qualities of Gower AONB, every support should be given to local businesses. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

2. The wedding aspect of the business brings considerable income both to the hotel and Swansea area and we feel that the loss of the marquee would be to the detriment of the area and any issues such as the visibility of the marquee could be easily resolved by appropriate camouflage. 3. It is a superb facility and the business is an excellent employer of many people in the surrounding areas. 4. Mr Williams has grown a business that has provided employment for many locals as well as bringing tourist like ourselves to the Gower to spend our money not just at the hotel but at all the other local attractions, pubs and restaurants. 5. We consider it in no way affects the environment and in many ways helps the locality by attracting people who attend the weddings to return. 6. A lot of people will be out of a job if planning consent is not given. 7. The marquee is not a permanent structure and is more attractive that the many acres of caravan that blot much of our coastline. 8. Gower is an important tourist area and the development has been carefully planned and is a super additional facility. 9. Granting all year round planning to the marquee will contribute to the success of the marquee. 10. We cannot afford to lose this landmark enterprise which is a substantial local wealth and employment creator. 11. It is a highly successful local business bringing much needed money in to the area. 12. The owners of the hotel could cover the marquee with some form of green covering and trees could be planted. 13. It begs the question as to whether you want to see the demise of what is the only beachside hotel remaining in Gower. 14. Mr Williams has been very generous with charities and parishioners by allowing them the use of the marquee. 15. Many of the Gower businesses are heavily involved with tourism and the summer months may be profitable but they do not always cover the expenditure of the winter months; diversification and growth are surely in the best interest of local residents and local council. 16. The LPA should give full support to their own policy EC18 of the UDP. 17. Loss of this facility may jeopardise the viability of the hotel and to lose this would be an economic blow to the area. 18. I am impressed with the way the Oxwich Bay Hotel has re-invented itself over the past 5-10 years to cater for the major business of the hotel and people coming into the area with a high spending capacity. 19. If the walls were also olive green and maintained through the year then the structure would blend in with the landscape. 20. The placement of the marquee allows couples to enjoy this fabulous view on their special day. 21. The nurturing of this non-seasonal visitor destination business has been done in a way the perfectly compliments the objectives of the City Council’s own tourism strategy. 22. There is no evidence from our members that any of their members have complained about the marquee. 23. There seems to be little support for any initiative which encourages growth in the local economy. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

24. It would be such a shame to see the Oxwich Bay marquee gone when there is such a lack of beautiful hotels in Swansea with such stunning views. 25. The marquee is pivotal for the continuing success of the business and if refused then the business may fail. 26. Gower can’t afford to lose any more hotels. 27. Visitors from the Cambridge area are looking forward to returning to Gower and also encourage friends to visit the area. 28. Saying that the church is in close proximity and the marquee looking at it is very strange as the woods are very dense between the two structures. 29. It is after all a tent providing a tasteful facility in very well landscaped grounds. 30. The controlled and sympathetic developments that have taken place over the years have undoubtedly enhanced the local landscape surrounding the property. 31. A temporary marquee has been located at the above site since 1992 when a firm I was employed by enjoyed the full use of the facilities and a barbeque. 32. The marquee is a huge part of the hotel’s business and refusing the planning would make these people unemployed and at worst there is a possibility that the hotel may close. 33. I am due to get married in the marquee in November 2011 and have had the wedding booked for well over a year and a lot of time effort and money has gone into the preparations and I would be devastated if I could not have my dream day. 34. We don’t find the marquee an eyesore and it certainly has not been detrimental to the view from our home. 35. The Hotel keeps many people employed and brings tremendous amount of business to the area. 36. I disagree with the opine which ignores the crudity of a sprawling blot on the landscape car park ornamented with two extremely large ugly, garish yellow containers adorning a metallic scar that rips across another wise superb stretch of beach. If that is acceptable to service the needs of Gower visitors why then the objection to the delightfully maintained marquee?

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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.”

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 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 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.

Economic Regeneration additional comments – “The hotel directly provides a significant number of jobs for local people (over 80 in the past season), and supports other local businesses through its purchasing of supplies and maintenance services. In addition, it attracts large numbers of visitors to Gower (10,000 attending weddings in the hotel this year, with 70% staying in the area), thereby generating additional visitor spend in the local economy and raising the profile of the Gower as a tourist destination.

To try and get some idea of the Hotel’s importance to the local economy I’ve reviewed the latest official ONS ward level employment data. It shows that employment (defined as employees and working proprietors) in the Gower ward stood at 900 in 2010 (although this data excludes agricultural employment). Clearly then, if the Oxwich Bay Hotel employs over 80 people, it is a significant employer in its local area.

The wedding market appears to be essential to the viability of the business, and without the marquee the hotel will not meet the needs of the wedding market. The applicant indicates that 60 jobs would cease to exist at the hotel if they are unable to continue providing wedding facilities in the marquee. In the current economic climate, it is difficult to see where 60 new jobs could be created in the local area to replace those lost at the hotel, and as such it is more important than ever now to try and retain employment whenever possible. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

Therefore, given its importance to the local economy I would continue to support the retention of the marquee at the Hotel.”

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 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.

APPLICANT’S 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 – 25TH OCTOBER 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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

Further Supporting Information has been submitted by the applicant following the deferral of the application from the Area 2 DC Committee in September 2011.

1. In excess of 150 people are directly dependent upon our business. 2. Local skills are called upon to provide maintenance services essential in the up keep of the hotel fabric e.g. electrician, gardener, painter, builder, carpenter. 3. Bread/dairy products/fish products/meat are all sourced locally. 4. 25 traditional Gower hotels have closed and Swansea Tourism readily acknowledges that diversification has kept us in business. As a family, since 1959, we have a track record of having built the business through re-investment and it is our wish to continue in this manner. 5. The wedding market has changed and it is no longer just two people from the same locality that marry. The result is that people travelling into Gower to attend weddings and this year alone we are on target to service more than ten thousand guests, 70% of whom are booking accommodation in the area. 6. We have already produced figures to your officers that show business trading losses of £103,000 in the months of November 2010 to March 2011. As a result, the business is certainly not moving forward and further investment is almost certainly impossible. 7. At this moment normal hotel bookings are at a poor level the like of which we haven’t experienced in previous years, although the groups of ramblers and bird watchers traditionally seen in the autumn have made tentative enquiries. 8. Support has already been shown of our active participation in the well-being of our community, and being very much a family operation, we would like to see this continue for the people in our area. 9. It has been acknowledged by Economic Regeneration and the Head of Tourism that as a result in market changes many hotel businesses in the area have failed in recent years. We are convinced that we have only been able to keep afloat by diversifying and re-investing in the wedding market. 10. During the past season we have given direct employment to in excess of 80 people, all of whom reside in the area. There is no doubt that if we are unable to continue providing wedding facilities in the marquee at least 60 of these jobs will cease to exist. This concern is confirmed by occupancy levels of 98% in August reducing to 16.7% in November at this moment in time.

In the past 12 months the following has occurred: 13% increase in energy costs 8%increase in insurance 2.5% increase in the minimum wage VAT has increased to 20% 12% decrease in room revenue 40% decrease in daily foot fall due in part to an increase in fuel prices of 16% 77% decrease in capital re-investment November 10 to March 11 business losses increased by 7%, HM Revenue and Customs provided support.

Hotels that have closed Port Eynon Bay Hotel, Culver House Hotel (now self catering) The Springfield Hotel The Hollies Hotel AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

Seabeach Hotel Nicholaston House Hotel Winston Private Hotel (in receivership) Caswell Bay Hotel Langland Court Hotel The Old School House The Langland Bay Hotel The Osbourne Hotel Harbour Winds Hotel St. Anne’s Hotel Mermaid Hotel Brynfield Manor Hotel Heatherslade Bay Hotel Hill Crest Hotel Cefn Goleu Langrove Motel (now health club) Nab Rock Hotel Little Langland (for sale) The North Gower Hotel (pending redevelopment) Ael Y Don Hotel Redcliff Hotel

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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), 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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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.

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 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 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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 and the further information submitted by the applicant, 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

The letters of support are noted but as addressed above the success of the use of the marquee 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 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1102

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:

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 3 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 27th September 2011 to assess the overlooking impact of the development.

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 Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 23/07/2010 Allowed at Appeal 06/12/10

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0564

2010/1767 Detached dwelling with associated access works Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/02/2011

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 3 (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 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 significant 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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 3 (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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 3 (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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 3 (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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 4 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee meeting on 27th September 2011 to assess the overlooking and overbearing impact of the development.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869

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. 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869

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.

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. The 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 and whilst the extension would be visible from this property it is not considered that sufficient harm would be generated that could justify withholding consent.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869

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.

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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0869

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.

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 5 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 27th September 2011 in order to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area and on 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 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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479

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

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479

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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479

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.

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 significant 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 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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0479

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.

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332 WARD: Newton Area 2

Location: Mermaid Cottage Caswell Road Caswell Swansea SA3 4RH Proposal: Replacement detached dwelling house Applicant: Mr Leigh Vaughan

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION at the South West Planning Committee on the 25th January 2011. Amendments were also made to the scheme and my report has been amended to include additional letters of objection.

POLICIES

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

Policy 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).

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2006/0137 To lop and reduce 1 ash tree, reduce side branches from 1 pine tree and clean out deadwood and stumps from 2 pine trees covered by TPO No 360 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 12/03/2006

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

2004/2828 Replacement of existing dormer and erection of glazed canopy on front elevation, enlargement of dormer on side elevation, alterations to roof design to incorporate gable and construction of dormer on rear elevation, construction of two storey extension and first floor balcony on rear elevation, alterations to external doors and windows and detached garage/storeroom Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 09/05/2005

92/0625 ERECTION OF 1 DWELLING (OUTLINE) Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 02/09/1992

92/1069 ERECTION OF 1 NO. DETACHED DWELLING (OUTLINE) Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 09/03/1993

93/0774 ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 16/11/1993

94/0539 ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION 93/0774) Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 27/10/1995

96/0103 FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO BE USED AS GARAGE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 21/06/1996

96/4155/S ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED DWELLING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 23/04/1996

97/0212 ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING APPLICATION 96/4155/S GRANTED ON 23RD APRIL 1996) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/03/1997

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: This application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and all neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. Five letters of response were received which are summarised below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

1. Drainage concerns, in particular location of pipes. 2. Concern over the scale of plans. 3. Impact upon residential amenities. 4. New independent residential location established. 5. Current building was never a separated site. 6. Rights of access over the highway. 7. Discrepancies raised relating to the Design and Access Statement. 8. Design out of keeping with the area. 9. Overlooking issues. 10. Overbearing. 11. Overdevelopment of the site. 12. Mermaid Cottage is not a lawful dwelling. 13. Highway safety. 14. Noise. 15. Legal covenant to prevent any further development. 16. Inaccurate plans. 17. Proposal is visually intrusive. 18. Impact on the boundary treatment. 19. Concern relating to the finishes proposed. 20. Noise associated with vehicles coming and going. 21. Levels of the proposed property in relation to Singlewood are significantly larger. 22. Concern over the use as two separate dwellings. 23. Loss of vegetation.

Highways: This proposal is to replace Mermaid Cottage off Caswell Road. The replacement property is to utilise the existing access from the private lane which currently serves the site. The proposed replacement dwelling is indicated to accommodate 3 bedrooms and an additional 2 bedrooms in a 'granny annexe', all within the same property. The site is sufficiently large to accommodate adequate parking and there is unlikely to be any significant difference in traffic movements between the existing property and this proposed replacement. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

Gower Society: Following comment to make:

1. We are generally against the demolition of perfectly sounds buildings on sustainability grounds and rebuilding on the same site. 2. We note the increased height and footprint of this property, although the flat roof does keep the building low. 3. The design is very modern; we ask that extreme care be taken in ascertaining its impact on the adjacent and more traditional property. 4. We also ask that you look most carefully at the plot size and overall proposal; it appears that the proposal may be an over-development. 5. We have not noted an application for demolition. Surely this is required?

Mumbles Community Council: Built 1890. Out of keeping with existing properties. Overlooking neighbours. Larger footprint. Narrow access. Joint Driveway, trees may have to be removed.

Following concerns expressed by Members at the Site Visit, the following additional information was requested: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

1. Existing plans and elevations of existing property (superimposed on proposed elevations). 2. Proposed parking layout and turning area to be formally indicated on plans along with clarity as to whether the existing garage is to be demolished. 3. Trees along boundary to be shown on plans with ones to be removed indicated. 4. Amended block plan showing the position of the neighbouring properties. 5. Existing and proposed levels and sections across site. 6. Privacy screen to be indicated on balcony. 7. Obscure glazing to be shown on southern elevation.

Further information was submitted by the applicant and all neighbouring properties and previous objectors were re-consulted and the additional information advertised on site in the form of a site notice. Two letters of objection were received which are summarised below:

1. Proposed dwelling is actually higher than the existing property. 2. Parking will be behind the building line with one parking bay to the front. 3. Screening will be removed from the boundary with Singlewood, decreasing their level of privacy. 4. Parking bays are a business requirement and not a residential one. This combined with the ground floor layout leads me to conclude that a business is to be run from the property which would have a massive impact upon traffic, drainage and effluent. 5. Energy requirements of this larger dwelling would be much greater than the existing property. 6. Loss of privacy. 7. Overdevelopment. 8. Loss of trees and shrubs.

Highways: Amended Plans

The amended plans clarify parking provision within the site. Two parking spaces are indicated to the rear of the replacement property that will be accessed through the carport. A separate turning facility is also indicated allowing vehicles to enter and leave the property in a forward gear. A third parking space is indicated along the frontage of the property.

My earlier recommendation of no highway objection is unchanged.

Gower Society: The Gower Society has looked at the amended plans for this application and there appears to be little difference to those submitted in the original application.

Therefore the Gower Society wishes its comments in the letter of 31st March 2010 to remain on file.

Amended plans were submitted by the applicant in order to try and address the concerns raised by neighbouring properties. All neighbouring properties and previous objectors were re-consulted. Two letters of response were received which are summarised below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

Neighbours:

1. Overlooking. 2. Sewage run off concerns. 3. Proposal is close to my property and intrusive. 4. There is a legal injunction preventing further development on the land. 5. There is no planting to minimise impact. 6. Out of keeping with the area. 7. Footprint 300% larger than existing and roofline significantly higher. 8. Proposal could be moved further away from 70 Caswell Road. 9. Increase in traffic. 10. Highway safety concern.

Gower Society: All comments of our letter 31st March 2010 remain pertinent – only very minor changes noted.

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

APPRAISAL

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

Description

Full planning permission is sought for a replacement detached dwelling house at Mermaid Cottage, Caswell Road, Caswell. The dwelling is situated behind the established building line, within the established residential area of Newton. The proposal will involve the demolition of the existing dwelling which is of no particular architectural merit and its replacement with a modern designed property. The dwelling would take the form of a 3 bedroom house with 2 bed annexe forming part of the fabric of the dwelling.

Following concerns raised by the neighbouring properties the applicant has attempted to address these by making the following amendments:

1. Making the dwelling smaller allowing 3m from the boundary with Singlewood. 2. Footprint moved by 1m to allow protection to existing Oak Tree. 3. Replacing existing shrub area with semi-mature Whitebeam and further dense shrubbery to provide more privacy. 4. Cross section to show the relationship between the proposed dwelling and Singlewood. 5. Privacy screen added to balcony. 6. Accurate portrayal of trees in order to fully assess the impact.

Background

The site has a long and varied planning history and outline consent was originally granted for a detached dwelling under planning permission Ref: 92/1069. This consent was subject to a Section 106 agreement which restricted the site to the development of a single dwelling only. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

A reserved matters application was granted for a detached dwelling under planning permission Ref: 93/0774, however the Section 106 Agreement was altered to read that no further development within the application site or any of the grounds of Mermaid Cottage and Caswell House. Three subsequent applications essentially for amendments to the house type were approved (Ref’s: 94/0539, 96/4155 and 97/0212), subject to the same worded Section 106 Agreement running with the land. The latter application was subsequently implemented.

The proposal represents the replacement of the original Mermaid Cottage on this site.

Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relates to the principle of development on this site, the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the area, the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and highway safety having regard for the site history and the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any additional issues.

Principle of Development

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

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

Given the proposal is a replacement for Mermaid Cottage, there will be no net increase in the number of dwellings and as such, it is considered that, the proposal will not conflict with the intentions of the Section 106 Agreement as detailed above. A condition is recommended to ensure that the annexe is ancillary to the occupation of the dwelling and not let or sub-let as a separate unit and so as not to create a separate dwelling.

Policy Context

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

Policy HC2 of the UDP supports proposals for housing development within the urban area provided that amongst other things the proposal does not have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

Visual Amenity

The area is characterised by a mixture of dwellings situated within varying plot sizes, predominately fronting the highway. Given that the principle of development at this location has been clearly established with the existing dwelling, coupled with the adjacent back land site it is not considered that the development of this area behind the building line is unacceptable in visual terms. The proposed dwelling incorporates a contemporary design which due to its low height and siting behind No 70 Caswell Road will not be visually prominent from the highway. The adjacent Bishopswood House and 72 Caswell Road are sited in a similar position to the proposed house and as such the proposed siting is considered acceptable. Concern has been expressed that the development would represent an over development of the site, however, it is considered that with a depth of over 30 metres and width of 22m at its widest, the site is large enough to accommodate a dwelling of this size without appearing over intensive for the site or the area.

There is no prevailing characteristic or dominant house type to suggest a specific architectural response on this site, however given its backland location regard must be had for the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. It is evident that a strong design concept has underlined this development from the start; recognising the need for the architecture to respond to the character of the area, whilst respecting the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

The general form incorporates a two storey flat roof building and slightly lower side element which combine to break up the overall massing of the building ensuring the proposal is in scale with the plot and the wider area. It is considered that this design coupled with the dwellings siting behind the established building line will reduce its visual impact upon the wider area and as a consequence the dwelling is considered to respect the character and appearance of its local context. Whilst the application forms indicate the materials to be used in its construction, the quality of materials are essential to ensure the quality of the scheme and as such further information is required which will be enforced by condition.

On this basis, it is considered that the design of the proposed development is of a quality which will safeguard and protect the visual amenities of the area. In addition its minimal height (less than 7m), siting, form and design will ensure the proposal will not prove dominant or overbearing when viewed from public vantage points and as such the proposal is considered to comply with Policies EV1, EV2, EV3 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

Residential Amenity

Turning to issues of residential amenity, the submission involves a dwelling which is low lying and incorporates a minimal height, scale and massing which seeks to respect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

With regard the impact upon the dwelling situated to the rear the proposed dwelling would be separated by a rear garden in excess of 10m in depth and given the dwellings minimal height this is considered to be a sufficient separation distance to ensure that the residential amenities of this neighbouring property is maintained. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

With regard the impact upon the dwelling situated toward the front (No. 70 Caswell Road) the two storey element of the proposed dwelling would be situated approximately 5m from the boundary of this neighbouring property, however the minimal height of the dwelling (less than 7m), coupled with its siting to the north of No 70 will ensure that there will not be an unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impact sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal of this application. In terms of overlooking there are no habitable windows which overlook this dwelling and as such subject to condition the level of privacy enjoyed by No 70 will, it is considered, be maintained.

Turning to the impact upon No 72 Caswell Road, the two storey element of the proposed dwelling will be sited approximately 3m from the boundary with this property and given the design of the roof, which is flat and the fact the main bulk of the dwelling will be situated away from No 72 Caswell Road it is considered that these factors combine to ensure that the proposal will not have an unacceptable physical impact upon the residential amenities of this property. In terms of overlooking, a suitable 2m high obscurely glazed privacy screen can be erected on the balcony which fronts with No 72 to ensure no loss of privacy at first floor level indeed this is proposed on the plans. There are also bedroom windows in bedroom 1 which will face towards No 72, however these are high level and will not allow for overlooking into No 72. The balcony area which serves the bedrooms on the eastern side of the site is situated in excess of 10m from the boundary with No 72 which is considered sufficient in order to ensure the amenities of No 72 are maintained.

In terms of overlooking at ground floor level, the existing boundary treatment will mitigate against overlooking at this level, however in order to ensure that this remains a condition is considered necessary requiring agreement of all finished boundary treatment.

Concern has been expressed about additional light pollution from the proposed dwelling, however it is not considered that this would be so great as to warrant the refusal of the application, given the existing dwelling. Noise, dust and petrol fumes as a result of the proposed carport are not considered to be matters of overriding concern given the existing dwelling. Similarly, disturbance during the construction stage is an inevitable consequence of development and only a temporary inconvenience that could not warrant refusal.

Protected Trees

A significant amount of concern has been conveyed about the impact of the development upon existing trees that are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. Having consulted the Council’s Tree Preservation Officer the amended proposal shows less encroachment onto G1 (The row of conifer trees located South West of Mermaid Cottage on the boundary of Singlewood) and T1 (Oak Tree) than the previous application. An assessment of the rooting environment required to maintain the health of these trees was undertaken. It was concluded from the stem diameter and the favourable rooting environment available that a large proportion of the tree roots would not be adversely impacted upon form this proposed scheme. Some branch pruning work to T1 would be required to facilitate the proposed scheme which would not be detrimental to the future health or amenity value of this tree.

It is acknowledged that the proposal will involve the removal of one semi-mature Whitebeam, covered by TPO 360 however a standard size replacement white beam tree (Sorbus aria) should be planted in a location as agreed by the LPA in order to mitigate against this loss. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

Care must be taken to ensure no adverse impact occurs to any retained trees/shrubs. Suitable protective fencing (As detailed in the British Standard 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction) must be installed before any demolition or construction work is undertaken on site and in a position as agreed by the LPA. This protective fencing must remain in position for the entirety of the construction phase. Furthermore any removal of hard surfacing within 3 metres of any retained trees should be hand dug and any replacement surfaces within this area must be permeable. Post construction further planting of suitable hedgerow species is required to strengthen the screening between Singlewood and Mermaid cottage.

Highways

In terms of highway safety, having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering, the proposed replacement dwelling is indicated to accommodate 3 bedrooms and an additional 2 bedrooms in a 'granny annexe', all within the same property. The site is sufficiently large to accommodate adequate parking and there is unlikely to be any significant difference in traffic movements between the existing property and this proposed replacement.

The clarity provided by the amended plans relating to the parking provision within the site is noted. Two parking spaces are indicated to the rear of the replacement property that will be accessed through the carport. A separate turning facility is also indicated allowing vehicles to enter and leave the property in a forward gear. A third parking space is indicated along the frontage of the property. In light of the submitted information there are no highway objections.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above, 11 letters of response were receive which raised concerns relating to highway safety, visual impact, residential amenity, overdevelopment, noise, legal implications, impact on boundary treatment, creation of two dwellings and the principle of development the issues pertaining to which have been addressed in the main body of my report.

Concern has been raised relating to the potential for the dwelling to be used as a business. This application relates to a replacement dwelling and therefore falls within Class C3 of the Use Class Order. Any subsequent change of use to a business would require the submission of a formal planning application for a change of use which would undergo the statutory consultation process and would unlikely receive a favourable recommendation at Officer Level. However this business use is conjecture and does not form part of the submission and as such was not taken into consideration during the determination of this application.

Concern has been raised that the applicant has submitted false information on both the Design and Access Statement and the Application forms, however it is considered that the information submitted with the application is sufficient for the purposes of determining the application.

Concern has also been raised relating to drainage and sewerage, however, the proposal will replace an existing building and no objections have been raised from Welsh Water in this respect. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

In addition to this concern has been raised relating to the fact the Gower Society have not been informed regarding the demolition of the dwelling. The dwelling is not sited within a Conservation Area and therefore separate consent is not required for its demolition.

Conclusion

In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development creates a dwelling that respects the local character whilst offering modern, flexible accommodation for its occupants that respects the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, highway safety and trees. It is, therefore considered that the development complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, and HC2 of the Swansea UDP and 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 All first floor windows in the south east facing elevations (facing 70 Caswell Road), as indicated on the approved plans 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 Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into beneficial use a 2m high privacy screen shall be erected on the balcony along the south west facing elevation with No 72 Caswell Road , in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The balcony screening shall thereafter be maintained in the condition as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

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

6 No development shall 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.

7 No development or other operations shall take place except in accordance with the guide on "The Protection of Trees on Development Sites" attached to this planning permission. No trees, shrubs, or hedges shall be felled or cut back in any way, except where expressly authorised by the landscaping scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority until two years after the completion of the development. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such authorisation, or dying, or being seriously damaged or diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced by plants of a size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure the protection of trees growing on the site whilst the development is being carried out.

8 The annexe to the dwelling shall remain at all times an integral part of the main dwelling and shall not be sold, let or otherwise occupied as a separate unit of accommodation. Reason: It is not considered that the property is suitable for the creation of separate unit of accommodation.

9 The work to any trees on or adjacent to the site shall be carried out by a qualified tree surgeon to British Standard 3998 (2010) recommendations for tree work, the identity of whom shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority a minimum of 7 working days before the work is to be carried out. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and safety.

10 A replacement tree shall be planted within the first planting season after felling of the whitebeam. The location, size and species of the tree shall be agreed with the Local Authority prior to planting. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

INFORMATIVES

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

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

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 (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994. 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

Design & Access statement, site location plan, proposed elevations @1:100 received 26th February 2010. Additional and amended plans: block plan sheet 1, block plan sheet 2, cross section east/west through site, floor plans, proposed elevations received 5th July 2011 and Tree Location and Proposal dated 6th September 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 7 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

The application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 27th September 2011 to enable further consideration to be given to the residential amenity impacts associated with the proposal. My report has been updated to include additional comments from Pollution Control and 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 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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2006/1917 Retention and completion of storage building Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 24/05/2007

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. 18. There is no indication as to how the existing buildings are used. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

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 is 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 - Comments further as follows:

Given the information available and taking into account the nature of the location and current use of the land, the view remains that there are no significant grounds on which to object to the application. It is appreciated that the occupiers of the adjacent residential property may have concerns regarding the future use of the barn in the event that permission is eventually forthcoming but it is considered unreasonable to recommend refusal of an agricultural building, whatever its use, in an agricultural setting such as this. Obviously, if permission is granted, we will expect the use of the building to be properly controlled so that any unnecessary problems are avoided and will investigate any future complaints should they be received. Concerning drainage/effluent issues and as far as we are aware this should form part of the farm management plan and the Environment Agency will comment on this if they feel it to be necessary. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

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 at 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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

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 of refusal 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 and who also comments that it would be “unreasonable to recommend refusal of an agricultural building, whatever its use, in an agricultural setting such as this.”

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 sited 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. 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: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

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.

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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

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.

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: North Gower Hotel Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EE Proposal: Construction of 14 dwellings (outline) Applicant: North Gower Hotel

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 EV16 Within the small villages identified on the Proposals Map, small-scale development will be approved only where it is appropriate to the location in terms of the defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

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

Policy HC17 The Council will negotiate with developers to secure improvements to infrastructure, services, and community facilities; and to mitigate against deleterious effects of the development and to secure other social economic or environmental investment to meet identified needs, via Section 106 of the Act. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2001/0962 Detached dwelling house with integral garage (Details of siting , design and external appearance pursuant to condition 01 of planning permission A00/1787 approved on 31st January 2001) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 05/08/2001

2001/2087 Detached dwelling house and attached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/02/2002

A00/1787 ERECTION OF A DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE (OUTLINE) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 30/01/2001

2004/0192 Rear conservatory and addition of raised rooflight over function room Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 26/03/2004

84/0374/03 PROPOSED CHILDRENS WET WEATHER FACILITY (COVERED PLAY AREA). Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/04/1984

84/1385/01 TOURIST ACCOMMODATION IN 8 CHALETS INCL ONE FITTED OUT FOR DISABLED PERSON Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 29/11/1984

84/1694/01 PROPOSED EXTENSION TO EXISTING MAIN HOTEL BUILDING TO PROVIDE FOURTEEN ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS SERVICED BY MAIN HOTEL. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 28/02/1985 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

84/1806/03 RETENTION OF CARAVAN AT NORTH GOWER HOTEL FOR USE BY EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 28/02/1985

85/0825/03 ADDITION OF FOURTEEN BEDROOMS PLUS DINING ROOM AND A FIRST FLOOR FLAT OVER. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/08/1985

87/1234/04 RENEWAL OF TEMP. PERMISSION FOR EXISTING CHILDRENS WET WEATHER PLAY AREA. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/06/1988

74/0890/03 ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 28/11/1974

76/0206/03 ADDITION OF TOILETS TO EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/04/1976

74/0239/03 ADDITION OF DINING ROOM WITH KITCHEN AND BEDROOM OVER Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 02/08/2001 13:20:57

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and in the press as development which may in the view of the City and County of Swansea have a substantial impact on the amenity of the area in which it is situated. In addition to this, two neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. Thirteen individual letters of OBJECTION have been received which are summarised below:

1. Loss of a community facility. 2. Present owners are clearly incapable of matching the success of other establishments. 3. The existing business is a major employer in the area and the proposal will result in the loss of more jobs than the applicant suggests. 4. Proposal is contrary to the provisions of the UDP. Existing Tourism policies make it even more important that the existing stock of serviced accommodation is maintained to the benefit of the tourism industry. 5. The applicant relies very heavily on Policy EV16 however the scale, density and layout are not found elsewhere in the village and is therefore inappropriate. 6. Relationship with other dwellings is incongruous. 7. Overdevelopment of the site. 8. Proposal is in the Countryside. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

9. Council refused application at land adjacent to Harewood. 10. UDP amplification of Policy EV16 states ‘especially where this has the effect of changing an informal, low density linear or dispersed village into a suburban street.’ 11. Finally in relation to Policy HC17 I trust that if the Council are mindful to approve this application then appropriate planning obligations will be sought. 12. Out of keeping with the Gower AONB. 13. Out of character with the area. 14. Impact upon protected trees. 15. Proposal will damage wildlife habitats. 16. Precedent for other developments. 17. Out of keeping with the pattern of development. 18. Schools cannot support additional dwellings 19. Drainage concerns. 20. Highway safety concerns. 21. Loss of a landmark building.

Highways: This proposal is to demolish the North Gower Hotel in Llanrhidian and replace it with a development of 11 houses. Access is proposed from the existing junction which will be improved to adopted standards with adequate visibility and width to accommodate a standard carriageway and footways to serve the development. A turning head is proposed at the end of the access road and 11 dwellings will front onto the road each with its own access and on site parking facilities.

In terms of traffic movements, the present hotel has generated a significant number of movements over the years and it is unlikely that this proposal will generate an unacceptable amount of traffic. The access will be constructed to adopted standards to ensure safety and therefore the proposal is acceptable.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the access works being completed to a satisfactory standard prior to occupation of any dwelling within the site

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

Environment Agency: As advised in response to pre-application enquiry for this dated 28th April 2010 (Ref: ENQ2009/0295, our ref: SH/2009/107060), the site is located on a major aquifer, which is underlain by the Hunts Bay Limestone Group. Major aquifers are important local sources of drinking water and may provide baseflows to rivers.

No details have been provided regarding the use of the site prior to the existing hotel development. Furthermore there is insufficient detail in relation to the foul and surface water provision for the development.

Without further information we are unable to determine whether the risks posed to groundwater can be satisfactorily managed and as such, we would OBJECT to the application as submitted.

Countryside Council for Wales: CCW objects to the proposal, because there is not enough information for us to assess possible effects on the interests listed below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

• Protected Species. • Gower AONB. • Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet Ramsar.

Llanrhidian Lower Community Council: The people of Llanrhidian are shocked with the prospect of losing our only Hotel. However we do realise that if a business is not doing well it may have to close. If this area is rebuilt on the above Council feels that 11 houses would spoil the approach to a pleasant rural village such as Llanrhidian. If any development takes place on this area the above Council asks if it could be of affordable housing.

Martin Caton MP: They rightly point out that the Hotel is currently an important community resource, hosting a range of organisations and activities, many of which could not easily be transferred to alternative local venues.

If provides direct employment to local people, but also benefits the local economy in a wider sense as part of the tourist infrastructure of Gower. If it were to go, it is very difficult to envisage an equivalent hotel being opened up on the peninsular in the foreseeable future.

Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water: No objection subject to informatives.

The Gower Society: The Gower Society has inspected this application and visited the site and has the following observations to make:

1. This society deplores the demolition of perfectly good buildings for commercial gain and rebuilding. North Gower is in need of this hotel. 2. This hotel should, if ran efficiently provide a lucrative commercial business that serves the tourist as well as the residential needs of the community, as well as providing local employment. It would be unfortunate to lose this tourism amenity. 3. If this business is demolished, we wonder if there will be a future desire by some entrepreneur to build a similar hotel in a similar available location on North Gower. 4. If demolished, and the building of 11 dwellings in its place be allowed, it would be a serious over-development of the site. We also consider that it would place an unacceptable stain on the waste disposal system.

We ask that you take the above comments into consideration when determining this application.

Following consideration of the application with the Councils Urban Design Officer amended plans were submitted altering the layout and increasing the number of dwellings to 14 (incorporating 4 affordable houses). In addition to this additional information was submitted in order to address the concerns raised by the Environment Agency and CCW. All previous objectors were individually consulted and the amendments advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice. The following letters of response were received:

Neighbours: Five letters of objection were received which are summarised below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

1. Loss of light to the front of our property. 2. Green area to the front of the hotel would be lost and it is an asset to the area. 3. The beauty of Gower should not be jeopardised for Commercial gain. 4. Proposal is crammed, congested and ugly. 5. Existing hotel has character, the proposal does not. 6. Dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4 are clearly forward of the building line. 7. Proposal will result in the loss of vegetation. 8. Loss of quality accommodation. 9. Loss of important contributor to the local economy. 10. School is oversubscribed and the proposal will impact this facility. 11. Loss of an important affordable community facility. 12. No facilities in the area for children to use. 13. Drainage concerns. 14. Traffic concerns. 15. Loss of trees. 16. Pet animals could escape and attack livestock. 17. Loss of services. 18. Proposal not in keeping with the Gower AONB. 19. Far more loss in an employment than stated by the applicant.

Gower Society: We note that this current application differs considerably from the original, to which we responded on 30th June 2010. All our comments of that date remain pertinent. However, we are very concerned by the proposals in this amended application for the following additional reasons:

1. The number of dwellings has increased from 11 to 14. 2. This constitutes over-development of the site and a marked increase in density. 3. There is loss of existing trees located on the road boundary. 4. There is loss of open green space to the north of the development where it fronts the highway. 5. The amended plans put 4 dwellings now far in front of the existing line of adjacent properties and nearer to the road. 6. The driveways of these 4 proposed properties now exit onto the road separately instead of through a common entrance.

Having noted these changes and the proposed green bank at the rear, the Gower Society wishes to object for the above reasons.

Countryside Council for Wales: Thank you for your e-mail of 21st July 2011 in which you included a copy of the bat survey. CCW also note the increase in proposed housing numbers from 11 to 14 as laid out in the consultation of 28 July 2011.

CCW withdraws its holding objection. In our opinion, as explained below, the proposal is not likely to adversely affect any of the interests listed. Our advice depends on the implementation of the points outlined in this letter.

Environment Agency: The Modified Rational method used in the report to estimate surface water run-off is likely to overestimate the discharge from this brownfield site. This method was originally intended for pipe sizing. Any overestimation in this context is however seen as positive and precautionary. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

In particular, this method does not take into account the physical processes of surface area wetting, routing or ponding that could take place. However, we note that currently no method is ideally suited to surface run-off calculations from brownfield sites.

Te report suggests the use of soakaways to manage surface water from the houses. Percolation tests and soakaway designs have been provided, however we have not reviewed or checked this information. Your Authority’s Building Control department will be able to provide further information as to whether the design is acceptable. We can confirm however that the calculations used to estimate the design rainfall are considered appropriate for use.

We would again also remind your Authority that the use of soakaways will depend on suitable ground conditions. The preliminary risk assessment produced by Quantum Geotechnical Ltd (ref: P101443/DS), which was previously received in support of this application, recommended that a ground investigation be carried out. This was recommended in order to assess the geotechnical aspect of the existing ground conditions on-site and to assess the suitability of using SUDS. If however your Authority’s Building Control department are satisfied with the use of soakaways at this site, then we would offer no further comment in this regard.

Rainwater harvesting and grey-water recycling is also proposed. We welcome this suggestion and would look to secure their use in the development by means of a condition on any permission granted.

Section 4.4 of the report (attenuation of highway drainage) also suggests that attenuation could be provided to reduce highway run-off to the Greenfield rate. We welcome this proposal, which is seen as beneficial. It is suggested that flows are attenuated to the 100 year Greenfield run-off rate. We have previously estimated a Greenfield run-off rate (QMED/2 year) for this site as 12.2 l/s/ha. We would however recommend that you consult with your Authority’s Drainage and Highway Engineers for further comments on this proposal.

We also note that there will be a reduction in impermeable areas as a result of the development, which in itself will provide betterment.

Overall, we are satisfied with the recommendations set out in the Drainage Report. We would expect these methods to be incorporated into the development to ensure the effective management of surface water run-off.

Additional letter from the Environment Agency – It appears that the proposal has been amended to increase the number of dwellings from 11 to 14. This has resulted in a change in site layout, as indicated on submitted drawing SG.01 revised 14/10/2010.

These amendments do not change our position on this proposal and we would refer you to our letter of 24th May 2011 for our comments and recommended conditions.

Llanrhidian Lower Community Council: The Council strongly object to the above planning application on two grounds. They feel that 14 houses at one spot would ruin the approach to the lovely village of Llanrhidian. Secondly several of these houses would be near the main road and not in line with the existing houses and would look totally out of character of the locality. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

Highways: Amended Plans

Amended details now indicate the development of 14 dwelling and the addition of a footway along the site frontage. The additional dwellings will not alter previous conclusions on the acceptability of the development and the introduction of the footway will increase safety along the frontage.

In light of the amended scheme therefore I recommend as follows;

No highway objection subject to the following;

1. All access works shall be completed in accordance with details to be submitted and approved prior to occupation of any dwellings within the site.

2. No house shall be occupied until the indicated footway along the site frontage is completed in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.

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

Education: As at January 2011 Llanrhidian has a surplus of 7 places and Gowerton Comprehensive has a surplus capacity of 72 places. There is also surplus capacity within the Welsh medium schools.

Secondary:

Although Gowerton Comprehensive has surplus capacity there are a number of temporary demountable buildings on site that no longer fit for purpose and should be replaced. However it is recognised that with such a small development the Capital costs for replacing these buildings could not be justified.

Primary:

The development will generate 4.34 Primary pupils and currently there is very little surplus capacity within the feeder Primary school ( 7 places ) Furthermore there is concern currently in respect a portal frame /steel profile sheet roof building on site that accommodates pupils for dining and extra curricular activities (see attached aerial photographs indicating the Primary site.

In summary, in order to accommodate any pupils from this development Llanrhidian Primary school will require a developer’s contribution for remodelling /refurbishment of current accommodation.

Therefore the request for a developer’s contribution to Education is: £29,259 plus inflation to address remodelling within the Primary School.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in view of the large volume of objections that have been raised. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

Description

Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of 14 dwellings at the site of the North Gower Hotel, Llanrhidian, Gower. All matters are reserved for further consideration, however an indicative layout including access arrangements and elevations have been submitted in support of the application. The site is a well established hotel which is situated in considerable grounds, within the settlement of Llanrhidian and the wider Gower AONB.

Main Issues

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

Principle of Development

The site is currently occupied by a large detached hotel, set within substantial grounds which is considered to fall within the named small settlement of Llanrhidian as identified within the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. Whilst it is regrettable to lose such a tourist facility, there are a number of community facilities within the area which can cater for both the needs of locals and tourists alike and furthermore there is no policy presumption against the demolition of the building. It is acknowledged that there will be a loss of employment, however, the redevelopment of the site will also create valuable employment into the area. As such Policy EV16 of the UDP in principle allows for appropriate residential development subject to compliance with a number of criteria.

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

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

Affordable Housing

The site is located within a Small Village as specified under Policy EV16 of the Swansea UDP and as such Policies HC3 and HC17 of the Swansea UDP require housing development on sites for 10 or more dwellings or sites in excess of 0.4ha to include negotiations for the inclusion of affordable housing. The site is larger than 0.4ha and is for more than 10 dwellings and having consulted the Councils Housing Officer it is considered that it would be appropriate to incorporate four dwellings as affordable housing. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

The applicant has agreed to this number and should this application be successful it would form part of a Section 106 Legal Obligation.

Education

Given the site is for more than 10 dwellings the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled Planning Obligations requires the LPA to require contributions for development such as this where it has been demonstrated that:

• There is potential to increase demand on local schools beyond their existing or planned capacity; and/or • Existing surplus capacity is of unsatisfactory standard and would require investment to make it suitable for children generated from the proposed development.

Having consulted the Councils Education Department it has been confirmed that as of January 2011 Llanrhidian Primary School has a surplus of 7 places and Gowerton Comprehensive has a surplus capacity of 72 places. Furthermore it has been confirmed that there is also surplus capacity within the Welsh medium schools.

Although Gowerton Comprehensive has surplus capacity there are a number of temporary demountable buildings on site that are no longer fit for purpose and should be replaced. However it is considered unreasonable for such a small development to replace these buildings and could not therefore be justified.

The development will generate approximately 4.34 Primary pupils and currently there is very little surplus capacity within the feeder Primary school (7 places). Furthermore there is concern currently in respect a portal frame /steel profile sheet roof building on site that accommodates pupils for dining and extra curricular activities.

In order to accommodate any pupils from this development Llanrhidian Primary school will require a developer’s contribution for remodelling /refurbishment of current accommodation. Therefore a request for a developer’s contribution to Education of £29,259 plus was made and agreed by the developer in order to address remodelling within the Primary School.

Visual Amenity and Character of the Area

The proposal will involve the demolition of the large detached building and re-development of the large hard surfaced car park and its replacement with 10 detached and two pairs of semi detached dwellings. The site is considered to be of a sufficient size to accommodate the indicative layout and each plot will have a sufficient level of private amenity space, in line with Council guidelines.

The area is characterised by a mixture of large detached single storey and two-storey detached dwellings and semi detached dwellings which vary in different ages, styles and designs. It is not considered that the re-development of this area behind the established building line is unacceptable in visual terms and there are a number of smaller cul-de-sac developments within Llanrhidian which are situated behind the established building line and are of a similar pattern of development to the proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

Whilst these properties are undoubtedly older, the proposed pattern of development is similar to the development approved opposite at Long Acre (Ref: 2004/1673).

The levels of the site rise marginally in a southerly direction and the scale parameters indicate that the proposed dwellings will have a maximum ridge height of some 8.5m and whilst the existing hotel is imposing upon the landscape the cumulative impact of fourteen dwellings would have a greater visual impact upon the wider landscape. Given all matters are reserved for further consideration the visual impact of the proposal can be further controlled at reserved matters stage. However, it is considered that the indicative layout proposed would have an appropriate density for this area, whilst making efficient use of previously developed land.

The site is located within the Gower AONB, however the indicative elevations which are of Gower vernacular indicate that a scheme could be of a high standard and subject to a condition requiring the submission of quality traditional samples the indicative dwellings could be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and the wider Gower AONB. As such it is not considered that the re-development of this site would have a significantly harmful impact upon the wider AONB such that a recommendation of refusal could be justified.

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

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

In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would respect the visual amenities of the area in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2, EV16 and EV26 of the Swansea UDP.

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 would not give rise to unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impacts which could warrant the refusal of this application. The indicative drawings indicate that the dwellings are sited a sufficient distance from the boundaries of the neighbouring dwellings and demonstrate that the re-development of the site in this manner can occur without giving rise to an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbours. Furthermore issues relating to residential amenity would be addressed further at reserved matters stage. The development will therefore comply with Policies EV1 and EV16 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan, it is considered.

Highways

Having consulted the Head of Transportation it is acknowledged that the amended details now indicate the development of 14 dwellings and the addition of a footway along the site frontage. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

The additional dwellings will not alter previous conclusions on the acceptability of the development and the introduction of the footway will increase safety along the frontage.

In light of the amended scheme there are no objections subject to conditions.

Drainage

In terms of drainage the applicant has indicated that surface water from the existing building 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.

Ecology

A protected species survey has been submitted and following consideration of the report with the Councils Ecologist and the Countryside Council for Wales it is noted that no evidence of bat use of the building was found by the surveyors, so an informative statement will be sufficient for the determination of this application. Concern has been raised with regard to the loss of a tree, however the tree is not protected and therefore can raise no objection to its removal. In terms of the hedgerow around the site, given that all landscaping matters would be picked up at reserved matters stage this matter would be considered further at that stage.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above, 22 individual letters of objection were received raising concerns relating to the loss of residential amenity, drainage and sewerage implications, principle of demolition and proposed development, intensification, loss of employment, highway safety, traffic, visual impact upon Gower AONB, pattern of development, scale and density overdevelopment, ecology, impact upon character of the area, loss of trees, impact upon habitats, affordable housing, loss of jobs and school capacity. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Concern has been raised regarding precedent, the existing hotel being poorly run, the loss of a view and refuse problems, pets attacking livestock however these are not material planning considerations 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 indicative information has successfully demonstrated that a residential scheme for the re-development of this site could be compatible with the character, appearance and layout of the surrounding area, the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties, highway safety, the ecology of the site and drainage. Therefore it is considered that the proposal complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV33, EV35, EV16, EV26, HC3 and HC17 of the Swansea UDP and Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions and to the developer entering into a Section 106 Obligation in respect of the provision of 4 affordable dwellings and the commuted sum of £29,259 to facilitate the upgrade in facilities at Llanrhidian Primary School:

1 Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s) and the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

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

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

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

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

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

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

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

11 All access works shall be completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any dwellings within the site. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

12 No house shall be occupied until the indicated footway along the site frontage has been 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.

13 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.

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, EV16, EV26, EV33, EV35, HC3, HC17.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0914

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.

4 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).

5 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

SG.02 house type A, SG.02 house type B, SG.03 house type C, received 16th June 2010. Amended plans: site location plan, SG.01- block plan received 27th April 2011 and design and access statement dated 5th September 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708 WARD: Bishopston Area 2

Location: 178 Bishopston Road Bishopston Swansea SA3 3EX Proposal: Two storey side extension incorporating two dormers, part two storey part single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and two front dormers Applicant: Mr Tim Evans

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL PROPOSALS

Eight neighbouring properties have been consulted, FIVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received in relation to the original plans, the comments of which are outlined below:

1. The proposals will incur a complete loss of light. 2. During the digging of foundations for the proposed extension, instability could develop and consequently be of great danger to all the properties in Douglas Court. Possible subsidence when digging foundations close to the quarry edge and weight of the building when constructed could also cause subsidence. If the quarry becomes unstable, this is an extremely dangerous situation resulting in injury or death. Re- assurance is required that the necessary surveys and subsequent conditions are implemented to ensure the development is safe. This would include an assessment of potential hazard of Radon gas to be assessed prior to the application decision. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

3. Some of the neighbouring properties are located on a limestone bed, regularly fissures open up causing large holes to appear. The foundation work needed for this application could disturb this limestone bed. 4. Concerns regarding disruptive noise and dust as a result of the construction of the proposals. 5. Loss of privacy. 6. Visually obtrusive and overbearing to the neighbouring properties. 7. Overdevelopment of the property, especially taking into account the fact that the property is within the AONB. 8. The property is located on a dangerous bend, the traffic as a result of the construction work would only serve to significantly increase the level of danger and raise potential for further road traffic accidents. 9. Impact upon the value of the neighbouring property.

Highway Observations - Three parking spaces together with turning facilities are being provided within the curtilage of the site. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

Bishopston Community Council – No objection

AMENDED PROPOSALS

FOUR LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received in relation to the amended proposals, the comments of which are outlined below:

1. Loss of light. 2. Impact of foundation work disturbing the limestone bed. 3. Construction traffic causing road traffic accidents. 4. Noise and dust associated with the construction work. 5. Possible subsidence when digging foundations close to the quarry edge. In the future the disturbance to the rock causing ingress of water turning to ice in winter through the expansion instability and rock fall. At present there are some rock falls probably through this condition. 6. Concern regarding the overbearing and overshadowing nature of the development which is essentially a two storey brick wall. 7. The extensions will be considered to have an impact on the property values of the neighbouring properties. 8. Comments are requested regarding who would be liable if there was subsidence – owner of No.178 Bishopston Road, Swansea City Council or would it fall to Douglas Court Residents property insurance. 9. The prevention of light reaching the neighbouring property was mentioned in the last letter; but now it has been suggested that the extension will doubly exclude this important aspect – less light reaching the neighbouring property. 10. As the property in question is within the Conservation Area (Gower), it is considered that by increasing the size of the building will produce more unnatural characteristics than improvements. 11. ‘Small scale development will only be allowed where it is in service of the economic and social well being of existing communities – etc’ Ref 97001485 Swansea plan March 90.

Highway Observations – Amended plans, no further comments to make. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

Bishopston Community Council – Repeat previous objections, also the following concerns were highlighted:

Overdevelopment of the site Impact on the street scene (from Bishopston Road and Pwll Du Lane) Overlooking Douglas Court and Pwll Du Lane Stability of retaining wall between Douglas Court and proposed development Ground conditions on the site

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Keith Marsh to assess whether it amounts to overintensive development.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of at two storey side extension incorporating two dormers, part two storey part single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and two front dormers at 178 Bishopston Road. The application has been amended due to concerns raised by officers with regard to both impacts in relation to visual and residential amenity issues. The property is the last of a string of properties located along a section of Bishopston Road, the side of the property faces towards Douglas Court which runs parallel with Pwlldu Lane. There is a quite severe change in levels between the application site and the properties located along Douglas Court, Douglas Court being located at a much lower level.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual, residential amenities and the Gower AONB having regard to Policies HC7, EV26 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.

In terms of visual amenity, the proposals are considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The front dormers given their sympathetic scale and design are not considered to have a negative impact on the character of this stretch of Bishopston Road. There are dormers located to the front of other properties along this stretch and therefore the introduction of dormers is not considered to have a major impact in this instance. The single storey front extension whilst relatively large in terms of its scale is not considered to have a detrimental impact given its sympathetic design, the extension’s roof tying in with the style of roofs of the proposed dormers and front gable feature. The two storey side extension is both set down from the main ridgeline and back from the front of the main property whilst incorporating a hipped roof which ensures the extension ties in with the hipped sides of the existing dwelling. The two storey/single storey rear elements and rear dormer given their sympathetic scale and design are not considered to give rise to any issues. Furthermore, as these elements are located to the rear of the property they are not considered to have a major impact on this stretch of Bishopston Road. The proposals are considered to be in keeping with the Gower AONB given the sympathetic scale and design of the extensions, as indicated above. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

Turning to residential amenity, it is acknowledged that the two storey side extension will be visible from the properties located along Douglas Court given the severe change in levels with No.178 Bishopston Road being located at a much higher position, however, the extension is not considered to have a significant impact over and above the impact already created by the existing property and the large quarry wall to the rear of the properties. The amendments to the rear elements of the proposals are considered to have lessened the overbearing/overshadowing impact on No.176 to an acceptable degree. There are two windows within the side of No.176 which would have been impacted upon by the original proposals; however, the amendments now include a single storey extension nearest to these windows which incorporates a lesser projection than the previous proposal.

In terms of overlooking, there is a window within the side of the two storey rear extension which serves an en-suite which will face towards No.176, therefore, a condition is attached ensuring this window is glazed with obscure glass. In terms of the overlooking from the rear facing window within the first floor of the two storey rear extension, just under 10m is achieved between this window and the boundary to the rear which is considered acceptable in this instance given the windows overlook the rear element of No.2 Pwll Du Lane’s garden, therefore, if any overlooking is possible it will be over the rear end of No.2’s garden rather than its primary amenity space. In terms of overlooking of the properties along Douglas Court, there are no windows located within the side of either of the extensions which would directly overlook these properties. There is a dormer to the rear of the side extension, however, this if anything will only allow views of Douglas Court at an oblique angle and as such is not considered to present an issue in this instance.

In terms of concerns raised, the issues with regard to the visual impact, overbearance, overshadowing and overlooking are considered to be covered within the main context of the report. In terms of the issues regarding the structural considerations with regard to subsidence of the quarry to the side of the host dwelling as a result of the extension, these issues mainly relate to factors which would be addressed at the building control stage of the process which is subsequent to the planning application stage. With regard to who is liable if any problems occur in relation to subsidence at the quarry, this is essentially a civil matter and not for consideration at this stage. With regard to the issues in relation to the potential hazard of Radon gas, there is no evidence to show this gas is present at the site; however, it is likely if there was any issue with this form of hazard it would be covered under separate legislation and is not as such a material planning consideration in this instance. Concerns regarding the noise and dust implications as a result of the construction work are not essentially material planning considerations and therefore cannot be taken into account in this instance. With regard to the issues raised in relation to highway safety concerns, these would have been considered to be addressed by the Highways Officer. The issue regarding the impact on the value of neighbouring properties is not a material planning consideration and, therefore, cannot be taken into account in this instance. The amendments made to the scheme are considered to have lessened any impacts on neighbouring properties rather than exacerbate them, therefore, the concerns that the extension would result in a further loss of light over and above that of what the previous extension would have resulted in is not considered to be necessarily true in this instance. With regard to the proposals not being in keeping with Gower, the proposals as stated within the report are considered to both preserve and enhance the Gower AONB and are as such in keeping with the Policy for Gower (EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

With regard to the comment that small scale development will only be allowed in service of the economic and social wellbeing of existing communities, this is not referred to in the current Policy for Gower and as such is not considered relevant in this instance. It should be noted that Bishopston Community Council have requested that their previous objections be taken into consideration, however, this is not possible as no objections were raised by the Community Council in relation to the previous proposals.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering Services has stated that three parking spaces together with turning facilities are being provided within the curtilage of the site, therefore, no highway objections are raised.

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, EV26 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 window serving the en-suite in the 'End Elevation', as indicated on Plan No: HG.10.72.P03 Rev C 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 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.

2 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

3 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).

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

PLANS

HG.10.72.P02 Rev A- plans, section & elevations as existing received 8th November 2010. Amended HG.10.72.P01 Rev C- site location plan & block plan and HG.10.72.P03 Rev C- plans, section & elevations as proposed received 7th September 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: Gelliorllwyn Farm Llanmorlais Swansea SA4 3SX Proposal: Replacement dwelling and conversion of one barn to 3 holiday let units and construction of a detached two storey building to provide 2 holiday let accommodation units Applicant: Mr Mark Davies

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

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

Policy 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 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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

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 EC12 The conversion of existing buildings in the countryside to new uses that contribute to the local economy and the extensions of such buildings will be permitted subject to a defined set of criteria including the building's structural integrity, its ability to be converted without prejudicing the character of the building or its locality, the building's compatibility with its surroundings, issues of access and highway safety, and the building's past uses etc. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy 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 EC19 The creation of well-designed un-serviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings will be supported. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and no letters of response were received.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust: The Historic Environment Record curated by this Trust does not note the house and there are no known archaeological features that would be impacted upon by the development. The supporting information suggests that it was built in c1880 and it is shown on the first edition OS map of that date. However, it is also shown on the Early Series OS map that was published in 1830 and is named as Gelli Oerllwyn. The buildings have clearly undergone alteration and as it is unlikely that significant archaeological material would be encountered therefore we have no objection to the positive determination of this application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

Countryside Council for Wales (CCW): CCW objects to the proposal, because there is not enough information for us to assess possible effects on the interests listed below:

Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet Ramsar Site.

Environment Agency: We would have no objection to the proposed development, but would like to make the following comments.

With regard to foul drainage, we note that a package treatment plant has been proposed. As the site is located outside of the main sewered area, this would be an acceptable method of foul water disposal, provided that the applicant has undertaken a satisfactory non-mains drainage assessment (Welsh Office Circular 10/99). The applicant must also 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 and for discharges of 2m3/day or more to soakaway or drainage field.

Highways: Adequate parking is available within the site and the access, although rural I nature, is suitable for the likely level of use that the proposal will generate.

On balance I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

Gower Society: Following observations:

1. The design appears to be acceptable in the AONB. 2. If you are minded to allow this development, we ask that a clause be attached preventing future selling off as separate private residences i.e it must remain as a holiday-let complex other than the main house. 3. We are normally against the demolition of good dwellings on sustainability grounds but understand that the main dwelling house is in poor condition. 4. Nevertheless we do have concerns about a development of this scale; in particular the building of two new holiday lets in place of older structures that have been demolished prior to the application. These are in effect new build in the open countryside and AONB. 5. It is always essential that any proposal to convert must be on buildings that are worthy of such development, and this is not a back door method of development in the AONB.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Tucker in order for Committee to assess the impact of the development.

Description

Full planning permission is sought for a replacement dwelling, conversion of barn to 3 holiday lets and construction of a detached 2 storey building to provide 2 holiday let accommodation units at Gelliorllwyn Farm, Llanmorlais, Swansea. The site is a working farm which is situated within the Countryside. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

The applicant has submitted an agricultural questionnaire in support of the application which states the area farmed is 120 acres (118 of which under a 25yr tenancy which commenced in 2008) and keeps 260 breeding ewes, 10 rams, 300 lambs, 15 cattle, 10 pigs, 20 chickens and 6 ducks. The applicant contends that the tourism accommodation is required in order to diversify the business and subsidise the farming enterprise.

Main Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of an application such as this relate to the principle of a replacement dwelling at this location, the principle of new build holiday let and the principle of barn conversions to facilitate the creation of holiday lets, having regard for the visual impact of the proposals upon the wider countryside and the character and appearance of the area, the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, highway safety, ecology and drainage having regard to the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008). It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional issues.

Replacement Dwelling

Whilst the UDP under Policy EV19 allows for Replacement Dwellings, careful consideration must be given to the criteria of the Policy. In this instance the residential use has clearly not been abandoned and as such Criterion (i) is satisfied. In terms of its footprint the dwelling will occupy a similar position to the dwelling and will only extend marginally. The dwelling will be about 1m higher which is sited a similar height to the existing property and therefore its height is not an issue. Furthermore the proposal is in scale with the plot and is only really extending to what would be considered appropriate under the Household Extensions Policy – HC7 and therefore is considered to comply with Criterion (ii). The replacement dwelling will replace a traditional two-storey dwelling with a traditional Gower Cottage of substance which will complement the character of the area. As such the proposal is considered to comply with Policy EV19 and is not considered a departure from the provisions of the development plan.

Although the area lies within the countryside there is no prevailing characteristic or dominant house type to suggest a specific architectural response on this site. At the same time it is paramount that any new dwelling achieves a high quality design that responds to, protects and enhances the inherent qualities of the countryside whilst also respecting the residential amenity of surrounding properties and the scale and massing of the existing dwelling.

It is evident that the applicant has tried to replicate the existing property where possible; recognising the need for the architecture to respond to the rural character of the wider countryside. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling is marginally higher and wider than the original dwelling it must be noted that the site can easily accommodate the proposal. The proposal will involve the replacement of a double fronted dwelling of Gower vernacular with a similar designed dwelling and as such in this instance the proposed replacement dwelling would not have a significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the wider area. The general form incorporates a traditional Gower cottage with two single storey side elements which help to break down the overall massing so that the building is in scale with the plot and the wider rural area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

It is considered that the design, coupled with the intention to replicate the original dwelling minimises the visual impact upon the wider landscape and as such it is considered to respect the character and appearance of its local context. Whilst the application plans indicate the materials to be used, the use of quality materials throughout its construction will be critical to success of the scheme and as such further information will be required to ensure the quality of the scheme is maintained as it is essential that the proposal relates to its wider context and as such the quality of the materials is critical. This will be enforced by condition.

Therefore, it is considered that given the design and materials proposed the development is of a high quality which will safeguard and protect the natural qualities of the countryside. In addition its siting, form and design will ensure the proposal is compatible with countryside location. Furthermore its high quality design will ensure the proposal will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the countryside and as such comply with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV19 and EV22 of the Swansea UDP.

Turning to residential amenity there are no immediate residential properties which will be within close proximity to the proposed dwelling and as such the development will not give rise to unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking, in compliance with Policy EV1 of the Swansea UDP.

Barn Conversion

Policy EC12 supports the conversion of existing buildings in the countryside to new uses that contribute to the local economy and the extension of such building where: the building in largely intact, has a form, bulk and general design in keeping with its surroundings, and is capable of conversion without prejudicing the original character of the building or the rural character of the locality; is structurally suitable for conversion; provides safe access for pedestrians and vehicles without prejudicing the character and appearance of the area; and any ancillary works associated with conversion will not unacceptably adversely affect the rural character of the locality.

Policy EC17 is also considered relevant in this instance and sets out the criteria and supports proposals for tourism and recreation developments of an appropriate scale in locations which relate acceptably to the existing pattern of development provided they do not have unacceptably adverse effects on the landscape and nature conservation interests of the site and surrounding area and are compatible with the existing character of Gower and the primary objective of the protection of natural beauty. Policy EC19 supports the creation of well-designed unserviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings. Therefore the conversion of the outbuildings is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with the aforementioned policies.

The conversion of the outbuildings utilises the existing openings where possible and the additional windows in the elevations are considered well designed and sympathetic to the design of the building. The walls are to be finished in traditional materials and will be in keeping with the existing building where possible. The roof will be finished in natural slate and timber will be used in the construction. The proposed works are considered sympathetic to the overall design quality of the proposal and as such are acceptable in visual terms. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

Overall, it is considered that the buildings retain a rural scale. Furthermore the quality of the detailed elements such as windows, eaves and verges provide a welcome statement of quality in a traditional unlisted building. On this basis, it is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed scheme is in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and would not appear unduly prominent when viewed from public vantage points. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a significant harmful effect upon the visual relationship of the character of the area and its setting which contributes positively to the quality of the area. As such the proposals would accord with Policy EC12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The application site is well placed for walking, cycling, horse riding and activity holidays and the surrounding area is served by bus routes and road networks. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed holiday let element of the scheme accords with the criteria of Policy EC17 which supports proposals for tourism and recreation developments of an appropriate scale and Policy EC19 which supports the creation of well-designed unserviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings. However, to ensure that the holiday let remains ancillary to the host dwelling an appropriate condition is recommended to ensure that the building is used for holiday accommodation purposes only in connection with the main dwelling.

Turning to residential amenity there are no immediate residential properties which will be within close proximity to the proposed dwelling and as such the development will not give rise to unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking, in compliance with Policy EV1 of the Swansea UDP.

New Build Holiday Let

Policy EC17 specifically relates to rural tourism as part of a rural diversification scheme and only supports proposals which are (i) in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding and (ii) do not have significant adverse effects on landscape and nature conservation interests. Whilst there is no specific mention of rural diversification within the Policy, tourism proposals that are part of farm diversification projects are implicit within the Policy and within this Policy, proposals must be supported by clear and substantiated evidence. Whilst Policy EC17 allows for appropriate scale tourist development in acceptable locations, it is not specifically aimed at new build tourist accommodation. However, where applicants consider that in their case, the Policy supports new build tourist accommodation, they must provide very strong justification in order for the requirements of the other restrictive planning policies to be out weighed. In addition, support would only be given to a proposal that would be sited within an existing working farm and within an existing group of farm buildings. To this end, the current proposal would be grouped with the existing farm buildings and has been put forward as part of a farm diversification scheme.

The applicant has submitted an agricultural questionnaire in support of the farm diversification aspect. Section 3.7 of TAN 6 2010 states: 3.7.1 When considering planning applications for farm diversification projects, planning authorities should consider the nature and scale of activity taking a proportionate approach to the availability of public transport and the need for improvements to the local highway network. While initial consideration should be given to converting existing buildings for employment use, sensitively located and designed new buildings will also often be appropriate. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

3.7.2 Many economic activities can be sustainably located on farms. Small on-farm operations such as food and timber processing and food packing, together with services (e.g. offices, workshop facilities, equipment hire and maintenance), sports and recreation services, and the production of non-food crops and renewable energy, are likely to be appropriate uses. The question is whether the proposal is indeed a farm diversification project. For that to be the case, the majority enterprise should be agriculture. When considering applications for farm diversification one must consider the following points:

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

Level Farming Activity – The proposal will involve the creation of a two storey building to create holiday lets as a farm diversification enterprise to support the farming business. There is an existing hay shed for storage of hay etc which has a dual purpose for being used for lambing during the spring. Whilst it is acknowledged that two of the single storey barns are to be converted, they are no longer fit for agricultural purposes and the applicant contends that the approval of this application will provide the farm with enough capital to expand the agricultural business. The applicant contends that the agricultural unit has 260 breeding ewes, 10 rams, 300 lambs, 15 cattle, 10 pigs, 20 chickens and 6 ducks which indicates that there is a relatively high level of farming activity taking place on the holding.

Labour Employed – The applicant indicates that currently there is one person fully employed in agriculture and one part-time. The proposal would result in no additional employment.

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

Area of used for Non-agricultural activity: The majority of land would still be available for agricultural uses.

Is the farm a sustainable enterprise without diversified elements: The level of farming on the holding is significant and there is still a viable business without the diversified elements. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

It is therefore considered that given the physical area of the non-farming land only represents a minor element of the whole farm and furthermore it has been demonstrated that there is a considerable level of farming taking place which is viable it is considered that the new tourist building is an acceptable form of ancillary farm diversification to the main agricultural element. Farm diversification is encouraged to support the farming business, and it is considered that the proposal is a sustainable form of development in compliance with both National and Local Policy Guidance. As such the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of Policy EC17 which supports toursim development such as this in the countryside.

Drainage

In terms of drainage the site, whilst it is acknowledged that CCW has objected it should be noted that the proposal is not served by mains drainage and therefore surface water will be diverted to a soakaway, with foul water going to a septic package treatment plant. 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). 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 notwithstanding the letter of objection from CCW 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, one letter of concern was received which raised concerns in relation to the new two storey holiday accommodation. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Conclusion

In summary the submission of this scheme for a replacement dwelling in the countryside demonstrates that a contemporary idiom can inform a sensitive, contextual approach to redeveloping this site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

The design is of traditional form and materials which combine to create a dwelling that respects the wider countryside whilst also offering modern, flexible accommodation for its occupants. In terms of the barn conversion and new build tourist accommodation, these elements are considered acceptable forms of farm diversification which will make a valuable contribution to the local economy and are considered to be of a good quality design and subject to a condition ensuring traditional materials are used in their construction and renovation the proposal will respect the visual amenities of the area. Therefore, it is considered that given that the development complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV22, EC12, EC17, EC19 and EV19 of the Swansea UDP 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 dwelling and new build holiday lets 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.

3 The construction of the dwelling and new build holiday let hereby permitted 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.

4 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling and new build holiday lets 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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

5 No development shall commence until the developer has prepared a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of the following:- a) details of the proposed package treatment plant for foul water disposal, supported by a satisfactory non mains drainage assessment (Welsh Office Circular 10/99), and long term management and maintenance arrangements for the treatment plant; b) details of a sustainable drainage system (SUDS) for surface water drainage, including details of the soakaway proposals for the proposed replacement dwelling and three holiday units, confirming that these are adequate in size, and have sufficient permeability in accordance with BS 6297, and are not located within 10m of any watercourse/ditch nor within 50m or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply; and the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the construction of any impermeable surfaces draining to the system, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory comprehensive means of drainage is achieved and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise surface water run-off.

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

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

8 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.

9 The holiday accommodation hereby approved shall not be occupied as a person's sole, or main place of residence. Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the character and the countryside and ensuring an independent residential unit is not created.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

10 The site owner shall maintain an up to date register of the names of all occupants of the holiday accommodation hereby approved and of their main home addresses and shall make this information available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the character and appearance of the countryside and ensuring an independent residential unit is not created.

11 The holiday accommodation hereby approved shall be occupied for holiday purposes only. Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the character and appearance of the countryside and ensuring an independent residential unit is not created.

12 The holiday accommodation hereby approved shall not be sold, let or otherwise disposed of independently from Gelliorllwyn Farm. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (EV1, EV2, EV3, EV19, EV22, EC12, EC17, EC19, 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 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.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1835

PLANS

Site location plan, site plan, existing block plan, proposed block plan, PL/05 proposed floor plan and south east and south west elevation of barn, PL/06 proposed north west elevation to barn, PL/07 proposed ground floor plan, front and gable elevations of 2nd building, PL/08 proposed first floor plan and rear elevation to 2nd building, EXPL/01 existing floor plan of barn, EXPL/02 existing first floor plan of barn, EXPL/03 existing N.E. & N.W. elevations, EXPL/04 existing S.E. & S.W. elevations, EXPL/05 existing floor plan and courtyard elevation, EXPL/06 existing roof plan and garden elevation, design and access statement, report on barn, report on farmhouse, bat survey, photo received 7th December 2010 and PL/01A proposed ground floor plan and north east elevation to house, PL/02A proposed first floor plan and north west elevation to house, PL/03A proposed attic floor plan and south west elevation, PL/04A proposed roof plan and south east elevation to house dated 8th February 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0250 WARD: Bishopston Area 2

Location: Bishopswood Farm Bishopston Swansea SA3 3DW Proposal: Modification of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission 2/1/89/1910/03 granted on 26th April 1991 to permit amendments to Schedule 3 of the agreement to enable the amount of land tied to agricultural purposes to be reduced Applicant: Mr Graham Jones

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

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

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

Policy 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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0250

Policy EC12 The conversion of existing buildings in the countryside to new uses that contribute to the local economy and the extensions of such buildings will be permitted subject to a defined set of criteria including the building's structural integrity, its ability to be converted without prejudicing the character of the building or its locality, the building's compatibility with its surroundings, issues of access and highway safety, and the building's past uses etc. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 89/1910/03 CONVERSION OF REDUNDANT BARNS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 26/04/1991

99/1427 ERECTION OF 15 METRE HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST WITH 3 NO. DUAL POLAR ANTENNAE, 2 NO. 600MM MICROWAVE DISHES, ON EQUIPMENT CABINET AND ELECTRIC METER CABINET Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 04/01/2000

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

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

1. This application represents another attempt to change land use. 2. This land on the edge of the village and AONB should be afforded protection from any other land use other than agricultural. 3. The road infrastructure will not support any further housing development. 4. This application will lead to a further outline planning application for housing if it is deemed permissible. 5. The applicant has failed to provide evidence of having offered the site at a realistic price and for a reasonable period to the agricultural community and subject to the S106 condition , contrary to established planning guidance. 6. Failed to demonstrate that there is no demand for agricultural land in this area and cannot be sold as a going concern. 7. This area is under intense pressure for development and concern if protection of S.106 is lost. 8. PP for this property originally granted only if linked to agricultural use. 9. The area neighbours an area of land which is subject to an application as a candidate site for change of use in the LDP process currently underway. (re BI0001). The site will be in greater danger of being subject to increased pressures for development if the application is permitted. 10. The area of land falls within the village of Bishopston which has been designated a RDP eligible ward. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0250

Bishopston Community Council - Objects on the following grounds:- Client be required to remain living at the property then legal agreement should not preclude letting of the fields on long term leases.

The Gower Society - Has the following observations:- 1. This application is for land close to the recent Candidate Site Application BI0001; we query if there is any connection. 2. The area of land is clearly classified as open countryside and directly adjacent to the AONB. 3. The loss of viable farms within the area is of immense concern to the Society, and the resulting predominance and extension of ‘horsiculture’ is associated with this. 4. We consider that any land that is removed from the holding should remain as agricultural by having a restrictive covenant placed on it.

We are concerned, and ask that you take our comments into account when arriving at your decision.

Highway Observations - There are unlikely to be any highway safety implications with this proposal. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Keith Marsh because of local concerns.

The application site relates to the residential property known as ‘Bishopswood Farm, Bishopston’ (which was formerly part of Herberts Lodge Farm), and attached fields. This property is located with the open countryside and designated Green Wedge to the south of Bishopston.

Originally the dwelling was a small agricultural building within Herberts Lodge Farm, and was granted planning permission on the 26th April, 1991 (ref. 2/1/89/1910/03) for conversion to residential use, as a separate planning unit with its own attached fields, subject to a Section 106 Agreement and tie to the adjoining fields as follows:-

(i) The Owner shall ensure that the Property which is the subject of the Planning Application shall in the future be retained with the Land and any disposal by any means of the Property shall include the Land and similarly no disposal of the Land may take place without including the Property PROVIDED THAT the term “disposal by any means” shall not prohibit or preclude the Owner from granting agricultural tenancies licences or grazing agreements of the Land or any part thereof and this Agreement shall not require the OWNER when disposing of the LAND in any manner described in this proviso to include the PROPERTY.

(ii) Notwithstanding condition (i) above the LAND shall not be used in support or justification of a further agricultural dwelling at any time. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0250

The current applicant was one of the original applicants and agreed to the severance restriction in 1990, by signing the terms of the legal agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However it should be noted that the planning permission was not subject to condition restricting the sale of the house or land and relies on the Section 106 Agreement only.

Description

This application seeks a modification of the above Section 106 Agreement to enable the sale of the property with a reduced amount of land to be tied to the dwelling. The amount currently tied to the dwelling is approximately 45 acres and the request is for this to be reduced to some 15 to 20 acres.

The applicant’s agent has explained that there has been a change in circumstances to the applicant since the S106 was originally signed, with no viable income being made from either this farming unit for the past 8-10 years, or the neighbouring egg business at Herbert’s Lodge Farm since 2004.

In addition, the applicant has been given private estate agent advice that the farm is no longer a viable farming unit and is unlikely to be attractive at sale to a ’farming family’. As such it is assumed that it will be difficult to sell the dwelling with the restrictive tie to the current amount of land attached. However, based on the information submitted, it appears that no marketing of the property has taken place.

In summary the reason given for this request is that this tie is no longer reasonable and has outlived its usefulness.

Planning History

In order to fully consider the current request for the modification, it is necessary to consider the planning history and the reasons for the S106 agreement tied to Application Ref: 2/1/89/1910/03.

This application was originally reported to the Area Planning Sub-Committee on the 14th February 1990 where Committee were mindful to recommend approval of the barn conversion to permanent residential accommodation, subject to conditions and the applicant entering into a prior legal agreement to the effect of “linking the proposed dwelling to the land indicated on the submitted plan as being in the same ownership in perpetuity”.

At that time the farm was farmed as two holdings under two separate companies, with the first holding (an egg production business) having an existing dwelling. The planning file records indicate that after discussions with the LPA the applicant agreed that the second holding, the subject of the S106, occupied by his son, would be tied to the adjoining land under the terms of the above S106, and signed the legal agreement.

However, it is noted that there was no requirement under the obligations agreed in the S106, or by planning condition, for the occupier of the dwelling to be solely or mainly working (or last ) working in agriculture, or in forestry (or a widow or a widower of such a person). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0250

In addition it appears that the existing farm dwelling at ‘Herberts Lodge Farm’ was not similarly tied to any land on this farm in 1990, and was therefore free to be disposed off separately from the egg farm.

The applicant’s agent has referred in their current supporting statement and letter to historical correspondence on file ref. 2/1/89/1910/03 of requests from the applicant to release two parcels of land from the above legal restriction, but no formal applications to modify the S106 were received by the LPA. Our legal advisors have confirmed that in their legal opinion the S106 therefore currently runs with the land as agreed under the terms of the above S106, as no modification has been formally agreed with the Council.

Main Issues

However, in planning terms consideration can be given to the current request to modify the terms of the S106, and regard will be given to any change in circumstances including the practicalities of the new situation prevailing for the applicant and consideration of current planning policy. In particular consideration needs to be given as to whether the tie of the land to the converted barn dwelling at Bishopswood Farm is still necessary and reasonable.

Policy Issues

It should also be noted that in planning policy terms the ‘barn conversion’ of the former redundant farm building at Bishopswood Farm met the criteria of the relevant planning policy at that time which was Policy GV2 of the Swansea Local Plan.

Since 1990, national planning policy in Wales has been revised and now constitutes Planning Policy Wales 2002 (as revised latest revision February 2011) and its Technical Advice Notes including TAN 6:Agriculture which is relevant to this application. In addition, local planning policy guidance has changed with the current Unitary Development Plan for the City and County of Swansea adopted in November 2008.

In particular UDP Policies EV22 and EV23 ensure that within the open countryside and designated Green Wedge areas, there are increased and strict controls to ensure that the countryside is conserved and enhanced to protect its character and openness and resist any inappropriate or unjustified development, including new residential development.

It should also be noted that the current UDP policy EC12 for conversion of rural buildings have to satisfy strict criteria that include a requirement that preference is given to new uses that contribute to the local economy and provide employment, and these are preferred to residential uses. Proposed residential uses require a supporting statement to accompany a planning application to demonstrate attempts to secure a business use, and the application has to meet the criteria of Policy EV20 as follows.

Policy EV20 seeks to ensure that in the countryside new dwellings will only be permitted where the dwelling is required to accommodate a full time worker, solely or primarily employed in agriculture and there is no alternative existing dwelling available in nearby settlements. The UDP says that in these circumstances both a functional need and a financial case must be shown for the dwelling. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0250

This is further reinforced by National Planning Guidance Technical Advice Note 6 – Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (TAN 6) revised in 2010, which postdates the UDP and presents a series of tests that should be satisfied for a new or second dwelling on a farm. These include functional and financial tests, a time test, ‘other dwelling’ test and ‘other normal planning requirements’ test. TAN 6 also says that it may be appropriate to allow a second dwelling on established farms that are financially sustainable but where all the tests are not fully met. This is in order to encourage younger people to manage farm business and promote the diversification of established farms. PPW advises however, that where new dwellings are allowed, they can be subject to planning conditions restricting their occupation and can be tied to the land by legal agreement.

On this basis, and having regard to the concerns raised in public consultation about pressure for further new residential development at this location, it is considered that any future applications for new residential development on these particular fields would be adequately controlled by the need to meet the above policy requirements, which require that any proposal meets the relevant functional and financial tests of TAN6 as well as UDP policies. This situation applies whether the land at Bishopswood Farm is released from the S106 or not. In addition, Bishopswood Farm lies close to the settlement of Bishopston where there may be suitable dwellings for any future user of the field to live (i.e. there may not be a strong functional case for a new dwelling on this land). On this basis, it is considered that there sufficient planning policy controls in place to consider any future applications for additional new residential development at this location, in line with the overarching objectives to protect the character and appearance and openness of the Green Wedge and the natural beauty of the nearby Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Other Material Considerations

The Head of Transportation and Engineering has considered the application and confirmed there are unlikely to be any highway safety implications.

Concerns have been raised in public representation regarding the future pressures for new residential development on these fields and the need to protect this area of open countryside are covered above in the main body of the report. The siting in a RDP ward does not affect the policies applicable to this open countryside and green wedge site as covered by the policy analysis above. The public concerns raised regarding the nearby candidate site BI0001 which is sited between Kilfield and Caswell Bay Road situated to the north of Herberts Lodge Farm but are not considered material to the determination of this application as that site is being considered under a separate consultation and assessment process as part of the Local Development Plan candidate site considerations.

Conclusions

Section 106A(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that a planning obligation may not be modified or discharged except by agreement between the authority and person or persons upon whom it is enforceable, and this is the reason for this application. Section 106A(2) states that any agreement shall be by deed, which the applicant recognises. Section 106A(3) states that an application to modify/discharge a planning obligation must only be made after the ‘relevant period’ expires. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0250

The ‘relevant period’ is defined as five years subsequent to the date the obligation is entered into, as stated under Section 106A(4), and the application meets this requirement.

In this case the original application approved in 1991 allowed a second dwelling on the farm to enable the appellant’s son to take over control of part of the business. However it is clear that this is no longer the case, and the business has not been transferred to another family member. Whilst the current S106 allows for the possibility of obtaining an agricultural tenancy licence or grazing agreement, the applicant has no interest in this option given his elderly age and wishes to be free to dispose of land tied to the dwelling to make the sale of the dwelling more likely on the open market.

It is therefore considered that in this particular case consideration has to be given to the practicalities of the current situation, and current planning policy described above. Whilst no evidence has been submitted to substantiate the applicant’s claims that the farm business(es) are no longer sustainable and no longer operate at a profit, it is accepted that there has been a change in circumstances with the applicant being the only family member now resident at the farm, with horse grazing being the main use of the fields attached to Bishopswood Farm. The grazing use is not a breach of the S106, and can continue if the land is part of the Bishopswood holding or not. In addition, there has been no viable operation for some 7 years at the egg business at Herbert’s Lodge Farm, which is also in the applicant’s control.

In the light of these considerations, it is concluded that the business has changed and there is no longer a need to tie this barn conversion dwelling to the landholding of approximately 45 acres originally specified. Moreover it could be argued that to insist on no severance of the dwelling from the current landholding of approximately 45 acres is unduly onerous, given that there is no requirement under the terms of the S106 or relevant planning permission for the occupier to be solely, mainly or last working in agriculture, or other rural enterprise employment, and allowed the land to be ‘leased’ for any user. Nor was there any restriction on severing the original farmhouse at Herberts Lodge Farm from the egg business or any other land in the farm holding. Moreover, it is considered that the current national and local planning policy requirements will satisfactorily control any future proposals for further residential development of any field released by modification of the current S106.

On this basis, it is considered that the Section 106 Planning Agreement agreed under Application Ref: 2/1/89/1910/03 is no longer reasonable, and it is recommended that the S106 be modified so that the dwelling at Bishopswood Farm is tied to a smaller area of land, as indicated on the plan submitted by the applicant’s agent which amounts to approximately 15 to 20 acres.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE the application subject to the Section 106 Agreement to Planning Permission 2/1/89/1910/03 being modified to the effect that: i. The area of LAND tied to the dwelling at Bishopswood Farm, will be reduced in area to approximately 20 acres as indicated in yellow on the plan attached to application 2011/0250. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0250

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, EV20, EV22, EV23, EV26, and EC12.

PLANS

Site plan and supporting statement received 14th February 2011 and plan indicating proposed LAND to be tied by S106 to PROPERTY received 22nd September 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 12 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0366 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: Penyfro, Penuel, Llanmorlais, Swansea SA4 3UQ Proposal: Removal of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission 89/0557 granted on 2nd December 1991 to remove the agricultural occupancy condition Applicant: Alan B Jenkins

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 92/0289 ERECTION OF A DETACHED BUNGALOW AND DETACHED GARAGE - DETAILS OF SITING, DESIGN AND EXTERNAL APPEARANCE, AND MEANS OF ACCESS, PURSUANT TO CONDITION 01 OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION REF 89/0557 DATED 2.12.91. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 28/04/1992

89/0557/01 PROPOSED RETIREMENT BUNGALOW FOR FARMER Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 14/01/1992

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0366

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and three neighbouring properties were individually consulted. No letters of response were received.

APPRAISAL

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

Description

This application is for the removal of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission granted on 2nd December 1991 to remove the agricultural occupancy condition at Penyfro, Penuel, Llanmorlais. The dwelling is a bungalow which is situated within the countryside and Gower AONB amongst a small hamlet of dwellings.

The original application for the erection of a dwelling house (Ref: 89/0557) was submitted to Committee with a recommendation of refusal for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would be contrary to the Policy guidance on new agricultural dwellings approved by the Planning Committee on the 20th July 1990, in that the proposed dwelling does not comply with Para 1.3 (iii) of that Guidance which states inter alia: “Any additional dwelling (restricted to one per farm holding) which may be granted to accommodate a retired farmer or a member of his or her family whose sole employment is the working of the farm”. 2. The development would be contrary to Policy GV2 of the Swansea Local Plan in that outside of the main village settlements, residential development will not be normally permitted except where an agricultural need has been established, which is not proven in this case.

Whilst the application was recommended for refusal, Members considered the proposal acceptable subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement limiting the occupation of the dwelling to a person solely or mainly or last employed in agriculture (which shall include the dependants of such a person residing with him or her) as defined in Section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or in forestry or a widow or widower of such a person. This application seeks the removal of this Section 106 Agreement to allow the son who does not work in agriculture to reside at the dwelling house.

Main Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relates to whether it can be demonstrated that the agricultural need advanced at the time of the original permission no longer apply and there is no need for the dwelling to meet the long term needs of the local agricultural community or those employed in associated agricultural services in line with the Policy amplification of Policy EV20 of the Swansea Unitary Development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0366

Supporting Information

The applicant contends that the bungalow was constructed in 1992/93 as a retirement home for his parents who were retiring from farming. Upon completion of the dwelling the applicants father passed away and due to his mothers failing health the applicant moved into the house to care for his mother. Since November 2008 the applicant has lived in the property by himself as his mother had to be moved to a nursing home and as such has been in breach of the occupancy agreement.

The applicant contends that whilst there has been no material change in planning circumstance since permission was granted, the consent was issued by the Local Authority without any need for an agricultural workers dwelling. The applicant contends that given there was no proven need for a dwelling when permission was originally granted it would now seem perverse to expect the dwelling to retain this occupancy condition.

Furthermore since the occupation of this dwelling to the present day, the supporting information states that the number of agricultural workers in the locality has continued to fall in line with the national trend and as such it would be wholly unrealistic to expect the property to be retained for the remote possibility of being sold to an agricultural or forestry worker.

The applicant concludes that in light in of the above in this case there is sufficient exceptional circumstances demonstrated which warrants the removal of the Section 106 Agreement and should therefore be discharged.

Conclusion

On the basis of the information provided, whilst the Local Authority may have originally granted consent contrary to officer advice, the Committee determined that there was an agricultural need for a dwelling at this location. Therefore in light of the submitted information and having regard to paragraph 1.6.19 of Policy EV20 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan which focuses particularly upon the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions and Section 106 Agreements, it is not considered that it has been demonstrated that the dwelling is not needed to satisfy a general requirement for agricultural dwellings within the area. In order to be successful it would need to be demonstrated that unsuccessful attempts to sell the property have been made and that marketing has been correctly targeted, financially realistic and sustained. The supporting information makes no reference for how long the dwelling has been marketed or indeed if it has been at all. Further information was requested, however the applicant wanted the application to be determined on the basis of the information provided. To conclude, on the basis of the information currently submitted it is not considered that it has been adequately demonstrated that the agricultural need of the dwelling no longer applies, therefore the proposal is considered contrary to National Guidance and Policy EV20 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0366

1 On the basis of the information submitted it is not considered that it has been adequately demonstrated that the agricultural need of the dwelling no longer applies, therefore the proposal is considered contrary to National Guidance and Policy EV20 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: (EV20, EV22, EV26).

PLANS

Supporting statement received 10th March 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: 17 Higher Lane Swansea SA3 4NS Proposal: Alterations to existing side porch, replacement rear dormer, raised decking with undercroft parking area and formation of new access Applicant: Mr Dean Boyce

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy 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 AS2 Accessibility - Criteria for assessing design and layout of new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2005/1577 Front dormer and single storey rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 23/09/2005

87/1180/10 SECTION 60 APPLICATION TO: TO REMOVE AND THIN OVERHANGING BRANCHES ON FIVE TREES. Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 08/09/1987

87/1581/10 SECTION 60 APPLICATION TO FELL A SYCAMORE TREE. Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 10/11/1987

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SUBMISSION - Two neighbouring properties were individually consulted on the original proposal which included a proposed front conservatory. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received which can be summarised as follows:

* the proposed conservatory would be a highly visible extension to the front of a prominent semi-detached house that breaks the building line, introduces a dominant feature and compromises the original character of a distinct period property; * it is to be built abutting our shared boundary … presenting us with a 3m high solid wall which we feel will be extremely overbearing and will greatly impact on the residential amenity and enjoyment of our home; * the proposed conservatory breaks the 450 rule as outlined in planning guidelines, and its immediate proximity to the front window of our main living room will unacceptably encroach on our sense of openness and outlook; * it will create a marked increase in light pollution to the front of the property but they go on to confirm that they have no objections to the rest of the planning application; * a new access at this point would be dangerous; * it is believed that part of the land in question contains public rights of way and is in the ownership of the City & County of Swansea; and * a water main runs directly under the bank where the opening is proposed. This water main has burst and damaged the road surface next to the proposed access. It broke again earlier this year directly at the site of the proposed new access and when excavated for repair it was noted to be in the bank and quite close to the surface.

Mumbles Community Council also objected to the original proposal by reason of the closing of a public right of way for the new access, taking away highways land and the steep access in and onto the highway.

AMENDED PLANS (received 7th September 2011) - This amended scheme included the removal of the proposed front conservatory and its replacement with a 2.8m high wall along the common boundary with No.15 Higher Lane, and the provision of the requested tree survey. Following a further consultation exercise undertaken in relation to these amended plans, ONE FURTHER LETTER OF OBJECTION was received, which can be summarised as follows:

* the proposed new wall is to be built to a height of 2.8m in close proximity to the window in our main living room and will run 10m forward from the principal elevation; * due to its height and close proximity to our front window it will break the 45 degree rule as outlined in the planning guidelines; * It also appears that the new wall will not be stepped down the slope and therefore at its end will stand at over 6m from ground level; * the wall would be a highly visible protrusion from the front elevation of a prominent semi-detached house that breaks the building line, introduces a dominant feature and compromises the original character of a distinct period property; and * the height of the new wall standing at 2.8m will be extremely overbearing and will greatly impact on the residential amenity and enjoyment of our home. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371

FURTHER AMENDED PLANS (received 4th October 2011) – show a boundary wall along the common boundary with No.15 at a height of 1.8m for a length of 5m, then stepped to a height of 1m for a length of 2.62m. All other elements of the scheme remain the same. Following a further consultation exercise undertaken in relation to these amended plans, ONE FURTHER LETTER OF OBJECTION was received, which can be summarised as follows:

* there are incorrect measurements on the plan in Section B-B marking the line of the adjacent deck that is on our property. The line … should be at 4.4m from the front of the building … not at 6m as marked. This incorrect measurement gives the impression that the proposed new wall is less impacting and smaller than it will actually be; * from our side of the boundary, the end of the wall rises 4.5m in height from ground level and runs back towards the property for 2.6m. The wall then rises again, stepping up a further 0.8 to an overall height of 5.4m from ground level running back towards the house; * from our side of the boundary this will create a very high and wide expanse of new wall that we feel will be unacceptably overbearing and introduce an uncharacteristic dominant feature in the lane; and * it would be highly visible protrusion from the front elevation of a prominent semi- detached house that breaks the building line, introduces a dominant feature and compromises the original character of a distinct period property and its immediate surroundings

Highway Observations: This site is one of approximately 7 properties accessed from an established shared private drive off Higher Lane, Langland. The drive emerges onto Higher Lane at its junction with Overland Road and is not up to modern standards in terms of its width. This proposal is to provide No 17 Higher Lane, the last property on the drive, with a separate and new access to improved parking and turning facilities.

The new direct access would be sited approximately 100m further along Higher Lane and away from its junction with Overland Road and Langland Road. Visibility from the new access is to be provided by trimming back the overgrown hedge and the splay indicated on the submitted plans is sufficient for this private access. The parking area will accommodate at least 3 vehicles and separate turning facilities.

Whilst there is always a need to consider carefully any new access onto the highway, this proposal will reduce the number of properties accessing via a sub standard shared private drive and the safety standards proposed for the new access are acceptable.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering Services recommends no highway objection, subject to the new access and improved visibility splays being completed prior to the new access being brought into beneficial use.

Arboriculturist

Introduction A site visit was made on 4th October 2011 to assess the arboricultural impact from the above proposed scheme. One beech tree covered by TPO 266:T001 and 1 hedgerow within TPO 176:G001 were identified as being in close proximity to the proposed scheme and would require an assessment to determine if any adverse impact would be incurred. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371

Tree Inspection TPO 266 - T001 – Beech - a small tree (5 metres high that consists of 2 stems of approximately 300mm in diameter with a 2 metre branch spread). This tree offers low to moderate amenity value to the surrounding area. T001 has been managed as a reduced tree and has not developed into a tree of note.

TPO 176 - G001 – 3 Sycamore and 4 Hawthorn – a group that now mainly contains privet and conifer hedgerow species that are not included within the Tree Preservation Order. This group has been managed as a hedgerow and found within the hedgerow are some small sycamore and hawthorn trees of low value.

Conclusion The proposed scheme would have an adverse impact on T001 as 50% of its root system would be covered by an increase in soil level. Also some root pruning would be required to allow for excavation for the garage. As T001 has been assessed to be a small tree of low/moderate amenity value that will not fulfil its full potential, it is recommended for the removal of T001 and a standard size replacement beech tree (Fagus sylvatica) be planted in a location as agreed by the LPA.

Additionally some hedgerow pruning work would be required to the hedgerow located within the Group Order G001. The area of hedgerow which requires pruning to facilitate this scheme consists of mainly privet. Privet is a species that can tolerate such pruning without be detrimental to the future health or amenity value of the hedgerow.

Required Conditions: LC05 Landscaping - Tree Prot, LC06 Tree Surgeon, LC08 Replacement Tree

APPRAISAL

This application is called to Committee for determination by Councillor Anthony Colburn to allow consideration of highway and rights of way concerns.

Full planning permission was originally sought for the construction of a front conservatory, replacement rear dormer and side porch, raised decking with undercroft parking and the formation of a new access. The scheme has, however, been amended following negotiation with officers and the scheme currently under consideration incorporates alterations to the existing side porch, a replacement rear dormer, raised decking with undercroft parking and the formation of a new access.

The proposal also incorporates a wall along the north-western boundary of the site, ranging from 1.8 metres to 4.5 metres in height. Part of this new boundary wall, however, along the common boundary with No.15, being 1.8m in height and not adjoining the highway, is considered to be permitted development and does not, therefore, form part of this application.

The proposal falls to be considered in relation to Policies EV1 – Design, EV2 – Siting and Location, EV30 – Trees, Woodland and Hedgerow Protection, HC7 – Residential Alterations and Extensions, and AS2 – Design and Layout of means of access, along with the guidance provided in Supplementary Planning Guidance document `A Design Guide for Householder Development' (2008). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371

Policy EV1 seeks to foster a good standard of design and requires all new development to have regard to its local context; integrate with adjacent spaces and development; and not result in a significant detrimental impact on local amenity in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy, disturbance and traffic movements. Emanating from this, Policy EV2 requires that all new development must have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings, including site features such as, landscape and trees and hedgerows, whilst Policy HC7 relates to residential extensions and alterations such as now proposed. This latter policy confirms that alterations and extensions are to be assessed in terms of: relationship to the existing dwelling by virtue of size, design and materials; impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene; affect on neighbouring properties with particular reference to physical impact, overshadowing/loss of light and privacy and; impact on car parking. Further detailed guidance on these issues is provided in the relevant sections of the Supplementary Planning Guidance document `A Design Guide for Householder Development' (2008).

The proposed works to the existing porch include alteration to the flat roof design of the rear element to form a hipped monopitch roof and the relocation of the existing entrance door from the rear north-eastern elevation to the main south-eastern elevation. In terms of impact upon visual amenity these minor alterations do not, it is considered adversely affect either the architectural qualities of the existing house or the streetscene. The siting of the existing porch in relation to nearby houses and the minor nature of the proposed alterations also ensure that no adverse impact would result to the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in terms of overshadowing, overbearing impact or overlooking.

The existing rear dormer measures 1.5m wide by 2.4m high to ridge, whilst its proposed replacement will measure 2.5m wide by a maximum of 3m high to ridge. Whilst larger than the existing dormer, the proposal is considered to relate satisfactorily to the host property in visual amenity terms. In addition, in terms of the guidance at Section 5 of `A Design Guide for Householder Development' (2008), the dormer would be set up from the eaves, down from the ridge and does not dominate the roof plane. In addition, sited at the rear, the proposal would not be generally visible from nearby highway vantage points. Finishing materials for this element are not specified but it is considered appropriate to attach a suitable condition requiring the submission and approval of details to match the existing roof covering prior to the commencement of any development on the site. In terms of residential amenity, the nature of this element and the juxtaposition of nearby houses ensure that no adverse impact would result to the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in terms of overshadowing, overbearing impact or loss of light/privacy.

The proposed raised decking area, together with an extended grassed area, will occupy land to the front and side of the application property which is currently laid to a grass bank. The rationalisation of this bank, its re-contouring and associated retaining structures would be visible from both Higher Lane and the old Higher Lane adjacent to the application property. Notwithstanding its visibility, however, it is considered that the re-profiling of the garden and the landscaping proposed to the front of the retaining wall would be sufficient to mitigate the visual impact of this element of the scheme on the streetscene. In terms of residential amenity, this element by its nature would not overshadow or overbear neighbouring occupiers. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371

The extended re-profiled grassed area to the front would allow for extensive views into the neighbouring property at No.15 to the north-west and its front decked area, and in this respect a boundary wall at 1.8m height is proposed which would preclude any unacceptable levels of overlooking in that direction.

Policy EV30 of the Unitary Development Plan relates specifically to protected trees and hedgerows such as are present on this site, and encourages their protection and improvement. The comments received from the Council’s Arboriculturist reproduced above, clearly demonstrate that works proposed as part of this development would have an adverse impact upon an existing Beech tree. However, given that this small tree is of low/moderate amenity value that will not fulfil its full potential, it is recommended that this be removed and a standard size replacement beech tree (Fagus sylvatica) be planted in a location to be agreed by condition. The works proposed to the TPO group identified in the hedgerow along Higher Lane are considered appropriate as the species is such that it can tolerate such pruning without being detrimental to the future health or amenity value of the hedgerow.

Policy AS2, relating to the design and layout of developments, requires that new developments should be designed, inter alia, to allow for the safe, efficient and non- intrusive movement of vehicles and to ensure that impacts on the natural, historic and built environment, and local communities are minimised.

In this respect, the Head of Transportation and Engineering confirms that the proposal will provide No 17 Higher Lane, the last property on the drive, with a separate and new access to improved parking and turning facilities.

The new direct access would be sited approximately 100m from the junction with Overland Road and Langland Road, with an acceptable splay for a private access and visibility being provided by trimming back the overgrown hedge. The parking area will accommodate at least 3 vehicles and separate turning facilities.

On this basis it is considered that, while there is always a need to consider carefully any new access onto the highway, this proposal will reduce the number of properties accessing via a sub standard shared private drive and the safety standards proposed for the new access are acceptable.

In the circumstances, the Head of Transportation and Engineering Services recommends no highway objection, subject to the new access and improved visibility splays being completed prior to the new access being brought into beneficial use.

With regard to the objections raised by neighbouring occupiers, the initial conservatory extension which caused concerns has been removed from the scheme. The proposed wall on the north-west boundary has been reduced in part to 1.8m high which can be constructed under the owners’ permitted development rights and does not require the benefit of planning permission. With regard to concerns regarding the accuracy of the plans, a review of the revised plans indicates that at this point the wall will reach a maximum height of 1.8m above ground level.

Matters of highway safety are addressed above, whilst no constraints have been identified regarding rights of way, land ownership and drainage in this respect. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371

Mumbles Community Council also objected to the original proposal by reason of the closing of a public right of way for the new access, loss of highways land and concerns regarding the gradient of the access. In this respect matters regarding highway safety have been addressed above and Council records do not indicate that a right of way will be affected.

In conclusion, therefore, and having regard to all material planning considerations and the provisions of the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of development which complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, HC7, EV30 and AS2 of the adopted City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008) and the guidance provided in the relevant sections of the Supplementary Planning Guidance document `A Design Guide for Householder Development' (2008).

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

2 Notwithstanding the submitted details, Tree T001 Beech (TPO 266) shall be felled and a replacement tree planted within the first planting season after felling. The replacement tree shall be a standard size beech tree (Fagus syvatica) which shall be planted in a location to be agreed in writing by the Local Authority prior to planting. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and safety, and the continued health of the tree.

3 The work shall be carried out by a qualified tree surgeon to British Standard 3998 (2010) recommendations for tree work, the identity of whom shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority a minimum of 7 working days before the work is to be carried out. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and safety.

4 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified a minimum of 7 days in advance of the date and time when the work is to be carried out. Reason: To give the Local Authority the opportunity to inspect the work being carried out.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371

5 No development or other operations shall take place except in accordance with the guide on "The Protection of Trees on Development Sites" attached to this planning permission. No trees, shrubs, or hedges shall be felled or cut back in any way, except where expressly authorised by the landscaping scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority until two years after the completion of the development. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such authorisation, or dying, or being seriously damaged or diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced by plants of a size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure the protection of trees growing on the site whilst the development is being carried out.

6 No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until the access shown on the deposited plan has been constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7 The materials to be used for the external surfaces of the proposed extended dormer shall be in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

8 The proposed wall along the boundary with No.15 Higher Lane shall be erected in accordance with the approved plans prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of the occupiers of No.15 Higher Lane.

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, EV30, AS2 and HC7 of the adopted City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the guidance contained in the Supplementary Planning Guidance document `A Design Guide for Householder Development' (2008).

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0371

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.

5 The applicant or his contractor should contact the Council's Tree Officer (Tel. No. 01792 635724) with regard to the discharging of any of the conditions of this consent.

6 The applicant or his contractor should follow the advice given in BS 3998 (2010) 'Recommendations for Tree Work'.

PLANS

473.P.05- site location plan, BBA473.P.01- existing block plan, BBA473.P.03- existing plans & elevations, received 14th March 2011; Amended plans: BBA473.P.04A - proposed plans & elevations, Tree Report, received 5th September 2011. Amended plan BBA473.P.02A - proposed block plan & section, received 4th October 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Windmill Farm, Llanrhidian, Swansea, SA3 1HB Proposal: Retention of conversion and extension of barns to form wedding venue facility with ancillary accommodation and car park Applicant: Mr Vivian Pearce

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

Policy EC12 The conversion of existing buildings in the countryside to new uses that contribute to the local economy and the extensions of such buildings will be permitted subject to a defined set of criteria including the building's structural integrity, its ability to be converted without prejudicing the character of the building or its locality, the building's compatibility with its surroundings, issues of access and highway safety, and the building's past uses etc. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

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 EC19 The creation of well-designed un-serviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings will be supported. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy 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 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 2010/0880 Conversion of existing barns into 4 units of holiday accommodation to include an increase in ridge height of barn G with 2 front dormers and side balcony, insertion of 2 front and 2 rear dormers to barn F, addition of first floor to barns C,D and E with fenestration and external alterations Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 05/07/2010 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

2003/0352 Conversion of existing barn into two holiday letting units Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 27/05/2003

2010/0531 Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October (inclusive) for 2010/2011 seasons Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 23/07/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

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

Countryside Council for Wales (CCW): No comment.

Highways: This proposal is for the conversion of a barn to provide a function suite for weddings and associated holiday accommodation. The holiday accommodation will have 9 beds and that together with the relatively small function suite will require 34 parking spaces. Staff parking will need to be added to this and I estimate a total requirement of 39 spaces. Some of this parking requirement could be replaced by patrons arriving by coach. The plans indicate a parking area that will likely accommodate up to 50 spaces, adequate provision is therefore available within the site.

The site is located in a rural area and whilst the access junction leading to the site can accommodate the likely volume of traffic associated with this use, I do have some concerns with regard to the narrow lanes leading to the site from Oldwalls. Parts of the route are narrow, however there are passing places and this is one of the established main roads carrying traffic to and from Llanmadoc.

The site is approximately 1km from the junction at Oldwalls where the road network improves and it is likely that traffic associated with the function suite is going to be tidal, with customers arriving and leaving at the same time therefore conflict with each other is unlikely. The limited size of the facility is also a factor that will restrict patronage and any application to extend the facility will need to be considered on its merits. I am mindful that there are other similar facilities in Gower with restricted access and whilst there may occasionally be traffic conflict locally, in general the sites operate satisfactorily.

On balance therefore I recommend that no highway objections are raised

Gower Society: Following observations:

1. We consider the word ‘conversion’ to be inaccurate as the existing structures look to be woefully inadequate and extremely modern in order to comply with current policies. 2. The structures would, in fact be new development in the open countryside and do not reflect the principles of the legislation. 3. We note the building of the new farm buildings to replace those to be ‘converted’. It is our understanding that very little farming may be carried out on this property. 4. The proposed enclosure of agricultural land as a car parking space is unacceptable. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

5. There is an alternative wedding venue not very far away. 6. The principle of precedent creeps in here.

We object to this application; please take our comments into account when arriving at your decision.

Environment Agency: No objection.

Summary of supporting information submitted by the Applicant:

1. Proposal seeks the change of use of the existing building for wedding ceremonies and ancillary holiday accommodation. 2. Proposal complies with Planning Policy Wales (PPW) edition 4 and TAN 6. 3. PPW states that small scale enterprises have a vital role in promoting healthy economic activity in rural areas which can contribute to both local and national competitiveness. 4. Paragraph 7.3.3 states that:

“Local planning authorities should adopt a positive approach to development associated with farm diversification in rural area, irrespective of whether farms are served by public transport.”

It further confirms that:

“While initial consideration should be given to adapting existing farm buildings, the provision of a sensitively designed new building on a working farm within existing farm complexes may be appropriate where a conversion opportunity does not exist.”

5. TAN 6 at paragraph 3.7.1 states that: “While consideration should be given to converting existing buildings for employment use a sensitively located and design of new buildings would also often be appropriate.”

6. Policy EV21 of the UDP states that development in rural areas will only be permitted where amongst other things is to demonstrate that:

“It is an appropriate development associated with farm diversification, sustainable tourism and recreation or nature conservation and does not adversely affect the viability of an existing farm unit or if it provides an acceptable economic use for previously developed land or existing buildings in accordance with Policy EC12.”

7. Policy EC11 and EC12 both support conversion of rural buildings and encourage conversion to contribute to the local economy. 8. The farm as existing is not a viable business and the accounts illustrate this. Profits year ending 2009 - £4,644 and year ending 2010 - £18,371. 9. It clearly needs to seek alternative methods other than farming to generate an income. The re-use of the existing building to be used for wedding ceremonies with ancillary holiday accommodation is clearly a benefit to the local community. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

10. The wedding element qualifies under employment creation and tourism for the area. The proposal is directly linked to the economic activities of this agricultural enterprise and makes use of an existing building. 11. The wedding venue will generate significantly more income than the existing use of the land, which will cover the considerable costs of the high standard of conversion, making the whole project viable. 12. Proposal will create 22 full and partime jobs as well as the linked uses such as catering and the use of local produce. 13. There have been over 500 enquiries regarding weddings at this venue and this points to a need. 14. The money generated from this diversification will enable applicant to re-stock the farm with beef cattle.

Summary of response from the Council’s Agricultural Consultant:

1. The existing collection of agricultural buildings would be made almost entirely unusable by the proposal, through conversion and partial demolition, leaving (essentially) only the buildings immediately adjacent to the proposal, which could not practically be used for livestock accommodation, given the nature of the proposal. 2. Store cattle are mentioned on the supporting statement, but the questionnaire clarifies that 300 ewes are currently kept on the holding and are the only agricultural enterprise, with the two holiday accommodation units run as an additional, non-agricultural rural enterprise. 3. In our opinion, the proposed works are not a conversion of existing agricultural buildings. The works are extensive and involve not only extending the buildings with new construction, but fundamentally alter the existing structures from an agricultural to a domestic appearance. It is a substantial re-development of the site. 4. 3.7 of TAN 6 states that for farm diversification projects, authorities should take a proportionate approach. The first question then is whether this is a diversification project and secondly whether the proposal is proportionate. 5. In considering this, we have taken into account the factors relevant to a diversification project:

• Whether the proportion of existing and proposed farming activity (as opposed to non- farming activity) on the holding is sufficient to allow the proposal to be assessed as diversification.

• Whether the majority of labour employed in the business is in connection with the agricultural enterprise.

• Whether the proposal would materially alter the pre-existing balance between agriculture and non-agricultural activity, use and income.

• Whether the proportion of land used for agriculture on the holding would continue to exceed the non-agricultural use.

• Whether the existing farming enterprises operate with the intention of being a trade or business and is sustainable and profitable without the proposed diversification project. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

6. The proposal includes the conversion of the majority of the remaining agricultural buildings in the yard and the sterilisation of the remainder. It is difficult to see how a livestock enterprises could continue to be run from the farm without replacement buildings being erected away from the proposal and it is difficult to see how an already unviable agricultural enterprise could be made more viable without that use of the buildings. The proposal would therefore endanger the ability for the farming activity to even continue at the present level. 7. The agricultural enterprise employs one full-time employee, one part-time and two casual workers. The proposal presents 22 new full and part-time jobs and in terms of employment the agricultural element would be dwarfed by the proposal. 8. Only two previous years accounts are provided, but they show a (loss) of £4644 in 2009 and a (profit) of £18,371 in 2010. There is no division between livestock and subsidy and it is assumed that the accounts do not include the existing holiday let income (which is non-agriculture). Certainly the supporting statement confirms that the farm is “not viable” as it is and that the proposal would provide “...significantly more income than the existing use of the land...”, but no further detail is provided. The expectation is that the non-farming income will exceed that derived from the farm. This will be a permanent departure with the removal from agriculture of the majority of the buildings and the effective sterilisation of the remainder. 9. The majority of the activity, use of land, income and employment on the land will be non-agricultural to an even greater degree than at present, although at least the majority of land would still be available for agricultural uses, albeit with a more limited usefulness for modern commercial farming with few buildings to serve it. 10. Although there is no evidence to suggest that the farm has been run with no intention to be a trade or business, it is stated in the supporting evidence that the existing agricultural enterprise is non-viable and indeed the submitted accounts confirm that the existing farm enterprise is not sustainable, with highly inconsistent sales and variable cost figures and with insufficient income to support a single farm worker. We have no information on what proportion of the sales income is from subsidy, nor what income is already received from the existing holiday accommodation. 11. This would not be a diversification project and is disproportionate to the existing farm enterprise.

In response to the report submitted by the Councils Agricultural Consultant the applicant has submitted further information. The submitted agricultural assessment has been assessed by the Councils Agricultural Consultant and his responses are in highlighted in bold beneath:

1. In para 2.2 and 2.4 the extent of the land is noted as 72 acres in two separate blocks. It should also be noted that Mr. Pearce has extensive Common Land rights which are as follows:

CL5 Entry no 84 & 186 12 cattle or 12 ponies or 60 sheep or combinations thereof CL8 Entry no 122 & 231 12 cattle or 12 ponies or 60 sheep or combinations thereof CL8 Entry no 199 & 246 74 cattle or 74 ponies or 370 sheep or combinations thereof. This effectively increases the size of the holding by an area capable of grazing another 98 cattle, 98 horses or 490 ewes. Obviously Mr. Pearce would not expand to these numbers but nevertheless the capacity exists should the need arise.

Anstis - This is noted, particularly the last line. This does not affect the earlier conclusions. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

2. In para 2.3 the fact that Mr. Anstis has not visited the site becomes very apparent, He states that buildings adjacent to the proposal could not be used. The buildings adjacent to the proposal are currently used and are as follows:

30' x 45' general purpose shed 20' x 60' cattle shed and lambing shed 24' x 60' cattle shed and lambing shed 90' x 70' silage clamp used for the storage of round bales 90' x 70' sheep handling yard.

It does cause me some concern that the Authority feel able to take decisions on the basis of advice from a person who has not visited the site to understand the layout and farming practicalities. Furthermore, as soon as the surrounding area becomes clear of TB (which should occur within the next 18 months it is proposed that a new livestock building, measuring 100' x 60', would be constructed at an unobtrusive location next to the current silage pit to house the 40 suckler cows which will be restocked and also act as a lambing shed for the 250 ewes and 50 ewe lambs. The existing buildings would then be used to house the 20 breeding mares which are also kept on the holding and for which Mr. Pearce is renowned in equine circles. I would also remind the Authority that as proved in the case of Mr. David Evans, horses are agricultural animals as long as the land is used as grazing areas for them. This interpretation has now been incorporated into TAN 6.

Anstis - An inspection is not required to establish the distance between the buildings that would remain and the proposal. It is primarily the distance between them, the incongruity of the adjacent uses and the wider impact of that immediate proximity in livestock management terms that informed my conclusion that the remaining buildings “...could not practically be used for livestock accommodation...” This conclusion is unchanged.

The proposed new agricultural building, albeit dependent on extraneous factors and outside the considerations of this application, would be of a size that would exceed notification and require an application to the authority. The fact that it is recognised by Mr Dyer that new additional buildings will be required away from the proposal and to replace existing buildings in order for suckler cows to be re-introduced and lambing to continue does rather extend the concern that the proposal is not diversification and would require the farming business to not only be re-located, but to subsidise the non-farming business with the substantial cost of a new building.

3. Para 2.6 of the report refers to the existing stocking levels. No recognition is taken of the fact that the farm has suffered drastically from TB and that there is clearly an intention to restock.

Anstis - The current stock levels is highly relevant. Mr Dyer highlights the proposed re-stocking/expansion of the enterprise, but again this seems to be dependent on a number of factors, including new accommodation being erected. For a farm business that is now at a low level and which has “drastically suffered”, the proposal seems to provide further threat, rather than assistance.

4. Para 3.1 of Mr. Anstis' report insinuates that the characteristics of the buildings will fundamentally change and that the proposed works are not a conversion of existing agricultural buildings. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

Had Mr. Anstis visited the site and inspected the buildings in question (with the exception of the marquee) he would have noted that existing agricultural buildings have been converted, and would have had the opportunity, as I did, of discussing with Mr. Pearce the possibility of reusing the buildings for agriculture should the proposed use cease, which, it was decided, is perfectly feasible. I do not believe that note should be taken of Mr. Anstis' statement that “it is a substantial redevelopment of the site” as TAN 6 (para 3.2.3) clearly states “Conversion proposals should respect the landscape and local building styles and materials” and this development has achieved that and retained the previous footprint.

Anstis - No further comment is required. This is primarily a matter for the officer.

5. Para 3.2 of Mr. Anstis' report refers to proportionality and specifically to para 3.7 of TAN 6. The para referred to reads as follows “When considering planning applications for farm diversification projects, planning authorities should consider the nature and scale of activity taking a proportionate approach to the availability of public transport and the need for improvements to the local highway network”. Furthermore, it is noted in para 3.7.2 that recreation services are an appropriate use. Taking the paragraphs as they stand (and I accept that I might be unaware of further guidelines) the emphasis on proportionality seems to be inappropriate. Literally, due to the absence of a comma, it appears that proportionality applies to public transport and the local highway network. Indeed the Oakwood Leisure facility was described as a diversification but no question was ever asked about the proportion of farm income to diversification income. I would refer to my previous comments regarding sustainable communities and suggest that the whole of Mr. Anstis' argument regarding proportionality is irrelevant in this case as it should be considered both as a Farm Diversification (in that it makes use of some of the current farm buildings) and as a Sustainable Communities project.

Anstis – proportional approach: The guidance requires interpretation, certainly, but there can be no doubt that in order to apply the guidance, it is first necessary to determine whether the proposal constitutes diversification. A shopping precinct with a compost bin containing some worms around the back is not a worm farm with an adjacent farm shop. Conversely, a thriving and substantial farm with a proposal to use one bedroom of the farmhouse as B&B is clearly diversification. Many applications fall somewhere in between and the test for what is acceptable diversification is necessarily proportional, with or without paragraph 3.7 of TAN 6.

7. Para 3.4 of Mr. Anstis' report – note my previous comments regarding Mr. Anstis' non attendance at the farm and my comments regarding the existing buildings and proposed buildings. Regardless of previous comments made regarding viability by Mr. Pearce, the farm is clearly a viable proposition once the curse of TB is lifted and note the profit figure of £18,371 in 2010 which is well above the agricultural workers wage and the figure calculated in projected farm profit (later in this report) of £39885.

Anstis – Mr Dyer assists in highlighting one of the issues: “Regardless of previous comments made regarding viability by Mr. Pearce, the farm is clearly a viable proposition once the curse of TB is lifted...” This repeats earlier statements that it is not viable now, despite the categorical statement to the contrary in the conclusion. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

8. Para 3.6 of Mr. Anstis' report – I have encountered Mr. Anstis' comments regarding subsidy before and would reiterate that subsidy is clearly part of farm income and is treated as such by accountants and the Inland Revenue. He again refers to sterilised buildings – without visiting how can he make this comment and with regard to the remainder of his comments please refer to my previous comment However, Mr. Anstis does place heavy emphasis on non viability and therefore as the second part of my report I will address the future intentions on the farm.

Anstis – Subsidies are indeed a part of most farm income. It is the level of dependency on such subsidy, particularly from a marginal farm business, that creates additional concerns on its long term viability.

9. The Standard Labour Requirement for one man year is 2200 hours and therefore the above figure of 4301 hours equates to 1.95 Labour Units which is more or less in line with the figures previously submitted by Mr. Pearce On a functional basis therefore the farm is viable even though we are not charged in this instance with having to prove functional and financial viability. I will furthermore turn to the financial viability on the basis that Mr. Anstis suggests that there is lack of profitability. Again he has extrapulated this conclusion without taking into account the current lack of cattle or the substantial increase in livestock prices that currently prevail. I have constructed at Addendum 1 a projected profit and loss account for when the farm is fully stocked - post TB. The profit figure of £39,885 clearly proves that the farm is viable but I would expect the diversified project to produce a profit figure of some £20,000 therefore bringing the total income to £56,000 per annum.

Anstis - The intended hours presented are noted, but (for clarity) are not in any event accepted. It is accepted though that if the agricultural enterprise is expanded, then the labour hours would be increased.

10. I would state quite categorically that Windmill Farm is a viable farm and that this viability is enhanced by the expertise of Mr. Pearce as a livestock breeder. However, this project is also a project which will enhance the sustainability of Llanridian as a community and together with the current developments in the marketing of Salt Marsh Lamb is creating a vibrancy which I feel sure the County Council would applaud. Each system is dependant on the efficiency of it's constituent parts and the village of Llanrhidian and Windmill Farm are constituent parts of North Gower and North Gower in turn is part of the recreational/agricultural ethos which the County Council are trying to create for the whole of the Gower peninsula. I have discussed this proposal by reference to TAN 6 and Mr. Anstis' report and find contrary to the opinions expressed by Mr. Anstis that it conforms to the requirements of TAN 6. I would concede that Mr. Anstis' remit, however, should have been extended to consider it in the light of TAN 6 as a whole by the County Council.

Anstis - The earlier conclusions remain unaltered and if anything, the concerns are extended.

The applicant’s agent has also reiterated some points which are summarised below:

1. The application seeks the change of use of the existing buildings for wedding ceremonies and ancillary holiday accommodation. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

2. In planning policy terms, this use is clearly acceptable and complies with the relevant guidance set out within Planning Policy Wales Edition 4 and TAN 6. 3. Planning Policy Wales states that small scale enterprises have a vital role in promoting healthy economic activity in rural areas which can contribute to both local and national competitiveness. 4. Policy EC11 and EC12 both support conversion of rural buildings and encourage conversion to contribute to the local economy. 5. Both Planning Policy Wales, TAN 6 and the Unitary Development Plan allows for the conversion of buildings outside the defined settlement to employment, recreational and tourism use, subject to criteria relating to the building being sound and the development not harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 6. The wedding element qualifies under employment creation and tourism for the area. The proposal is directly linked to the economic activities of this agricultural enterprise and makes use of an existing building. 7. The proposal suitably meets the requirements of Planning Policy Wales Edition 4 Paragraphs 7.3.1, 7.3.2 and 7.3.3. Furthermore, advice set out within Technical Advice Note 6 also encourages applications for farm diversification projects confirming that consideration should be given to converting existing buildings for employment use. 8. It is clear that the proposed use is beneficial for the rural and wider economy and it is anticipated that the use will create up to 22 full & part time jobs as well as the linked uses such as catering and the use of local produce. 9. The following businesses have been contacted and contracts will be awarded if planning approval is granted:

Panache Wales- Wedding Planners – Mumbles, Swansea

Mike Leahey – Health & Safety & Consultant - Swansea

Howells Butchers Penclawdd, Gower, Swansea

Cheers Wine Merchants – Mumbles, Swansea

Fairy Hill Wines, Gower, Swansea

Hurns Brewery – Swansea

Jim Grey Travel – Swansea

Castle Howell – Cross Hands, Llanelli.

Swansea Caterers – Swansea

Life Photography Wales – Sketty, Swansea

The Kings Head - Gower, Swansea (accommodation)

Middle Cottage, Llanmadoc, Gower, Swansea (accommodation)

Maes yr Haf, Gower, Swansea (accommodation) AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

Old Walls Accommodation, Gower, Swansea (accommodation)

The above list is not exhaustive and further employment / tourism opportunities can be provided.

10. To date, there have been over 500 enquires for weddings at this venue. There is obviously a want and need for people to get married at this location. This would also increase tourism which would benefit the wider economy. 11. It is the intention of the applicants to use the money generated from this diversification to restock the farm, subject to the eradication of TB on Gower. 12. The diversification will allow the farm to become sustainable for future generations of the family which is fully compliant with Tan 6 Sustainable Rural Communities / Sustainable Rural Economies. 13. In conclusion, the proposal is small scale, utilises an existing building and its farm diversification meets the relevant policy requirements. The proposal makes use of an existing redundant farm building and assists in the economic diversification of the farming enterprise. 14. At present there are over 49,000.00 people unemployed within the Swansea area. This proposal could generate a significant number of jobs if granted permission. 15. I would also draw your attention to Lord Scarman’s dictum which states that:

‘Personal circumstances of the occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of business which are a value to the community, were not to be ignored in the administration of planning control’.

This ruling had the unanimous approval of the Law Lords and also has the support of Planning Policy Wales.

The Pearce family has been farming on Gower for over 200 years. They are a true representation of the indigenous people of Gower and I believe it would be a travesty if they were forced to sell the farm through a lack of support from the Planning Authority.

APPRAISAL

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

Description

Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention and completion of a development at Windmill farm, Llanrhidian, which involves the conversion and extension of barns to form a wedding venue facility with ancillary accommodation and a car park. The application site forms part of the farm yard of the agricultural holding and involves the substantial re-development of the existing barns within both the countryside and Gower AONB.

The farm is 72 acres in size (and also has common land rights) and the unit currently has 300 sheep on the holding. The farm employs one full time worker, one part-time worker and two casual workers. There are currently two holiday cottages on the holding which have received planning consent (Ref: 2003/0352). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

Background

By way of background the application has been submitted following investigations undertaken by the Council’s Enforcement section. Separate Enforcement Action is currently being taken against the existing marquee which does not form part of the current application.

The applicant originally sought pre-application advice from the Local Planning Authority (LPA) in January 2009 for the conversion of the barns to self catering holiday apartments and bed and breakfast serviced accommodation. The advice of the LPA was that on the basis of the information submitted the barns were not suitable for conversion without significantly altering their character and the proposal would therefore be contrary to policies within the Development Plan.

A planning application was subsequently submitted in October 2009 for the conversion of the barns into holiday accommodation; however, the application was formally withdrawn by the applicant in July 2010 due to financial constraints.

Main Issues

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application relates to whether the proposal has an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the open countryside and the natural beauty of the Gower AONB at this location having regard to the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan. The proposal has been put forward as part of a barn conversion scheme in the countryside and therefore an assessment will need to be undertaken as to whether it complies with policies relating to the conversion of existing rural buildings. Furthermore, given that the proposal relates to a new wedding venue business with ancillary holiday accommodation regard also needs to be given to whether the development complies with business development and rural tourism policies.

Planning Policy Context

The Unitary Development Plan for Swansea was adopted in November 2008 and in line with 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 areas of high landscape quality are concerned.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

Policies EV1 and EV2 require developments to relate satisfactorily to the local context and existing development patterns whereby Policy EC12 supports the conversion of existing buildings in the countryside to new uses that contribute to the local economy subject to compliance with a number of criteria.

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. In addition, Policy EC17 supports rural tourism, but this is also subject to the development meeting specific criteria and Policy EC11 encourages appropriate small scale rural business development at farm locations.

Conversion of the Existing Buildings

Notwithstanding the issue as to whether the proposal would result in the creation of new rural tourism or a new business development, the conversion of rural buildings to new uses that contribute to the local economy is permitted under Policy EC12 of the UDP. Policy EC12 supports the conversion of existing buildings in the countryside to new uses that contribute to the local economy and the extension of such building where: the building in largely intact, has a form, bulk and general design in keeping with its surroundings, and is capable of conversion without prejudicing the original character of the building or the rural character of the locality; is structurally suitable for conversion; provides safe access for pedestrians and vehicles without prejudicing the character and appearance of the area; and any ancillary works associated with conversion will not unacceptably adversely affect the rural character of the locality.

Whilst the ground floor footprint is similar to the existing footprint the proposal results in the complete re-development of the existing barns and a number of large extensions to them. The reconstruction involves the formation of a second floor and therefore the proposal undoubtedly prejudices the original character of the buildings and whilst the applicant has provided a structural report which suggests the buildings are capable of being converted in this manner the proposal clearly results in major re-construction which is at odds with criteria (i) and (ii) of Policy EC12 of the Swansea UDP and the Supplementary Planning Guidance Document in relation to the Conversion of rural buildings and is therefore unacceptable.

It is considered that the alterations to the buildings have severely altered the physical appearance and rural character of the original barn buildings on site. In addition to this the pattern of fenestration is not typical of traditional barns and the eaves height increases in order accommodate the first floor, severely undermines the character of the existing buildings.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal is an appropriate use in line with Policy EC12, the applicant has clearly demonstrated that the rural buildings are incapable of conversion without substantial rebuilding and alteration contrary to Policies EC12 of the UDP. In light of the site’s prominent position within the wider Gower AONB landscape and in view of the extent of the works undertaken it is considered that the development has an unacceptable urbanising impact upon its natural beauty contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV22 and EV26 of the UDP. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

Rural Business/Tourism Development

Proposals for rural tourism and recreational developments need to be assessed against the criteria specified in Policy EC17 of the UDP. Although it is acknowledged that there is an element of tourist accommodation proposed, the business plan for the development states that the accommodation being provided is used solely to serve wedding guests. As such the tourist accommodation is considered to be ancillary to the new rural business and cannot therefore be viewed as a rural tourism project. Policy EC17 is not, therefore, considered to be relevant in this instance. Furthermore Policy EC19, which favours the creation of well-defined unserviced tourist accommodation through the conversion of existing appropriate rural buildings, is also not relevant as the proposal does not comply with Policy EC12 and the tourist accommodation is an ancillary use.

When considered in isolation tourist accommodation is regarded as a form of residential development. Whilst Policy EV21 of the UDP, which relates specifically to non-residential development, would not therefore be relevant, given that the tourist accommodation is ancillary to the business use of the site it is considered to be relevant in this instance. The policy supports non residential development that is (i) beneficial to the rural economy; or (ii) meets an overriding social or economic need; or (iii) is an appropriate form of farm diversification; or (iv) provides economic use of previously developed buildings in accordance with Policy EC12 .

Whilst it could be argued that the proposal is beneficial to the rural economy no suitable evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that it meets an overriding social or economic need and the proposal does not constitute an acceptable conversion scheme. The extent to which it is acceptable diversification is discussed further below.

Policy EC11 of the UDP also supports appropriate small scale rural business development that is closely associated with suitable groupings of farm buildings, and which does not have an adverse impact on the landscape. This policy also promotes appropriate farm diversification in rural areas favouring the conversion of existing buildings to new build.

Due to the fact that the new business is located on an existing working farm the extent to which the principle of the scheme is considered acceptable turns on whether the proposal is an acceptable form of farm diversification. In this respect Section 3.7 of TAN 6 2010 states: 3.7.1 When considering planning applications for farm diversification projects, planning authorities should consider the nature and scale of activity taking a proportionate approach to the availability of public transport and the need for improvements to the local highway network. While initial consideration should be given to converting existing buildings for employment use, sensitively located and designed new buildings will also often be appropriate. 3.7.2 Many economic activities can be sustainably located on farms. Small on-farm operations such as food and timber processing and food packing, together with services (e.g. offices, workshop facilities, equipment hire and maintenance), sports and recreation services, and the production of non-food crops and renewable energy, are likely to be appropriate uses. The question is whether the proposal is indeed a farm diversification project. For that to be the case, the majority enterprise should be agriculture. When considering applications for farm diversification one must consider the following points: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

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

Level of Farming Activity – The proposal involves the re-use/extension of the existing barns and the demolition/sterilisation of most of the remaining agricultural buildings, leaving the farm with limited buildings of substance to continue the workings of the farming enterprise without substantial new farm buildings being erected away from the proposals. The applicant states that there is now an intention to build new agricultural buildings for the cows and sheep, however the fact that it is recognised by Mr Dyer that new additional buildings will be required away from the proposal and to replace existing buildings in order for suckler cows to be re-introduced and lambing to continue does rather extend the concern that the proposal is not diversification and would require the farming business to not only be re-located, but to subsidise the non-farming business with the substantial cost of a new building.

Labour Employed – The applicant indicates that currently there is one person fully employed in agriculture, one part-time and two casual workers. The proposal results in there being 22 full and part-time jobs created, which would clearly result in the number of people employed being involved in the diversified enterprise. The projected hours of what people could potentially be employed in agriculture if this were allowed are not considered relevant during the determination of this application.

Balance between Agriculture and Non-agriculture: The majority of people employed the number of buildings on the holding and level of income would be derived from non- agricultural enterprises and would thus tilt the balance in favour of non-agricultural uses. The additional information provided further highlights the fact that re-stocking/expansion of the enterprise, seems solely dependent upon the proposal being approved. For a farm business that is now at a low level and which has “drastically suffered”, the proposal seems to provide further threat, rather than assistance and therefore would result in the creation of a business which is competing with the agricultural aspect and not supporting it as contested.

In terms of the issue raised with regard subsidies, it is acknowledged that subsidies are indeed a part of most farm income. It is the level of dependency on such subsidy, particularly from a marginal farm business, that creates additional concerns on its long term viability and in this case the long term viability of the farming enterprise is of serious concern and doubt.

Area of used for Non-agricultural activity: The majority of land would still be available for agricultural uses. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

Is the farm a sustainable enterprise without diversified elements: The applicant clearly states and the submitted accounts confirm that the existing farm enterprise is not sustainable and has no intention of remaining so due to complications associated with TB.

In conclusion therefore, although the physical area of the non-farming land will still only represent a minor element of the whole farm, in all other aspects the proposal would result in the non-farming element being the major use of the holding. This would not therefore be a farm diversification business, but a creation of an unjustified large scale rural business with an ancillary agricultural element. Although farm diversification is indeed encouraged as a minor aspect of farming businesses, it is considered that this proposal will exceed the sustainable level envisaged under the National and Local Policy Guidance. A shopping precinct with a compost bin containing some worms around the back is not a worm farm with an adjacent farm shop. Conversely, a thriving and substantial farm with a proposal to use one bedroom of the farmhouse as B&B is clearly diversification. Many applications fall somewhere in between and the test for what is acceptable diversification is necessarily proportional, with or without paragraph 3.7 of TAN 6. As such the proposal is considered to conflict with the provisions of National Guidance and Policies EV21 and EC11 which only encourages small-scale rural business development in the countryside.

Impact of the Car Park and Highway Safety considerations

The inclusion of a new car park is considered to introduce an unjustified form of physical urbanising development resulting in an unacceptable and harmful visual impact upon the natural beauty of the Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV22 and EV26 of the UDP.

In terms of highway safety the Head of Transportation and Engineering considers that adequate parking provision is available within the site. The site is located in a rural area and whilst the access junction leading to the site can accommodate the likely volume of traffic associated with this use, there are some concerns with regard to the narrow lanes leading to the site from Oldwalls. Parts of the route is narrow, however there are passing places and this is one of the established main roads carrying traffic to and from Llanmadoc.

The site is approximately 1km from the junction at Oldwalls where the road network improves and it is likely that traffic associated with the function suite is going to be tidal, with customers arriving and leaving at the same time therefore conflict with each other is unlikely. The limited size of the facility is also a factor that will restrict patronage and any application to extend the facility will need to be considered on its merits. There are other similar facilities in Gower with restricted access and whilst there may occasionally be traffic conflict locally, in general the sites operate satisfactorily. On balance therefore there are no highway objections raised.

Other Issues

The application site will drain into the Burry Inlet catchment area. On the basis of the strategic concerns raised by our statutory advisor, the Countryside Council for Wales, whereby they object to schemes where there is not enough information to assess the possible effects of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet RAMSAR. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

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

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

Whilst it is acknowledged that during the determination of a planning application the Local Planning Authority is required to consider the human factor. Furthermore in Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] 1 AC 661, 670 Lord Scarman observed:

"Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control."

Certainly in the determination of a planning application personal and human factors must be taken into account, however Paragraph 3.1.6 of Planning Policy Wales states …… “Authorities should bear in mind that personal permissions will hardly ever be justified for works or uses that will remain long after the personal circumstances of the applicant have changed”.

In light of the above whilst it is acknowledged the applicant has had bad luck in relation to TB wiping out the herd, this is a temporary problem which will be eradicated in time and as such is not considered justification for allowing unjustified inappropriate development in the countryside. Although personal circumstances can be taken into account in the determination of a planning application, it is not considered that this should override the strong planning policy basis for making decisions within the Gower AONB.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above, one letter of objection was received which raised concerns in relation to the principle of conversion, new development in the countryside, lack of farming being carried out on the holding, precedent and the loss of agricultural land. The issues pertaining to all of these factors have been addressed above.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the amount of new building works undertaken means that the proposal cannot be considered as an acceptable barn conversion scheme and is therefore tantamount to new development in the countryside for which there is no satisfactory rural justification or need, and which would appear as a new visually prominent form of development detracting from the rural character, appearance and natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB. Whilst the proposal could be argued to be beneficial to the rural economy and represents a new rural business development at a farm location it is not considered to be an acceptable form of farm diversification given that the level of diversification proposed would result in the primary income, numbers employed and hours of work on the unit and the number of buildings being used in activities not associated with agriculture. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0625

In addition, as no overriding social or economic need for the development has been demonstrated the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1, EV2, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC11 and EC12 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposal by virtue of the nature of, and extent of alterations undertaken means that it is not an acceptable barn conversion scheme and is therefore tantamount to new development in the countryside. The proposal is not considered to be appropriate new business development associated with farm diversification, no overriding rural justification or need has been demonstrated and the development is therefore harmful to the character and natural beauty of the Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV21,EV22, EV26, EC11 and EC12 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance Document entitled - The Conversion of Rural Buildings.

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, EC11, EC12, EC17, EC19, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV33, EV34, EV35)

PLANS

Design and Access Statement, justification letter, bat survey, structural survey, 020-01-03 existing ground floor, 020-01-04 existing elevations sheet 1, 020-01-05 existing elevations sheet 2, 020-01-06 proposed ground floor plan, 020-01-07 proposed first floor plan, 020- 01-08 proposed elevations sheet 1, 020-01-09 proposed elevations sheet 2 received 13th May 2011, 020-01-00 Rev B site plan, 020-01-10 Boundary Tenure Plan, 020-01-11 Existing Farm Buildings, 020-01-01 Rev A existing block plan, 020-01-02 Rev A proposed block plan dated 7th June 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 15 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0957 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: The Seafarer Port Eynon Gower Swansea SA3 1NN Proposal: Retention of one internally illuminated fascia sign and one internally illuminated double sided projecting sign Applicant: Mrs Ann Elsmore

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV14 The design of advisements should be appropriate to their surroundings, respect the architectural qualities of the building on which they are displayed, be appropriate to the location, and not harm road safety. (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)

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The proposal was advertised by way of press and site notice. ONE LETTER OF COMMENT has been received, its content is summarised below;

1. As the owner of the application building as well as property nearby, and as a long term resident of Port Eynon, I have no objection to the signs and believe that they are appropriate for the location.

The Gower Society – Has provided the following comment:

1. The illuminated signs are at severe odds with the ethos of the AONB as well as contributing to the urbanisation of the seafront. 2. A smaller sign could be acceptable in a non illuminated form. 3. The larger frontal sign could be brash and out of keeping even if it were not illuminated. One of our members stated that it would “be more appropriate in Margate” 4. The shop is within the Port Eynon Conservation Area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0957

5. No illuminated signs should be allowed – they are inappropriate in an AONB.

Gower AONB Partnership - The proposal is contrary to Advertisement Policy in Gower (1980 -SPG) A2 – A4 : Objection

Highways & Transport – No Highways Objection

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order that issues relating to the visual impact may be fully considered given the length of time the sign has been in situ.

The application building lies within Gower AONB, Port Eynon Conservation Area and an area designated as a an Area of Special Control for Advertisements where Development Plan Policy and National Guidance requires a higher standard of design that conserves or enhances the character and appearance of these areas. The building forms part of the commercial shopping offer adjacent to the roundabout on Port Eynon frontage.

The Local Planning Authority requested that amendments be made to the proposed scheme. The applicant has declined to make any alterations and wishes the proposal to be considered on the basis of the plans as originally provided.

The principle fascia sign has the following dimensions:- Height - 0.9 metres, Width - 4.3 metres and Depth - 0.2 metres. It is a box design constructed in plastic with internal illumination. The projecting sign is also constructed in plastic of the following dimensions Height 0.6 metres, Width 0.6 metres and Depth 0.2 metres. Both signs have a black background and blue/white text. In addition to the signage indicated above the premises also benefit from two menu boards either side of the door and applied vinyls to the front facing windows.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual amenity and public safety having regard to Policies EV14, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled 'Advertisement Policy in Gower’. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled 'Advertisement Policy in Gower’ provides advice on the requirements of tourist related signs within the AONB and serves to underpin Policy EV14 of the Unitary Development Plan. The S.P.G. indicates that the following criteria should be assessed when considering fascia and projecting signs on Gower AONB.

A3 1. Fascia signs should be non illuminated unless by external illumination or the illumination of individual letters. 2. The lettering, colouring, style and materials should be sympathetic to the building and area. 3. The size, design and placing of the fascia should respect the architectural detailing , scale and character of the building and the street scene, the complete elevation of the building over its full height should be considered. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0957

A4 1. Within Gower AONB there will be a general presumption against all projecting signs unless they are of a traditional hanging design. Each sign will be considered in terms its likely visual effect on the building and the surrounding area. 2. Projecting signs are to be non-illuminated unless they incorporate external illumination.

This further supports Policy EV14 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan which stipulates that:

The design of advertisements should be:

1. Appropriate to their surroundings in terms of scale, colour and materials used, 2. Respectful of the architectural qualities of any building on which they are located, 3. Appropriate to the location in terms of the method of display and support, and the type and intensity of any illumination, and, 4. Acceptable in terms of road safety.

Where possible, the opportunity should be taken to rationalise any existing signs on the buildings or sites concerned.

The application site is located in a run of small retail units all of which display signage that may be considered typical of a small scale seaside location. The majority of the signage at this location is fairly modest in dimensions with the application site standing out by virtue of the large fascia panel and its projecting sign.

With regard to impact upon visual amenity, therefore, the signage does not, it is considered, respect the design or proportions of the building on which they are located and gives rise to an unsympathetic form of development that, in terms of scale and design fails to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the building, the Conservation Area, or this part of the Gower AONB. Overall it is considered that the form and extent of the signage does not achieve the high standards of design required in either the Conservation Area or Gower AONB and the proposal gives rise to an inappropriate form of development that is incongruous and detrimental to the character of Port Eynon Conservation Area and Gower AONB.

Given the nature of the proposal and the location of the property relative to its neighbours, it is not considered that the advertisements introduce any significant harmful impacts on neighbours. As such it is not considered that the proposal would introduce any negative impacts upon residential amenity. In addition to which there are no highway safety objections raised.

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations, it is considered that the advertisements by virtue of their siting, scale and design adversely effect and undermine the character and appearance of the host building, the Conservation Area and the Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV14, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Advertisement Policy in Gower’

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0957

1 By virtue of their siting, scale and design the advertisements adversely effect and undermine the character and appearance of the host building, the Conservation Area and Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV14, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Advertisement Policy in Gower'

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: EV14, EV9 and EV26.

PLANS

Site location plan, exterior signage details, photograph received 19th July 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 16 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0982 WARD: Penyrheol Area 2

Location: 27 Mydam Lane Gorseinon Swansea SA4 4YA Proposal: Single storey side extension, first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers Applicant: Mr Lee Wake

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

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

This application was advertised via direct neighbour consultation. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received and are summarised as follows:-

1. The dormer window will overlook 19 Pleasant View 2. The proposed dormer would overlook properties to the rear and compromise privacy.

Gorseinon Town Council – No objection.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision by Councillor David Jones to assess the impact of the development on the surroundings.

Full planning permission is sought for a single storey side extension and a first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers at 27 Mydam Lane, Gorseinon a detached house.

In this case the main issues to consider are the impact of the extended property on the character and visual amenities of the area and residential amenity having regards to Policy EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008) and the supplementary planning guidance Household Extensions – A Design Guide. There are in this instance considered to be no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0982

In terms of visual amenity, the proposed single storey side extension is of a modest size and scale and would not be considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling or on the area to which it relates.

The first floor side extension would essentially result in the extension being approximately 1.2m higher than the existing bungalow, therefore paying little regard to the character and appearance of the bungalow. It would appear as a poor and discordant addition to the property which would fail to embrace the objectives of good design. The proposal is therefore in visual terms considered to be unacceptable and fails to accord with Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008) and the Adopted Householder Design Guide.

With regards to the impact of the proposal on residential amenity, the first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers is located 13m from the rear boundary and 10m from the front boundary. This is considered to be sufficient in order to safeguard residential amenity. The proposed first floor side extension, despite the change in land levels to the rear, does not introduce a detrimental overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact on the properties to the front or rear of the site.

The proposed single storey side extension due to its single storey nature and the existence of boundary screening is considered to be an appropriate form of development that would not result in an overbearing, overlooking or overshadowing impact on the residential amenities of the surrounding properties.

In view of the above it is considered that the proposal fails to comply with Policies EV1 & HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008). Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The proposed first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers by virtue of its overly large size and inappropriate design is considered to fail to relate well to the host dwelling and would result in a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the adopted Household Extension Design Guide.

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.

PLANS

01 site location plan, block plan, 01 existing elevations and floor plans, 02 proposed elevations and floor plans received 19th July 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 17 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0990 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: 2 Frogmore Lane Knelston Gower Swansea Proposal: First floor rear extension Applicant: Mr D Golding

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 86/0682/03 DOMESTIC GARAGE FOR TWO CARS. SITING OF 2000 LITRE GAS TANK. AMATEUR RADIO MAST + ANTENNA. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 28/08/1986

88/0802/03 FULL PLANNING APPLICATION TO RAISE ROOF HEIGHT BY 600 MM TO MATCH REMAINDER OF HOUSE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/06/1988

89/1889/03 RAISING GARAGE ROOF PITCH FROM 35 DEGREES TO 45 DEGREES Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 14/02/1990

93/0016 Continue use of site as a garage independently from main dwelling Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 20/10/1993 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0990

2010/1036 First floor rear extension Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 16/02/2011

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, their content is summarised below;

• The foundation of the existing ground floor extension is insufficient to support the weight of the first floor. • No rainwater should run onto our property • Plans are incorrect

Highways & Transport – No highway objections. Current Parking arrangements remain unaffected by proposed works

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order that the visual and residential impacts are assessed.

The dwelling lies within Gower AONB where Development Plan Policy and National Guidance requires a high standard of design that conserves or enhances the character and appearance of this area irrespective of how prominent a proposed form of development may be. The proposal currently before the Local Planning Authority seeks to overcome design concerns as raised in respect of Ref: 2010/1036 which was previously withdrawn by the applicant.

The extension would see the property extended to the rear at first floor level. The extension would be constructed on top of an existing ground floor extension with the rear elevation being flush to that of the existing rear extension. The proposed addition would run to almost the full width of the property stopping approximately 0.2 metres off what is indicated on Drwg. No.94/103/11 (B) as being the party wall serving the adjoining property. The proposed addition would be finished to a pitched roof running to the same height as the existing ridge of the host dwelling and when viewed from the northern aspect the proposal would present as a double gable roof feature.

During a period of negotiation a range of design options were discussed with the applicant and it was indicated that a pitched roof design creating a double gable would be the Local Planning Authority’s preferred design solution.

With regard to impact upon visual amenity, the proposed scheme would not, be readily visible from public vantage points along the highway fronting the property. Partial views would be possible when looking in a southerly direction along Frogmore Lane, however these would be distance views through significant levels of screening. To the rear of the property is open countryside in agricultural usage. It is considered, that the scheme as currently proposed responds not only to the design and proportions of the host dwelling but also to the constraints and would give rise to a sympathetic form of development that would be respectful to the character of the host property in terms of both its scale, and design. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0990

Overall it is considered that the proposed first floor rear extension would integrate well with the host building and as such would preserve the character of the dwelling and Gower AONB in which it is located.

Turning to impact upon residential amenity given the siting and location of the property in respect of its neighbours it is not considered that the extension would harm their living conditions through any overshadowing, overbearing or overlooking impacts. The application property is located to the north of the adjoining neighbour and as such it would not introduce any additional overshadowing in respect of No. 1 Frogmore Cottages in addition to which the slight set back would prevent any overbearing impacts from arising in respect of the small courtyard area to the rear of No.1. It is noted that the majority of the residential amenity space is located to the south of the dwelling.

In respect of overlooking all of the proposed fenestration would overlook either the residential amenity area of the application site to the north or agricultural fields to the rear. There is an extant bathroom window that currently opens onto the rear amenity area of the adjoining property, however no alterations are proposed to this window and given the existing situation, it is not considered that the proposal would introduce any negative impacts upon residential amenity.

Of the objections that have been raised those that are relevant to the determination of the planning application have been addressed in the main body of the report above. Those that are not are covered by alternative legislation.

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 proportions of the building and the character and appearance of the existing building and the Gower AONB and respect the residential amenity of neighbours in accordance with Policies HC7, EV1 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance “A Design Guide for Householder Development”.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, for the following reasons:

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: n the interests of visual amenity. 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 materials used in the development hereby approved shall match those of the existing building. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0990

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, EV26, HC7

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 received 8th July 2011. Amended plans: 94/101/11 existing & proposed floor plans received 5th August 2011. Amended plans: 94/102/11- (A)- elevatons existing, 94/103/(B)- elevations proposed received 12th September 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 18 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1012 WARD: Penllergaer Area 2

Location: 11 Glanyrafon Close Penllergaer Swansea SA4 9AS Proposal: Increase in eaves and ridge height of existing side extension Applicant: Mr Alan Lloyd

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

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Three neighbouring properties were consulted; no letters of objection has been received.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Wendy Fitzgerald in order to assess the impact on the streetscene.

Full planning permission is sought for an increase in eaves and ridge height of part of 11 Glanyrafon Close which is a dwelling located in the established residential estate in Penllergaer. The applicant was advised by officers to amend the proposals by extending a dormer in the front of the property and inserting a dormer into the rear of the property. Whilst the applicant made attempts at amending the proposals, these amendments were not considered to address officers concerns sufficiently and therefore the scheme is determined on the basis of the original submission.

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 – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1012

In terms of visual amenity, the proposals are considered to be at odds with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The alterations are considered to unbalance the appearance of the property, with the increase in both the eaves and ridge height being viewed as incongruous additions. The majority of the properties within the immediate surrounding area share a similar appearance and as such the proposals if approved would be at odds with the established character of the area. Therefore, the development is not considered to comply with the relevant Policies in place, which in this instance are Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

It is acknowledged that a property nearby at 4 Penybryn Close has had planning permission in 1999 for a similar extension, however, the circumstances were different at the time of that application in that the proposals were significantly improving a badly extended dwelling. In addition, it is considered that this extension serve to reinforce how approving the current application would undermine the established character of the streetscene.

Turning to residential amenity, the proposals are not considered to give rise to any detrimental impacts in terms of overbearance or overshadowing given that they essentially only involve minimal increases over and above what is currently situated on site. In addition, given the sympathetic siting of the dwelling in relation to No.54 Swansea Road, it is not as such considered to give rise to any impacts. In terms of overlooking, there is considered to be no detrimental viewing given the sympathetic location of fenestration within the proposals, with no windows located in the rear of affected part of the property.

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 does not comply with current development plan Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development and has an unacceptable impact on the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and area in which it is situated. The proposals, however, has an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposed increase in eaves and ridge height by virtue of their inappropriate design would appear as discordant additions to the property to which they relate to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1012

PLANS

Site location & block plans, existing & proposed elevations with floor plans received 15th July 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 19 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1091 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: 2 Malt Hall Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EN Proposal: Retention of single storey side/rear extension and detached garage Applicant: Mr Luke Davies

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 88/0488/03 RELOCATION OF EXISTING PREFABRICATED GARAGE AND CREATION OF NEW ACCESS FROM PUBLIC HIGHWAY. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/05/1988

A00/1798 ERECTION OF A DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE (OUTLINE) Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 20/02/2001

2010/0853 Replacement single storey side/rear extension and replacement detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/08/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The neighbouring properties were consulted individually. ONE third party letter of OBJECTION has been received in respect of the proposed scheme. Its content is summarised below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 19 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1091

1. The detached building has the appearance of a bungalow with cavity wall and stairs. 2. A new path has been laid across the verge to the pedestrian gate. 3. A previous proposal for a separate detached dwelling was refused on the 20th February 2001 Ref: 88/0488/03

Llanrhidian Lower Community Council: OBJECTS for the following reasons: The scheme as constructed resembles a bungalow and not a double garage. A previous proposal for a separate detached dwelling was refused on the 20th February 2001 Ref: 88/0488/03

Highway Observations – At least three parking spaces can be accommodated within the site which is sufficient for the proposal. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order that the policy issues and visual impact may be properly assessed.

Full planning permission is sought for the retention of a replacement single storey rear/side extension and a replacement detached garage at No.2 Malt Hall, Llanrhidian. The application is made following a previous grant of consent that has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The garage as constructed is larger than the previous approval, has an internal staircase serving storage in the roof cavity and additional fenestration to the rear elevation. The scheme before the Local Planning Authority seeks to regularise the extant situation. The host property may be characterised as a detached dwelling occupying a plot at the junction of Malt Hall and Mill Lane. It has common boundaries with No.6 Malt Hall to the rear of the plot.

A previous application for a dwelling that would have seen the plot subdivided was refused consent at this location Ref A00/1798.

The replacement garage as built has a maximum height to the ridge of 4.73 metres approximately 0.08 metres higher than that granted under application Ref: 2010/0853. It has a footprint of approximately 31.85 square metres, which is approximately 4.35 square metres larger than that for which consent was granted. It continues to utilise the existing access point onto Malt Hall. The side/rear extension includes a porch with a canopy and no issues arise in respect of this part of the development. The rear elevation of the garage has been furnished with two windows a large picture window at ground floor level and a smaller high level window.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the development as constructed relative to the consent as granted having regard to Policies HC7, EV1 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 19 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1091

When considered in the context of the surrounding street scene the garage does not present as a visually incongruous addition and is broadly respectful of the consent as previously granted by the South West Area 2 Planning Committee on the 17th August 2010. The proposal is considered to be both respectful of and sympathetic to the character of the dwelling and the wider street scene to which it relates in design terms.

It is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed scheme is in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Materials match those of the host dwelling and as such it is considered that the development does not have an adverse visual impact upon host dwelling or the street scene to which it relates or the wider character of the AONB.

With regard to residential amenity, the distance and relationship of the existing surrounding properties is considered sufficient to safeguard residential amenity. Whilst it is acknowledged that the windows have an aspect to the north east from an elevated position toward the properties identified as Sea Breeze and Burry Lodge the windows do not serve habitable rooms and are separated from the aforementioned properties by virtue of a public highway. It is not considered therefore that the replacement garage would introduce any unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts upon the residential amenity of these or the neighbouring properties.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal.

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, EV1 and EV26 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 (AONB) 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 garage indicated in the submitted plans shall be retained for the parking of vehicles and purposes incidental to that use and shall not be used as or converted to domestic living accommodation. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and general amenity.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 19 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1091

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, EV26

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, BBA474/01B existing and proposed plans received 8th August 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 20 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1093 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land at Wellpark Farm Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU Proposal: Detached dwelling (outline) Applicant: Mr & Mrs J O Williams

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1093

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2002/1510 Installation of two co-linear 3.1 metre high pole mounted antennae and one GPS antennae on existing agricultural barn with associated telecommunications equipment cabinets at ground level Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 19/02/2003

95/1357 FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 02/02/1996

95/0776 RETENTION OF WIDENED AND REGRADED ACCESS Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 08/09/1995

77/0447/03 SITING OF A HOLIDAY CARAVAN Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 30/06/1977

94/1063 ERECTION OF STEEL FRAMED AGRICULTURAL BUILDING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 15/11/1994

96/0658 CHANGE OF USE OF STABLES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMMODATION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 06/03/1998

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site on in the local press as a Departure to the Unitary Development Plan 2008. FIVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received which are summarised as follows: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1093

1. The proposed development is not infill. 2. Easement for access over the unpaved lane may be required from Llangennith manors. 3. I cannot see how the application can be justified on need for social or domestic housing. 4. The statement that it was formerly difficult to maintain pasture land cannot be substantiated. 5. The unpaved lane joins the main road on a blind bend which may prove dangerous. 6. Consideration has to be given to the Habitats Regs and the impact upon the Burry Inlet Natura 2000 site. 7. This cannot be justified as essential. 8. This application has no regard for Policy EV26. 9. No consultation with neighbours undertaken and no survey completed to assess habitat or ecological importance. 10. Will create a precedent if allowed. 11. The applicants never resided at the property. 12. The reducing of the levels is a concern as the southern and eastern boundary walls of Well Park Hall will have to be protected. 13. Drainage problems will be exacerbated. 14. The property will inevitably interfere with the existing views that are currently enjoyed from Well Park Hall. 15. We object to the loss of amenity, visual impact, privacy, disturbance and potential traffic generation.

The Gower Society – Objects as follows:

1. Situated in the garden between the King’s Head development and the existing Wellpark Grange, this property is very large. 2. We note that detailed plans are included in the application but these are of a design that could be described as large executive; it does not appear to fit in with the ideas in the Draft Design Guide. 3. Whilst it could be classified as infill, it is in reality an extension of the village envelope and any proposal will be conspicuous as well as setting a precedent for further development of this nature. 4. A footpath may be compromised by this proposal.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – Objects as follows:

“The Community Council objects strongly because this development is outside the village envelope. The proposed site is agricultural land and we have evidence of it being cut for hay within the last few years – the stones were apparently dumped by the applicant. There are also highways and sewerage issues which adversely affect the development.”

Highway Observations - This proposal is to erect a new dwelling on land at Wellpark Farm, Llangennith. Access is form an existing shared access track which joins the highway at the bend on entering the village north of The Kings Head public house. Visibility at the access point is acceptable with adequate views in each direction. The access track is sufficiently wide for two cars to pass at its junction and is unlikely to present any difficulty in accommodating a further dwelling. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1093

The layout of the plot, whilst being indicative, indicates that adequate access and sufficient parking facilities can be accommodated within the site.

I recommend that no highway objections are raised subject to the provision of adequate parking within the curtilage of the site.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order to consider whether the site is within open countryside.

This application seeks outline planning permission for the construction of a detached dwelling on open land to the south of a property known as Well Park Hall in Llangennith. All details relating to the means of access, layout, scale and landscaping are being reserved for subsequent approval. However, an indicative plan has been submitted to indicate how a dwelling can be accommodated on the site. The land is roughly rectangular in shape and measures approximately 32m by 23m. The access to the site from the main road would be located along the existing land that leads to Well Park Hall.

The principal considerations are the acceptability of the proposal in terms of adopted development plan policy and its impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the village of Llangennith.

The Policies most pertinent to the consideration of this application are Polices EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 in conjunction with the requirements of TAN 6.

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

The village of Llangennith is identified as a small village within Policy EV16 and has no defined settlement boundary. Within this Policy, small scale development is acceptable where it is appropriate to the location.

Policy EV20 states that in the countryside new dwellings will only be permitted where the dwelling is required to accommodate a full time worker solely or primarily employed in agriculture, forestry or an appropriate use to serve the rural economy who needs to live on the premises rather than a nearby settlement.

Policy EV22 states that the countryside throughout the County will be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural, environment and agricultural and recreational value through: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1093

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

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

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

In terms of principle the site is clearly positioned outside of the settlement within the open countryside given that the site resembles an agricultural field with no defensible boundaries to suggest a logical infill. Whilst there is a dwelling to the north at Wellpark Hall, this dwelling is also considered to be within the countryside and was itself granted planning permission in the 1970’s. In view of this it is not considered that the proposal accords with Policy EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal has not been justified in the interests of agriculture, forestry or on the basis of economic or social need and would capture surrounding countryside by extending development into an open field to the rear of the existing built up area of Llangennith. The proposal therefore constitutes unjustified development in the open countryside which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, and Gower AONB contrary to the provisions of Policies EV1, EV2 and EV20 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

Moreover, in view of the above consideration, if permitted, it is considered that this proposal would set an unacceptable precedent for further similar releases in the Gower AONB, the cumulative effect of which would be further erosion of the character and appearance of the village and unacceptable degradation of the natural beauty of the Gower AONB.

With regards to residential amenity, the siting, scale and design of the dwelling would dictate that there would be no undue impact upon the occupiers of neighbouring properties by virtue of direct overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing physical impact.

The application refers to the surface water drainage being dealt with by a sustainable drainage system but no further details of what this would entail are available. Therefore, there is not enough information to assess possible effects of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet RAMSAR.

An Appropriate Assessment of the implication of the proposed development should be carried out and that issues of surface water drainage and foul water drainage/water quality be addressed. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1093

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

The TLSE only applies, however, if the application is refused. As the application is being recommended for refusal, an informative is recommended.

In conclusion, it is considered that the application should be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would represent unjustified development in the open countryside and appear as a visually intrusive form of urbanising development which fails to respect, enhance or preserve the overall character and appearance of the Gower AONB. In addition it is considered that allowing this development would set a precedent for the consideration of other applications of a similar nature in, the cumulative effect of which would be a further degradation of the environmental capita and character and natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB. As such, the proposal is considered to be an unacceptable form of development at this location that conflicts with Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons:

1 The proposed development would result in unjustified development within the open countryside which would represent a visually intrusive and suburbanising form of development that fails to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Gower AONB contrary to the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 Approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for developments of a similar nature in Llangennith, the cumulative effect of which would have a significant and detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the village and the surrounding Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

INFORMATIVES

1 Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires the competent authority, in this case the City and County of Swansea to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of all projects which alone or in combination with other projects could have a significant effect on the features of a protected European Site, in this case the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Marine Site (CBEEMS), before granting planning permission for any such project. This application comprises development which drains into the catchment area of the CBEEMS and which may, in combination with other projects, have a significant effect on this European Site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1093

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

2 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EV22, EV26, EV33, EV34,EV35

PLANS

11/WPF11/08 site location plan, 11/WPF11/01 existing site plan, 11/WPF11/02 topographical survey, 11/WPF11/03 proposed site plan, 11/WPF11/07 block plan, 11/WPF11/06 proposed elevations, 11/WPF11/04 proposed ground floor plan, 11/WPF11/05 proposed first floor plan received 11th August 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 21 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1108 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Leason Farm Leason Swansea SA3 1HB Proposal: Single storey triple garage Applicant: Mr M Jones

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy 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 2001/0891 Erection of agricultural building (Application for the Prior Approval of the Local Planning Authority) Decision: Prior Approval Is Not Required Decision Date: 02/07/2001

99/1530 CONVERSION OF TWO AGRICULTURAL BARNS TO TWO DWELLING HOUSES Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 24/01/2000

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised via a site notice. NO RESPONSE

Highways Observations – No objection.

Gower Society – The proposal appears to fit in with the Draft Gower Design Guide. If permitted a clause preventing future domestic conversion would be imposed. Has the applicant considered fitting a barn owl facility in the roof apex?

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to consider the Policy implications of the development and assess visual impact. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 21 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1108

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached triple garage at Leason Farm, Leason. The application site is located within extensive from land between Ty Rhos Mair and a large barn. The applicant proposes to construct the garage in stone with a natural slate roof and hardwood garage doors to match the adjacent barn conversion.

In terms of visual amenity the garage measures 11.7 metres in width, 6.9 metres in depth and 6.7 metres in height to the apex of the pitched roof. The design is considered to be in keeping with the adjacent barn conversion and would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality or the Gower AONB. The materials indicated to be used are considered to be in keeping with the Countryside location and accord with the emerging Gower Design Guide.

Given the substantially screened location of the proposal in front of higher ground and the existence of mature trees in front of the proposal, the garage would not be visible from outside of the site. It is considered that the proposal would only be visible from within Leason Farm.

In terms of residential amenity, the garage will be constructed in close proximity to Ty Rhos Mair. However, given the absence of any low level habitable room windows in the side elevation of the property, it is not considered that the proposal would have any detrimental overbearing or overshadowing impacts. Given the absence of any windows in the proposed garage, the proposal is unlikely to have any overlooking issues.

Conclusion The application is considered to be appropriate in terms of visual amenity impact upon the character and appearance of the area and is not considered to result in any detrimental residential amenity impacts. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act would raise any further material planning considerations, as such the application is recommended for approval.

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 21 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1108

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 & EV26.

PLANS

0811/LF/01 location plan, 0811/LF/02 block plan, 0811/LF/03 proposed garage elevations, 0811/LF/04 floor plan and sections received 5th August, 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 22 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1221 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: Oyster Gallery 70-72 Newton Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 4BE Proposal: Part two storey part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension Applicant: Mr John Camm

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/0279 Part two storey part single storey rear extension and two single storey side extensions Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 10/06/2011

2002/1363 Conversion of existing residential use to bedsit on ground floor and self contained flat on first and second floors Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 20/09/2002

98/6075 RETENTION OF NON ILLUMINATED WALL AND PROJECTING SIGNS Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 06/10/1998

81/0682/11 CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR OF PREMISES TO OPTHALMIC OPTICAL PRACTICE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 12/05/1981

80/1230/11 CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR ONLY TO SHOWROOM/OFFICES Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 25/09/1980

80/1608/11 CHANGE OF USE TO OPTHALMIC OPTICAL PRACTICE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 27/11/1980 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 22 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1221

97/1391 ERECTION OF A NEW SHOP FRONT Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 09/04/1998

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received and are summarised as follows:-

1. There will be increased traffic if deliveries are to be at the rear of the shop. 2. Commercial vehicles cannot turn easily into Castle Street due to the narrowness of the road. Vehicle movement would be difficult. 3. Commercial vehicle could pose a danger to school children. 4. Building work will cause disruption to neighbours. 5. Parking and unloading will cause a disturbance to residents in terms of noise. 6. No adequate drainage in Castle Street. 7. The height of the proposals would reduce light to properties along Castle Street. 8. The original application was for storage. The current application is for display. 9. The applicant states that the additional space would require 3 additional full time and 8 part time members of staff. 10. Concern is expressed over the stability of the boundary wall to the rear of Castle Square. Who will be responsible if this collapses? 11. Why are there two garage doors and separate entrances? Are these for use as flats. 12. The additional development will reduce the amount of light received. 13. We are in a recession, if this is for more stock, is this business immune or is it a disguise for residential letting.

Highways - This proposal includes small extensions to the premises following demolition of the rear stores and garages. The proposal includes replacement garage parking and storage facilities together with a parking area. There will be 2 spaces within the garages and a further 4 cars could park in front of the garages. This is indicated to be for staff parking.

The proposed extension is unlikely to result in any significant additional visitor/customer attraction and the on site parking facilities are being improved. No highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Tony Colburn in order for the Committee to consider whether the proposal gives rise to overbearing and highway problems.

The application is submitted following the refusal of the previous application due to the impact of the proposed side extension (adjacent to Castle Street) on the occupiers of Castle Street and upon the character and appearance of the area. (2011/0279 refers).

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of one single storey side extension and one part single, part two storey rear extension and car parking at No.70 – 72 Newton Road, Mumbles. The property is a terraced commercial building located within the Mumbles district centre. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 22 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1221

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to the provisions of Policy EV1 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. 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.

With regard to visual amenity, given the amendments submitted as part of this application, namely the reduction in height of the two storey rear element through the use of a flat roof in place of a larger mono pitch, the part two storey, part single storey rear extension would not appear overly large and would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The single storey side extension given its location adjacent to a commercial property is not considered to have a detrimental visual impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

Turning to residential amenity, the proposed single storey extension adjacent to No. 68 Oystermouth Road, given its commercial nature is not considered to have a detrimental residential impact.

The part two storey, part single storey rear extension with its reduced flat roof is not considered to introduce a detrimental overshadowing and overbearing impact on the adjacent residential properties along Castle Square. The previous rear extension which included a mono pitch roof measured 7.7m in height to the maximum height of the roof. The proposed flat roof amendment which measures 5.7m in height is not considered to result in a detrimental overshadowing and overbearing impact on the properties along Castle Square. It must also be recognised that the existing buildings on site already have an impact on neighbours, and the proposal is not considered to exacerbate this.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties and accords with Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

In terms of the objections raised in relation to vehicular traffic and disturbance, the head of transportation has not raised any concerns.

Turning to the objections relating to the disruption likely to be caused by building work, this is not considered to have any permanent impacts on the visual and residential amenities of the surrounding properties.

The reference made to the use of the proposal for storage is considered to be incorrect as the previous proposal also indicated the use of the extension as being for display purposes.

The concerns that are expressed in relation to the additional staff members being required are not considered relevant in this instance.

The issues raised in terms of the likely future use of the extension and the associated garages would be addressed and considered should a change of use be applied for.

The other objections raised, these have been considered within the above report. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 22 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1221

Conclusion

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which accords with the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan Policy EV1. 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.

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.

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, lower ground floor plan, existing elevations, proposed elevations, existing ground floor plan, proposed ground floor plan received 12th September, 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 23 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1241 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Coombe Cottage, Overton Lane, Port Eynon, Swansea SA3 1NR Proposal: Replacement garage Applicant: Mr Robert Rogers

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 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 75/1309/03 EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/11/1975

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised via direct neighbour consultation and via a site notice. NO RESPONSE.

Highways - No objection due to the provision of a detached garage which will add to existing ample parking space on the driveway

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to consider the Policy implications of the development and assess visual impact.

This application seeks planning permission for the construction of a replacement detached garage at Coombe Cottage, Overton Lane, Port Eynon.

In terms of visual amenity the garage which replaces an existing garage would be set back from the road by approximately 27m and located behind a single storey side extension belonging to Milan Cottage. The replacement garage measures 4.5metres in width, 6 metres in depth and 3.5 metres in height to the apex of the gable fronted roof and would be finished in render to the walls and a slate roof. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 23 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1241

Given its single storey scale and appropriate materials, the proposal is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the character of the area or the wider AONB. The design is considered to be in keeping with the existing street scene and would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality and Gower AONB. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies EV1 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008).

Turning to residential amenity it is considered that given the single storey scale and the location of the replacement garage that no unacceptable impacts are likely to arise over and above the existing levels in terms of either, overbearing overlooking or overshadowing. Given the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008) and the Adopted Householder Design Guide.

Conclusion The application is considered to be appropriate in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area and upon the wider AONB to which it relates. The proposal is not considered to have any detrimental impacts on the residential amenity of adjacent properties. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act would raise any further material planning considerations, as such the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following condition:

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.

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 & EV26.

2 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. If evidence of bats is encountered during site clearance, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 23 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1241

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.

PLANS

2255 R site location plan, block plan, floor plan, elevation and section received 6th September, 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 24 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1276 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Entrance Gate to Field 0042 Oxwich, Swansea Proposal: Retention of directional sign Applicant: Mr and Mrs Mead

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV14 The design of advisements should be appropriate to their surroundings, respect the architectural qualities of the building on which they are displayed, be appropriate to the location, and not harm road safety. (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)

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised on site via a site notice. NO RESPONSE.

Highways Observations – No objection.

Gower Society –The Gower Society has inspected the above application and has the following observations make:

• The sign is not purely a direction sign as it carries advertising of caravans etc for sale. • It is overlarge in this sensitive area within the Oxwich Conservation Area. • A small direction (only) sign could be added to the two signs (similar in size) on the post very close to this gate. • Additional signage such as this example creates unnecessary clutter in the AONB. • Quoting from Advertisement Policy in Gower Tourist related signs within the AONB: 7.1 ….. the presumption should normally be against allowing such advertisements … the granting of consent for an advertisement should be the exception rather than the rule. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 24 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1276

Appendix: Touring caravan and camping sites will be eligible for the new style white on brown signs, providing they have a minimum of 20 pitches for casual overnight use and are licensed under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and/or the Public Health Act 1936. Normally, symbols without names will be used. • The Gower Society objects strongly to this sign remaining in situ.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis as it is considered that without directional signage members of the public would not know the location of the site.

The application site comprises of an entrance gate to Field 0042 which lies within Gower AONB and Oxwich Conservation Area.

The sign is attached to a field gate and directs vehicular traffic towards the main entrance of Greenways Leisure Park and also advertises the fact that static caravans and lodges are for sale and includes a contact telephone number. The sign is 1.6m x 0.7m and has a green background with white lettering. It is positioned 0.6m above ground.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual amenity in respect of policies EV14, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled 'Advertisement Policy in Gower’. 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/public safety issues to consider.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled 'Advertisement Policy in Gower’ provides advice on the requirements of tourist related signs within the AONB and serves to support Policy EV14 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Amongst other things, the Gower Advertisement Policy states that:-

‘The Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is an area of Special Advertisement Control where the presumption should normally be against allowing any advertisements. Taking into account this designation, there is a serious need to equate any display of advertisements with the need to preserve the quality of this rural area. For this reason the granting of consent for an advertisement should be the exception rather than the rule.’

There are very few suitable locations available to provide advance signs in the Gower AONB on its highways. For this reason advance signs need to be restricted to those that give notice of major tourist attractions that would not otherwise be readily apparent to the motorist.

The sign is located in a prominent position alongside the road and given its siting adjacent to two other highway directional signs, it is considered to give rise to a cluttered and disorderly appearance. The sign is not considered to be purely a directional sign as it serves to advertise the sale of caravans and lodges within the park. Whilst it is acknowledged that purely a directional sign would aid members of the public, it is considered that highways approved tourist signage with a brown background located under the adjacent existing highways signage would be more appropriate at this location. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2011

ITEM 24 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1276

In terms of the letter of objection received, the points raised are considered in the above report.

For the abovementioned reasons, it is recommended that consent is refused.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The sign, by virtue of its excessive scale, inappropriate design and prominent siting is considered to be detrimental to the visual amenities of the Oxwich Conservation Area and Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV14 , EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 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: EV14, EV9 and EV26.

PLANS

Site plan, specification drawing, photographs GLP 1 and GLP 2, photograph GLP 3 received 12th September 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (37)

Councillors

Swansea Administration Councillors: A Mike Day Paul M Meara E Wendy Fitzgerald W Keith Morgan Nicola A Holley John Newbury Jeff W Jones Cheryl L Philpott Mary H Jones Darren Price Susan M Jones T Huw Rees James B Kelleher R June Stanton Richard D Lewis Nick J Tregoning Keith E Marsh Vice Chair D Paul Tucker Chair

Labour Councillors: Nicholas S Bradley Robert J ( Bob) Lloyd June E Burtonshaw Penny M Matthews Mark C Child Byron G Owen William Evans Grenville Phillips Labour Vacancy J Christine Richards David I E Jones Ceinwen Thomas Erika T Kirchner Des W W Thomas

Conservative Councillors: Anthony C S Colburn C Miles R W D Thomas Margaret Smith

Communities of Swansea Councillor: Mair E Gibbs Glyn Seabourne

Copies Needed - 95