CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are invited to attend a Meeting of the
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
At: Council Chamber, CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA
On: Tuesday 14th July 2009
Time: 2.00p.m. Members are asked to contact John Lock (Applications Manager) on 635731 or Ryan Thomas (Area Team Leader) 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. Declaration of Interest
To receive Disclosures of Personal and Prejudicial Interests from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted. (NOTE: Members are requested to identify the Agenda Item /minute number/ planning application number and subject matter that their interest relates).
3. Minutes of the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 23rd and 30th June 2009.
FOR DECISION
4. Town and Country Planning - Planning Applications.
(a) Items for deferral/withdrawal. (b) Requests for site visits. (c) Determination of Planning Applications.
David M. Daycock Head of Legal & Democratic Services 8th July 2009 Contact: Democratic Services 01792 636607
ACCESS TO INFORMATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (SECTION 100) (AS AMENDED) (NOTE: The documents and files used in the preparation of this Schedule of Planning Applications are identified in the ‘Background Information’ Section of each report. The Application files will be available in the committee room for half an hour before the start of the meeting, to enable Members to inspect the contents). Item No. 2
Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members
To receive Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. You must disclose orally to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest.
NOTE: You are requested to identify the Agenda Item / Minute No. / Planning Application No. and Subject Matter to which that interest relates and to enter all declared interests on the sheet provided for that purpose at the meeting.
1. If you have a Personal Interest as set out in Paragraph 10 of the Code, you MAY STAY, SPEAK AND VOTE unless it is also a Prejudicial Interest.
2. If you have a Personal Interest which is also a Prejudicial Interest as set out in Paragraph 12 of the Code, then subject to point 3 below, you MUST WITHDRAW from the meeting (unless you have obtained a dispensation from the Authority’s Standards Committee)
3. Where you have a Prejudicial Interest you may attend the meeting but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose, whether under a statutory right or otherwise. In such a case, you must withdraw from the meeting immediately after the period for making representations, answering questions, or giving evidence relating to the business has ended, and in any event before further consideration of the business begins, whether or not the public are allowed to remain in attendance for such consideration (Paragraph 14 of the Code).
4. Where you have agreement from the Monitoring Officer that the information relating to your Personal Interest is sensitive information, as set out in Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct, your obligation to disclose such information is replaced with an obligation to disclose the existence of a personal interest and to confirm that the Monitoring Officer has agreed that the nature of such personal interest is sensitive information.
5. If you are relying on a grant of a dispensation by the Standards Committee, you must, before the matter is under consideration: (i) disclose orally both the interest concerned and the existence of the dispensation; and (ii) before or immediately after the close of the meeting give written notification to the Authority containing -
- details of the prejudicial interest; - details of the business to which the prejudicial interest relates; - details of, and the date on which, the dispensation was granted; and - your signature
Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Cttees\Area 2\2008-09\08jun24\02 - Disclosures of Personal Interest.doc
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
HELD ON TUESDAY 23RD JUNE 2009 AT 2.00 P.M. AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA
PRESENT: Councillor P Tucker (Vice-Chairman) presided
Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s):
M Child J Jones K Morgan T Colburn M H Jones J Newbury M Day S Jones C Philpott W Fitzgerald J Kelleher J Richards R Frances-Davies K Marsh J Stanton D James P Matthews P Smith D Jones P Meara
141. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Burtonshaw, W Evans, P Hood William, R Kinzett, E Kirchner, R Lewis, D Price, H Rees, G Seabourne and S Waller Thomas
142. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
In accordance with the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea, the following interests were declared:
Councillor M Day - Item No. 20 (2009/0713) - Personal and Prejudicial as Cabinet Member for Education.
Councillor R Francis-Davies - Item 1 (2008/2409) - Personal and Prejudicial as a non-executive Director of ABM University NHS Trust and left during discussion.
Councillor J. Jones - Item 12 (2009/0429) - Personal and Prejudicial - Objector is friend of my wife and left during discussion.
Councillor M H Jones - Item 12 (2009/0429) - Personal and Prejudicial - Objector is a personal friend and left during discussion.
Councillor P. Tucker - Item 9 (2009.0283) - Personal and Prejudicial and left during discussion.
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.06.09) Cont’d
143. MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings of the Area 2 Development Control Committees held on 2nd and 9th June, 2009 were agreed as correct records
144. PROPOSED DIVERSION OF FOOTPATH 61 IN THE COMMUNITY OF GOWERTON
The Head of Legal and Democratic Services submitted a report outlining the request to divert part of footpath 61 in Gowerton.
The evidence gathered and submitted and the consultation exercise undertaken were detailed.
RESOLVED that Cabinet be recommended to divert the footpath from A-B-E to A-D-D1-F-F1-E on the map in the report with the limitation of a gate or barrier at point F1 and if no objections are received to confirm the same as an unopposed Order.
145. PUBLIC FOOTPATH NO. 64 - COMMUNITY OF LLANRHIDIAN HIGHER
The Head of Legal and Democratic Services submitted a report outlining the details of whether the depiction in the Definitive Map or Statement for the path outlined is correct.
The legal background and issues relating to the depiction were outlined.
RESOLVED that Cabinet be recommended that a Modification Order be made to correct the Definitive Statement and if no objections are received to confirm the same as an unopposed order.
146. ALLEGED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FROM CROFTY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE TO SALTHOUSE POINT, CROFTY
The Head of Legal and Democratic Services reported on the application to register a public footpath at the location above.
The evidence gathered and submitted and the consultation exercise undertaken were detailed.
RESOLVED that Cabinet be recommended to refuse the application to make a Modification Order to add the route to the Definitive Map and Statement.
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.06.09) Cont’d
147. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL/WITHDRAWAL
RESOLVED that:
(1) the undermentioned planning application BE DEFERRED for the reasons outlined.
(Item 3) Application No. 2009/0315
Detached holiday chalet and associated parking at land south of 20 Langcliffe Chalet Park, Mumbles, Swansea.
(NOTE: The reason for deferment was to allow consideration of this application at the same ?? as 2009/0310
148. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS
RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning applications BE DEFERRED for SITE VISITS:
(Item 1) Application No. 2008/2409
Construction of a Slow Stream Care Unit, Step Down Residential Unit and Step Down Bedsit Unit, energy centre and associated access, parking and landscaping at Cefn Coed Hospital, Waunarlwydd, Swansea.
(NOTE: The reason for the site visit was to consider the impact of the amended scheme.
(Item 4) Application No. 2009/0310
Detached holiday chalet at land adjacent to Mordav, Langcliffe Chalet Park, Mumbles, Swansea
(NOTE: The reason for the site visit was to consider the objectors concerns.
(Item 8) Application 2009/0175
Detached dwelling and detached garage at land adjacent to Long Elms, 118 Bishopston Road, Bishopston, Swansea.
(NOTE: The reason for the deferment was to allow the submission of additional information
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.06.09) Cont’d
(Item 10) Application No. 2009/0306
Two storey side extension, rear conservatory and detached garage at 26 Chapel Road, Crofty, Swansea.
(NOTE: The reason for the site visit was to assess the character of the street scene.
(Item 13) Application No. 2009/0468
Construction of 1400 m2 retail unit (Class A1 and associated infrastructure (outline) at land at junction of Gors Avenue/Brynffordd, Cockett, Swansea.
(NOTE: The reason for the site visit was to consider the impact upon the area.
(Item 15) Application No. 2009/0570
To fell 3 Wellingtonia trees covered by TPO no. 16 at land fronting 20-25 Palmyra Court, West Cross, Swansea.
(NOTE: The reason for the site visit was to consider the impact of the trees on the street scene and the car park.
(Item 18) Application No. 2009/0603
Two storey side extension and replacement front porch at Ilston Cottage, Ilston, Swansea.
(NOTE: The reason for the site visit was to consider the scale of the extension.
148. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
The Head of Planning Services submitted a schedule of outline applications, reserved matters and planning applications. Amendments to this schedule were reported and are indicated below by (#).
RESOLVED that:
(1) the undermentioned planning applications BE APPROVED subject to the conditions in the report and/or indicated below:
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.06.09) Cont’d
# (Item 6) Application No. 2007/2362
Retention of re-routing of watercourse at Stavelhager Farm, Llanrhidian, Gower.
Amend condition 1 as follows:
Within 3 months from the date of this planning permission, the proposed protection measures detailed on Drawing No. 5962/1 Rev A received 4th June, 2009 shall be completed in accordance with revised details, which shall include the provision of an impervious membrane behind the proposed gabions, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Environment Agency have no adverse comments as any issues can be addressed via an application to the EA for Flood Defence Consent.
Add informative:
Prior to the commencement of any further works the applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency regarding any requirements for Flood Defence Consent associated with the proposed works.)
(NOTE: Comments from the objectors drainage consultant requested as follows:
“The proposals identified on the Dean and Thomas drawing number 5962/1 relate almost entirely to the section immediately upstream of the lane and comprise the installation of four gabions along the right bank of the stream (right when looking downstream) and two mattresses are in essence wire cages filled with stone and both will assist in preventing scour/erosion from water flow. The structures are by their very nature porous and the gabions will not preclude the passage of water through them.
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.06.09) Cont’d
Erosion tends to occur on the outside of bends. The gabions are, in this case, proposed on the inside of the bend with none of the outside. Their presence (together with the mattresses in the bed) will nonetheless have a beneficial effect in providing some protection to the bank immediately adjacent to your property.
There are no proposals indicated for ensuring that other areas of the channel are adequately vegetated which would provide some level of natural erosion protection.
The proposals also include for the introduction of three weirs in the new channel section upstream of the Lane. The purpose for this is not clear. For much of the year the stream is dry and under these circumstances, the weirs will have no impact at all. If the intention is to arrest some of the movement of debris in flood conditions which otherwise ends up in the lane, then this would be of some benefit but there are other issues to consider, namely:
• The debris collected upstream of each weir would need to be removed and disposed of frequently (possibly after each flood flow) if the benefit was to be maintained in the future;
• The introduction of the weirs will reduce the cross sectional area of the watercourse and hence its local flow capacity (particularly if the debris accumulation were not cleared regularly). The risk of overspill from the channel and hence uncontrolled overland flow could be increased as a result. As we have noted before, there is already some uncertainty that the new channel provides the same capacity as the original even prior to this proposal to introduce weirs. We assume that no modelling has been done to demonstrate the suitability of the proposals in respect of flood risk.
The proposal to introduce structures to watercourses (such as weirs) would normally require a consent from the Environment Agency. Do you know if they have been consulted and an application submitted?
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.06.09) Cont’d
The Council’s Drainage Division raise no additional concerns but advise in respect of the porous nature of the gabions, that we can insist that an impervious membrane be placed behind the gabion in order to alleviate this concern.
The Environment Agency have no adverse comments as any issues can be addressed via on application to them for ?? consent
(Item 7) Application No. 2009/0143
Timber and stone replacement storage shed at land adjacent to Lilac Cottage, North Hills Lane, Penmaen, Swansea.
(Item 11) Application No. 2009/0321
Increase in ridge height to provide first floor living accommodation with provision of one front, one rear dormer and front gable extension incorporating balcony at Perrimead, Nicholaston, Swansea.
(NOTE: The Gower Society reiterate their previous concerns. The revised roofline is not considered to materially alter the Society’s position.)
# (Item 14) Application No. 2009/0491
Change of use from retail/post office (Class A1) to a pair of semi-detached holiday letting accommodation (Class C3) with alterations to front and rear façade at Brook House Stores, Port Eynon, Swansea.
(NOTE: Two further letters of objection raising concerns regarding the loss of the only general shop in the village.
# (Item 16) Application No. 2009/0581
Revision of house and garage (amendment to plot 2) of planning permission 2005/0099 allowed at appeal on 15th March, 2008) at land adjacent to Middleton Hall, Middleton, Swansea.
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.06.09) Cont’d
(NOTE: Amend description to read as follows:
Retention and completion of house and garage (amendment to plot 2 of planning permission 2005/0099 allowed at appeal on 15th March, 2007)
# (Item 17) Application No. 2009/0586
Detached dormer bungalow (amendment to planning permission 2007/1752 granted 4th October, 2007) at 10 Ridley Way, Bishopston, Swansea.
Add condition:
Notwithstanding the submitted plans the first floor roof lights in the rear elevation shall be sited a minimum of 1.8. metres above internal floor level and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To protect the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
(Item 19) Application No. 2009/0666
Detached hobby/games room at Nantlais Llandewi, Reynoldston, Swansea.
(Item 20) Application No. 2009/0713
Single storey extension to north elevation, detached toy store, amendments to parking area and landscaping (Council Development Regulation 3)
(2) The undermentioned planning applications be REFUSED for the reasons in the report and or indicated below
(Item 2) Application No. 2009/0359
Increase in ridge height and addition of first floor to create two storey dwelling at The Laurels 34A West Cross Lane, West Cross, Swansea.
Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.06.09) Cont’d
(Item 5) Application No. 2008/1561
Conversion of garage/store to holiday accommodation rear extension and side dormer and provision of new vehicular access at The Hayes Horton, Swansea.
(NOTE: Further comment from an existing objector:
Page 130, first paragraph - I contend that the hedge in which the tree is situated is in the ownership of 116 Bishopston Road - We previously lived there until 1997 before building 120.
The hedge as far as I can recall is shown on the original deeds docs as being appended to no. 116 - but I am not certain of this. In any event it would at least be a shared responsibility between 116 and 118.
When the woodland TPO was imposed on the trees in the locality the specific notice for T1 was served on us as residents on 116.
(Item 9) Application No. 2009/0283
Siting of mobile catering unit for two weekends in July and two weekends in August at Rhossili Car Park, Rhossili.
(NOTE: Councillor J Stanton presided for above item.)
(Item 12) Application No. 0429
Change of use from retail (Class A1) to restaurant and takeaway (Class A3) at Unit 4 The Precinct, Killay, Swansea.
The meeting ended at 3.35 p.m.
CHAIRMAN
Z: Area 2 Development Control Committee 23 June, 2009 (GB/GDL) 24 June 2009
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE SITE VISITS
HELD ON SITE ON TUESDAY 30th JUNE 2009 AT 1.00PM
PRESENT: Councillor D P Tucker (Vice - Chairman) presided
Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s): V A Bates Hughes (b only) W Evans C L Philpott M C Child (f only) S M Jones R J Stanton (a only) A C S Colburn J B Kelleher (b only) M Smith (e only) A M Day (a only) W K Morgan D W W Thomas (e only)
1. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D H James, E T Kirchner, K E Marsh, P Matthews, J Newbury and J C Richards.
2. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SITE VISITS
Following deferment for site visits at the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committees held on Tuesday 23rd June 2009, Members visited the undermentioned sites prior to their determination at the Committee scheduled for Tuesday 14th July 2009:
a) Planning Application No. 2008/2409 Cefn Coed Hospital, Waunarlwydd Road, Waunarlwydd, Swansea, SA2 0GH. Construction of a Slow Stream Care Unit, Step Down Residential Unit and Step Down Bedsit Unit, energy centre and associated access, parking and landscaping. b) Planning Application No. 2009/0468 Land at junction of Gors Avenue/Brynffordd, Cockett, Swansea. Construction of 1400 m2 retail unit (Class A1) and associated infrastructure (outline). c) Planning Application No. 2009/0306 26 Chapel Road, Crofty, Swansea, SA4 3SJ. Two storey side extension, rear conservatory and detached garage. d) Planning Application No. 2009/0603 Ilston Cottage, Ilston, Swansea, SA2 7LD. Two storey side extension and replacement front porch. e) Planning Application No. 2009/0310 Land adjacent to Mordav, Langcliffe Chalet Park, Mumbles, Swansea. . f) Planning Application No. 009/0570 Land fronting 20-25 Palmyra Court West Cross Swansea SA3 5SW. To fell 3 Wellingtonia trees covered by TPO no. 16.
The meeting ended at 5.05 pm.
CHAIRMAN CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA 1. BISHOPSTON DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE 5. COCKETT 7. DUVANT Report of the Head of Planning Services to the 8. FAIRWOOD Chairman and Members of the Area 2 9. GORSEINON Development Control Committee 10. GOWER 11. GOWERTON 12. KILLAY NORTH DATE: 14TH JULY 2009 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
Bryan Graham B.A. (HONS); Dip. T.P.; M.R.T.P.I. Head of Planning Services CONTENTS
ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.
1 2008/2409 Cefn Coed Hospital, Waunarlwydd Road, Waunarlwydd, APPROVE Swansea, SA2 0GH Construction of a Slow Stream Care Unit, Step Down Residential Unit and Step Down Bedsit Unit, energy centre and associated access, parking and landscaping
2 2009/0570 Land fronting 20-25 Palmyra Court West Cross Swansea REFUSE SA3 5SW To fell 3 Wellingtonia trees covered by TPO no. 16
3 2009/0315 Land south of 20 Langcliffe Chalet Park, Mumbles, APPROVE Swansea Detached holiday chalet and associated parking
4 2009/0310 Land adjacent to Mordav, Langcliffe Chalet Park, APPROVE Mumbles, Swansea Detached holiday chalet
5 2009/0562 Murton Rovers Football Club, Manselfield Road, Murton, APPROVE Swansea Demolition of club building and construction of 4 detached dwellings (outline)
6 2008/2251 Former Penylan Coal Handling Deport, Alltygraban APPROVE Road, Grovesend, Swansea Change of use of site to the storage of caravans
7 2009/0306 26 Chapel Road, Crofty, Swansea, SA4 3SJ REFUSE Two storey side extension, rear conservatory and detached garage
8 2009/0468 Land at junction of Gors Avenue/Brynffordd, Cockett, APPROVE Swansea Construction of 1400 m2 retail unit (Class A1) and associated infrastructure (outline)
9 2009/0603 Ilston Cottage, Ilston, Swansea, SA2 7LD REFUSE Two storey side extension and replacement front porch AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.
10 2009/0742 104 Summerland Park, Upper Killay, Swansea SA2 7JA APPROVE Replacement rear conservatory
11 2008/2280 Land opposite Box Farm Reynoldston Swansea APPROVE SA3 1AA Detached dwelling with detached garage
12 2009/0768 Ash Grove, Vicarage Lane, Llangennith, Swansea SA3 APPROVE 1JA Detached workshop/store
13 2009/0465 Land adjoining Sunningdale Wernffrwd Llanmorlais APPROVE Swansea Detached bungalow (renewal of outline planning permission 2006/1196 granted on 17th July 2006)
14 2009/0852 The Gables Llanmadoc Swansea SA3 1DB APPROVE Single storey side/rear extension
15 2009/0624 Field 7700, Bank Farm, Horton, Swansea APPROVE Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum 160 units from 23rd July to 15th August 2010 (inclusive)
16 2009/0636 Weobley Castle Farm, (Field 8753), Llanrhidian, Gower APPROVE Use of land for camping and caravan rally for the maximum of 30 units from 7th - 9th May 2010 (inclusive)
17 2009/0540 Part of Field 4823 Port Eynon Swansea REFUSE Two detached dwellings (outline)
18 2009/0750 Sibrwd Y Coed Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1AQ APPROVE Side conservatory
19 2009/0602 Seren, Reigit Lane, Murton, Swansea SA3 3AN REFUSE Detached outbuilding
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.
20 2008/1223 Land adjoining Town House, Llangennith, Swansea APPROVE Two detached dwellings (one with integral garage)
21 2009/0609 Gelli Deg Penmaen Swansea APPROVE First floor rear extension
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409 WARD: Area 2 Sketty
Location: Cefn Coed Hospital, Waunarlwydd Road, Waunarlwydd, Swansea, SA2 0GH Proposal: Construction of a Slow Stream Care Unit, Step Down Residential Unit and Step Down Bedsit Unit, energy centre and associated access, parking and landscaping Applicant: Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University NHS Trust
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at Area 2 Committee on the 23rd June 2009 to consider the impact of the amended scheme. Issues were raised by Members at the site visit regarding drainage problems in the surrounding area, but Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has raised no objection to this scheme, and on the basis of these observations there are no grounds to resist this application on drainage matters.
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 EC2 Development within the SA1 Swansea Waterfront defined area shall accord with specific criteria. (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 HC14 Re-development of the Cefn Coed Hospital site for a mix of health care and residential use will be supported subject to compliance with a defined list of criteria including design, landscape, retention and enhancement of landscape features, adequate access and parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy AS1 Accessibility - Criteria for assessing location of new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy AS2 Accessibility - Criteria for assessing design and layout of new development. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
Policy AS7 Accessibility - Provision of bus services and associated facilities. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV4 New development will be assessed against its impact on the public realm. (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)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2008/2245 Construction of a detached bat house Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 12/01/2009
95/0025 ERECTION OF 3 NO. DWELLINGS ON PLOTS 121-123 (INCLUSIVE) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 22/03/1995
2001/1636 Continuation of use as a church (Class D1) (Renewal of temporary planning permission 98/1624 granted on 25th January 1999) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 27/11/2001
2003/2123 Continuation of use as a church (Class D1) (renewal of temporary planning permission 2001/1636 granted on 27th November 2001) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 05/12/2003
2006/1301 Single storey block to provide a post graduate medical centre with associated car parking area (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 16/11/2006
2001/0789 Change of use of deconsecrated church from stores to medical school Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/08/2001
91/1174 EXTENSION TO EXISTING PHARMACY DEPARTMENT Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 13/11/1991
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
96/1106 RETENTION OF USE AS A CHURCH (CLASS D1) (RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY PLANNING PERMISSION 95/1060 DATED 9.11.95) Decision: *HGPCT - GRANT PERMISSION COND. (T) Decision Date: 30/12/1996
95/1060 CHANGE OF USE FROM OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY UNIT (CLASS C2) TO A CHURCH (CLASS D1) Decision: *HGPCM - GRANT PERMISSION COND. (M) Decision Date: 09/11/1995
2008/0038 First floor side extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 01/02/2008
2009/0041 Construction of 41 residential units (outline) Decision: CALLED IN Application (Swansea) Decision Date: 20/01/2009
Response to Consultations
The application was advertised on site and one neighbouring property was consulted individually. TEN LETTERS OF OBJECTION (FIVE LOCAL RESIDENTS) have been received which are summarised as follows:-
1. Concern that both applications 2008/2409 and 2009/0041(proposed residential development of adjacent land) are inextricably linked and should be considered together. 2. There is no evidence in either submission that consultation has taken place with Transportation and Engineering, and no Transport Assessment and Travel Plan has been submitted. 3. A previous application for part of site was refused on grounds that “its scale and siting would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing chapel building and the open character of the surrounding area, contrary to policies Be1 and CS6 of the Swansea Local plan Review No. 1”, The same applies to the amenity values of Pant-Yr-Odyn. 4. The proposed construction of the step down unit replaces an existing single storey building, disused, by a 2 storey building which extends to within 4m of the garden fence of No. 29 Pant-Yr-Odyn and is there is concern that this unit will impinge greatly on enjoyment and view from adjacent neighbouring dwelling to site, resulting in a loss of visual amenity and privacy to the residents of Pant-Yr-Odyn contrary to Policy EV1. 5. The traffic arrangements to the site are vaguely stated – in one part of the Design & Access Statement (D&AS) it is proposed that the development is approached through the hospital site, from Waunarlwydd Road, but reference is made to Maes Y Grufydd Road, stated to be little used. The inevitably increased traffic along this road will lead to increased noise and pollution at adjacent properties. 6. Reference is made to access from Pant-Yr-Odyn “should the (application 2009/0041) be granted”. This would lead to loss of amenity to the residents of Pant-Yr-Odyn contrary to Policy EV1.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
7. The D&AS statement makes reference to proposed development that will involve opening up of the end of Pant-Yr-Odyn allowing further parking associated with the “Step-Down” unit to be accessed from that side. 8. Where is the BS4142 noise assessment backed up with proper measurements. 9. Landscaping proposals in the D&AS statement are purely concerned with the effects on the residents of the facility. No consideration is given to neighbours. 10. The D&AS Statement makes reference to the removal of certain trees to accommodate car parking which are not identified. This may reduce the visual amenity of residents on Pant-Yr-Odyn. 11. Concern that other trees will not be damaged during development. Also query where is the aboriculturalist’s report. 12. No proposal for soft landscaping to mitigate visual intrusion nor any security and privacy for residents of Pant-Yr-Odyn adjacent to the proposal site. 13. The D&AS statement is extremely vague as to the secure, or not, nature of the facility. Although it makes reference to the integration of patients concerns raised at the effect on local residents e.g. having a facility within 4m of garden fence. 14. This facility if granted and built will cause real fear among the residents of Pant-Yr- Odyn and surrounding streets because of the proximity of what is clearly a secure unit. This will pose a security threat to others, as is currently the case on the hospital grounds, but further away from neighbouring property. 15. We are aware that patients have escaped from the existing secure unit and this causes concern to us. The new facility will cause real fear for those who live at 29 Pant Yr Odyn. 16. If the intention is to integrate residents into the wider community then the issue of public transport must be addressed, e.g. the bus services from Pant-Yr-Odyn are infrequent and cease at 6p.m. 17. Little or no rationale for these units to be sited as shown rather than elsewhere in the larger site H1(128) or H14 areas. 18. Concern that the Trust has not considered an alternative site closer to the Cockett entrance. 19. There has been no consultation with or involvement of the local community by the Trust with regard to these proposals and their siting so close to them and the implications thereof. 20. No details of the wind turbine submitted and concern that no screening opinion has been sought. 21. In any event the turbine would be a noise nuisance and a hazard to the abundance of flying wildlife that inhabits the area. 22. The turbine would pose dangers from flying ice and blade detachment. 23. Concern regarding effect of wind turbine ‘flicker’ and ‘sound’ on patients. 24. Concern that the ‘step down’ unit has windows on the first floor that will overlook neighbouring property which is totally unacceptable. 25. Concern that the development will result in a loss of enjoyment of the peace and quiet currently enjoyed which is akin to those experienced in the countryside. 26. The proposals for a secure unit requiring 24 hour seven day a week staffing with provision for parking will destroy these low noise levels. 27. In the event that permission is granted we will expect a condition restricting vehicle movements other than in an emergency, to between 07:00 and 21:00 Monday to Saturday and 9:00 to 21:00 on Sundays and bank holidays. 28. Not clear whether power generation building will block view north/north east from neighbouring property. 29. Reference to policy allocation in the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan, which includes comprehensive redevelopment of site for residential development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
30. Demolition of old wards has caused a lot of noise and disruption. 31. Proposal to open up Pant-Yr-Odyn will cause a lot of disruption, and is unacceptable. 32. Surely if the aim of the Trust is to integrate patients into the community life, then this site is completely unsuitable. Grosvenor Heights consists of housing, a children’s park and a primary school. There are no shops, the bus service ends at 6p.m. and does not run on Sundays. 33. Concern that local residents were not consulted on this application but were consulted on bat house application. 34. Concern that the geographical location is accurately stated. 35. Request for more details o what type of patients will be housed in ‘secure unit’. 36. Devaluation of property fears. 37. After meeting with Trust resident submitted concerns that there will access to the facility from Pant-Yr-Odyn, and fears that some of the patients housed will have criminal convictions of a violent and sexual nature. 38. Request that planning authorities investigate this matter. 39. Proposal to use Maes-Y-Grufydd for access to hospital would increase noise and pollution for the residents of Pant-Yr-Odyn. 39. Concern that likely amended plans will not address concerns of residents.
Andrew Davies AM – Passed on constituent’s concerns regarding the development.
AMENDED PLANS
The application was re-registered as the red line area of the site has been changed, and the amended plans also included the re-siting of the step-down unit and omission of the wind turbine.
The amended plans were advertised on site and five neighbouring properties were consulted individually. A PETITION OF OBJECTION (179 signatures) and TWELVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION (Six residents) have been received which reiterated previous concerns and made the following additional points:-
PETITION OF OBJECTION:-
1. Whilst appreciating the need to update hospital facilities, the proposed construction of new hospital units within 10 metres of the current housing in Pant-Yr-Odyn (2008/2409) is totally insensitive to the needs and concerns of residents and will result in loss of visual amenity and privacy for them. The creation of free access onto our estate through Pant-Yr-Odyn from this planned development will cause real disruption and concern to residents of Pant-Yr-Odyn and neighbouring streets, present a clear and heightened threat to our safety, and destroy the rights of all residents to live in a state of security and peace of mind. The current hospital entrances already provide suitable access to the heart of this proposed development.
2. The proposed ‘opening up ‘ of Pant-Yr-Odyn and Bryn Derwen (2009/0041) will create a ring road which will together with the hospital development, greatly increase traffic flow, traffic hazard, heighten the risk of traffic accidents, amplify noise disturbance, and totally destroy the current quiet ‘ cul de sac’ estate at Grosvenor Heights. Open access to the hospital complex would encourage hospital visitors to park in the new road thus further increasing traffic flow.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
LETTERS OF OBJECTION:-
1. Whilst the nearest step down unit to neighbour’s property has been moved to the left, the other buildings remain and continue to block neighbour’s current view over open countryside. 2. Excess noise from the activities carried out in the proposed units will have a negative effect on our continuing enjoyment of peace and quiet. 3. Perception of loss of amenity in that the nature and atmosphere of the locality will change for the worse because of people’s unalloyed fears regarding the effect that the that the development will have on them. 4. The development is new development. 5. There is no evidence that renewable energy forms are to be used. 6. The development does not cater for patient needs as claimed by the applicant because it is wrongly sited an unnecessarily long way from what constitutes community. Indeed it degrades the very thing that it claims to improve, i.e. patient access to rehabilitation into the community. 7. The intentions of the proposal are inextricably linked to 2009/0041 and cannot realise its intended outcome without that application being approved and realised and on that basis both applications must be determined as one. 8. Concerns that the ABM Trust have given no assurances over the type of patients that will be housed in the new step down units. 9. At present neighbours have had to put up with a lot of disruption to every day lives with the demolition process going on with noise, dust, and large equipment arriving at 6a.m. in the morning, noisy workmen shouting, etc. and if proposed plans go ahead we will have to deal with this for a further few years. 10. Amended plans ignore concerns of neighbours. 11. Concerns that human rights of neighbours have been ignored. 12. Security concerns could be overcome by requiring a solid fence between the hospital development and the application site/Grosvenor Heights 13. Access concerns regarding through traffic could be overcome by erecting a solid barrier between across the link road between Pant-Yr-Odyn and Bryn Derwen thereby creating in effect two extended cul de sacs.
Environment Agency Wales – Requests that planning application is accompanied by a full drainage system. Concerns that WWA are consulted to ensure capacity exists within the system to accept the flows generated as a result of the development. Surface water should not be discharged to the sewer. Consideration should be given to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS). Appropriate pollution control measures should be undertaken during development, and EAW contacted for more advice.
Countryside Council for Wales – Response dated 2nd April 2009: - Requested a full assessment of the wider impact of all the Cefn Coed developments on Lesser Horsehoe bats and bat habitat, with particular reference to hedgerows and ecological links, which are important to bats. Also require other information including a badger survey and bird survey.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
Response dated 20th May 2009:- Response confirmed that there is No Objection to the proposal, but recommend changes/conditions to be applied to the scheme as follows:- 1. A temporary fence/trellis to be erected along the coppiced hedgerow to the north of the bat house, 2-3 metres in height. 2. A small amount of additional planting to be carried out between the northern hedgerow and the proposed Energy Centre., in order to provide further tree cover and greater screening. 3. Important to avoid lighting around the bat house.
Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water – No objection subject to conditions and informatives.
Highway Observations – This proposal for 3 residential care units within the Cefn Coed site is unlikely to generate any significant increase in traffic movements as patients will not have access to cars. Staff can be accommodated within the campus and therefore there will be no adverse affect on the surrounding highway network. It is noted also, that a significant number of buildings within the site are currently disused and ready for demolition, therefore there has been a significant reduction in use of the site compared to previous years.
I recommend that no highway objections are raised.
FURTHER SUPPORTING INFORMATION FROM APPLICANT
In response to queries raised during the course of this application, the applicant has submitted the following responses:-
1. What restrictions, legislative controls or licensing exists to control the movement of re-housing of patients of differing degrees of illness and public risk within the hospital accommodation?
These facilities are seen as essential in reproviding outdated and inappropriate hospital settings to provide adequate levels of respect and dignity for a comparatively small number of people. The plans are the first phase of a series of innovations which will reprovide all the existing below standard facilities at Cefn Coed Hospital.
The movement of patients in and around the new facilities will be the same as it is at present for all patients at Cefn Coed Hospital, in that their care plans will be developed by the appropriate clinical team in conjunction with the patients themselves, and their families.
There may be some individuals who are subject to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2007, which might impose restrictions on movements, as it can on patients in the community.
All patients, whether in hospital or in the community are supervised and supported by the appropriate members of the clinical team and by other informal relationships such as families and friends.
2. If it is confirmed that no official control exists (or non that involves public consultation should variations in restrictions arise) why is the perimeter of the grounds to now be opened? Why cannot a secure fence be provided?
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
It is not accurate to say that no official controls exist as indicated in the answer to question 1 above. Most of the patients are in hospital on a voluntary informal basis. Therefore, it is considered that a “secure fence” would not be needed in future any more than it is at the moment. The patients will predominantly be the same as those currently resident in Cefn Coed Hospital, who have co-existed harmoniously with the residents of the estate since it was built 15 years or so ago. A fence as such is therefore not needed, nor is it appropriate.
3. Assuming that the facility’s “outward looking” nature is to encourage patients to interact with the community, what community facilities are they supposed to be making use of within a reasonable walking distance of the facility.
The importance of the building is its location, integrated and within a community setting, not to specifically engage with any particular community facilities that may or may not exist close by. The Step Down Unit is about familiarisation, learning and adjusting to a typical housing environment as opposed to living within the confines of a large institutional building. The separation/divorce away from a patient room in a hospital ward to a bedroom in a typical house in an appropriate setting is the key and final steps to a return to living in ordinary accommodation in the community. The types of community services used by patients will be more or less similar to those used by the existing residents of Grosvenor Heights.
4. What guarantees are given that the proposed residential access road to which the pedestrian access from the unit links to the existing public highway will be constructed to enable the pedestrian access to be useable? Should this element not form part of both proposals?
No guarantee is given, that the continuation of Pant-Yr-Odyn will be constructed as part of Phase 1 works, the pedestrian link is simply in place to make best sense of the urban environment that would be created if/when the proposed housing and road takes place. Until then the pedestrian path forms an access path between and to both Step Down Units.
5. The statements that limited visitor trips are envisaged, does not preclude them happening. Common sense suggests that such visits would involve vehicles arriving at the “outward facing” entrance of the facility where no car parking provision is proposed. It’s hard to reconcile the Trust’s understandable aim of integration of patients with the community, with a lack of provision to avoid disruption to the members of the community with whom they will be interacting.
Any understandable point which correctly suggests that any statement made can not guarantee vehicles will not approach the unit from the new road (if constructed). Suffice to say that all Trust Staff will be required to use the proposed parking facilities provided within the curtilage of Cefn Coed Hospital and which are familiar to them.
Secondly the rarity of visitation to this group of patients and the complex and difficult nature of actually finding and approaching the building from Pant-yr-Odyn is prevention in its own right. Parking to the front of the Step Down Units was considered from an extension of Pant Yr Odyn but was rejected for all the points raised above in addition to providing more green/landscape space to this side of the Step Down Houses.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
APPRAISAL
This application seeks full planning permission for new hospital development at Cefn Coed Hospital, Swansea, and includes a Slow Stream Care Unit, a Step Down Residential Unit, a Step Down Bed Sit Unit, and associated Energy Centre, access, car parking and landscaping. This proposal forms Phase 1 of the proposed redevelopment of the hospital facilities at Cefn Coed, and is designed for patients in their final stages of recovery before integration back into the community. These units will replace old style wards in use at Cefn Coed Hospital, which are no longer regarded as being fit for purpose.
The hospital site has been established for approximately 80 years at this location and is situated between the residential areas of Cockett and Tycoch to the east and south respectively, and agricultural land (designated as green wedge) to the north and west.
The application site comprises approximately 0.8ha of ‘brownfield’ hospital land on the western side of the hospital campus, where a number of derelict hospital wards and associated care buildings have recently been demolished. The former wards were vacated in the 1970s following implementation of the Care in the Community Strategy. The adjoining site to the west is also part of this western ‘brownfield’ area, and is the subject of a separate planning application (Ref. 2009/0041) which seeks outline planning permission for a residential development of 41 houses, which is still under officer consideration pending the submission of further details.
The hospital land to the east of the site is currently open green space within the hospital grounds, but is proposed to site Phase 2 of the hospital redevelopment, relating to an Intermediate Care Unit. Phase 3 of the redevelopment would include the demolition of the existing red brick hospital wards, with likely further residential development proposals submitted on land to the south of the existing hospital.
The main vehicle access to the hospital is from Waunarlwydd Road, at the Cockett entrance, to the north east, with secondary access from Maes Y Grufydd, Tycoch, to the south. The application site will be served primarily as existing by the internal estate road which will lead to the proposed front access road (and car parking). An extension to the internal road system will provide vehicle access to the proposed clinical accommodation and energy centre. In addition to the pedestrian access off Maes Y Grufydd, Tycoch, the proposal includes a rear pedestrian link to the adjoining proposed housing development (Ref. 2009/0041), which will allow pedestrian access to the street network within the adjacent Grosvenor Heights development, via Pant Yr Odyn. In the event that planning permission is not granted for this adjoining residential development, pedestrian access would be confined to the existing routes above.
The application has been modified since its original submission in December, 2008, and the amended scheme omits a wind turbine and has re-sited the proposed Step Down Bedsit Unit further away from the nearest neighbouring private house at No. 29 Pant Yr Odyn. Further minor changes have recently been made to details of the fenestration of the units and enclosures, as well as road surface treatments in the scheme to ensure that the proposal meets design concerns.
In addition the application has been screened in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 and on the basis of the information received it is considered that no Environmental Impact Assessment is required for this redevelopment of hospital land. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
The supporting Design and Access Statement, and supplementary advice from the agent, advises that the proposal will provide Rehabilitation Units for patients in their final stages of recovery before reintegration into the community. They need an environment that promotes independence and these units provide an essential intermediate step in their treatment and recovery between a hospital environment and a community based placement. The Step Down Units aim to promote integration and communal living in an environment where residents are free to come and go as they wish with minimal medical staffing. The separation in the Slow Stream Unit offers women residents more choice, promotes privacy and respect (key themes in Assembly Government and Department of Health guidance) and supports a smoother transition to independent living. In comparison with the new build units, the existing hospital accommodation is antiquated, offering very limited opportunities for independent living, privacy and respect.
In addition the applicant has submitted a written response to queries raised in public consultation which is reproduced in full in the introduction to this report.
Main Issues
The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the acceptability of the proposed hospital development at this hospital site in terms of its impact on visual and residential amenity, highway safety and environmental interests, having regard to the prevailing provisions of the relevant policies of the City and County Unitary Development Plan.
Under the provisions of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan is The City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which was adopted on 10th November 2008.
The UDP comprises two parts, Part 1 and 2. Part 1 sets out the broad vision and aspirations for development and conservation together with the overall strategy for pursuing them. Part 2 translates these goals and objectives into more detailed policies and development proposals. The UDP policies relevant to this application are Part 1 Policies SP1, SP3, SP9, and SP14 and Part 2 Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4, HC14, AS1, AS2, AS6 and AS7.
UDP policy HC14 relates to the proposed redevelopment of Cefn Coed Hospital and the supporting statement to this policy explains that the National Service Framework for Adult Mental Heath requires under Key Action 15 that all Victorian style long stay institutions are to close by the end of 2008. Whilst this target has not been reached yet at Cefn Coed, the current application is the first phase of the redevelopment of this Victorian style hospital, in line with the thrust of the above Development Plan and national health objectives.
Visual impact
Care Buildings
The agent has explained that the siting, design and layout of the Slow Stream and Step Down units was prepared following input from clinicians, to ensure that accommodation provided a good environment for patients in the last stages of their rehabilitation back into the community. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
The Design and Access Statement (DAS) further explains that the Slow Stream Unit has been carefully designed to ensure an inclusive design that comprises two small courtyard spaces with a cluster of patients’ bedrooms around them; these face inwards to the courtyards. A staff wing will form part of the buildings frontage shielding some of the above private spaces from the front (eastern) road. The two Step Down units are designed for fewer residents with fewer facilities and will accommodate patients in their final stages of rehabilitation in a house style environment, with living and dining areas, kitchen and storage spaces. The above units will be supplemented by pleasant internal spaces including planted lawn areas that will enhance the immediate landscaping of the site.
In addition, the DAS (chapter 3) explains the rationale for siting the development on the western edge of the campus. This includes the need to disconnect from the previous hospital ward facility and reinforce the primary aim that patients be integrated back into society. As such the proposed buildings will have very little perceived relationship with the main hospital buildings. However, the three care buildings are oriented so that their primary entrances face east towards the proposed front vehicle access and parking and main hospital grounds, thus assisting in way finding. However, the rear elevation of the two units will face west towards the proposed new housing development, and the link path will lead out onto the proposed rear residential street.
Whilst the existing hospital buildings are visually prominent, the proposed care units will be relatively unobtrusive in the wider landscape as they are screened by the larger built form of hospital and ambulance centre buildings to the east and south. Despite being at the ridge of the hill the units will also be substantially screened from the west and south by existing two storey residential development, and to the north by a thick established tree belt and mature hedging. The site is fairly level and similar in ground levels to the nearest residential housing but some cut and fill will be required for the Slow Stream building.
The existing hospital is characterised by its large scale red brick and tiled pitched roof buildings of varying heights. The application site was also previously occupied by some fairly large and imposing two storey buildings which were very institutional in their character and design. In contrast, the proposed development has been designed to integrate more sympathetically with the neighbouring residential development. The Slow Stream Unit building is single storey with dark brick plinth, clad above in a mix of timber boarding and self coloured render, with internal courtyard areas including glazed areas. The roof will be aluminium standing seam and windows and trims in aluminium. The Step Down units are partly two storey with the staff area of the house being single storey. External materials are more traditional to blend in with the adjoining housing utilising a dark tiled roof and facing brickwork and render.
With regard to the visual impact of the proposal, it is considered that the design and layout of the amended scheme for these units is visually acceptable with no adverse impact on short, medium or long distance views. The palette of materials complements the design of buildings and will not detract from the existing hospital development and in visual terms will blend in satisfactorily with adjoining residential development.
However, some further minor changes have been submitted to address design concerns including additional fenestration to the Step Down Bedsit Unit to reduce the solid to void ration of this rear elevation. An additional rear window enhances its overall appearance and will ensure that the rear of this building relates effectively with the future residential character of the rear street scene. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
In addition a narrow window has been added to the side gable of the Slow Stream Centre to ensure that there is not a blank uninviting wall near the front entrance. Fencing details have also been revised to provide more domestic features to the proposed rear garden areas facing the proposed highway, with side fences set back from the side elevations of the Step Down Units and low hedging introduced along the rear curtilage to soften the visual impact and present an open estate character to this part of the development, in keeping with the proposed future character of the residential estate street. In contrast a more robust and solid concrete block rendered wall is proposed to the southern side curtilage of the Slow Stream Unit, where it meets the proposed internal pathway link to the Step Down Unit, to ensure that there is satisfactory privacy for the future residents of this Slow Stream Unit from passing pedestrian traffic.
Overall it is considered that the proposed units will provide visually acceptable buildings within the landscape at the same time as achieving a comfortable environment for patients and staff to live and work, in line with the aspirations of Policies EV1, EV2, and EV3 of the UDP.
Energy Centre
The Energy Centre is proposed on land to the north of the proposed clinical development and to the north of the recently constructed bat house (application 2008/2245 refers). In the future the energy centre will provide high efficiency energy to support the Slow Stream Unit and the space requirements for the future Intermediate Care unit. The proposal aims to achieve an excellent sustainable solution in terms of energy consumption and efficiency, to reduce the impact on the environment.
Whilst the simple form and materials of this building is similar in height and appearance to approved bat house, with a maximum roof height of approximately 6m and external cladding in cedar panelling, the overall footprint of this building is much larger at some 278 square metres. The stainless steel flue will reach a maximum height of approximately 12m. As this building will serve both Phase 1 and the future development of Phase 2 of the redevelopment at Cefn Coed Hospital, it has been confirmed that the overall size and dimensions are necessary to house the equipment required for both these phases.
In terms of its visual impact, the building will be readily visible from within the hospital campus but will be less prominent in the larger landscape with limited potential for long distance views from the north due to the mature hedgerows and tree screening and expanse of intervening farmland, which will help screen the development from the nearest rural lanes. Overall it is considered that this building relates satisfactorily with the existing bat house and proposed new care units and will not detract from the character of the hospital or the wider landscape in line with the objectives of Policies EV1 and EV2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Residential Amenity
In response to public response on the original scheme submitted in December, the NHS Trust has amended the siting of the southernmost Step Down Unit so that there is now a greater separation distance of 8.5m between the flank wall of the unit and the side garden fence of the nearest residential property at No. 29 Pant Yr Odyn. The distance between the respective flank walls of the two buildings will be approximately 11m.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
Whilst there is relatively even ground levels between the two sites and the proposed intervening tree screening in the side garden of the unit will help screen the development in the future, the proposed two storey element of the Step Down Bedsit Unit is larger than the average neighbouring dwellings, with a footprint of 14.2m in width by 8.5m in depth and maximum ridge height of 8.3m. As requested by officers, further sectional drawings have been submitted which demonstrate that the proposed relationship between the two properties is satisfactory, with no unacceptable visual or physical overbearance, it is considered, to the neighbouring residential property at No. 29 Pant Yr Odyn.
Moreover, whilst it is noted that there is a first floor window on the northern side flank wall of No. 29 Pant Yr Odyn, the absence of any habitable windows on the southern flank wall unit means that there will be no mutual overlooking of habitable rooms. Whilst the private residential property may be afforded some overlooking of the unit’s side garden area until the tree screen matures, the unit has no potential for overlooking of the rear garden of No. 29.
The Slow Stream Unit and Energy Centre are at a satisfactory distance from neighbouring residential properties and do not it is considered present any residential amenity concerns in terms of physical or visual impact or overlooking.
Whilst some concern has been raised in public representation regarding possible noise from the proposed development through increased usage and car related traffic, these impacts are considered nominal, given the relatively low traffic predicted to be associated with the development after it is constructed. Service traffic is predicted to be limited and staff will park in the main hospital car parks. On this basis, it is considered unlikely that there would be significant day to day traffic noise associated with these facilities.
In response to initial public consultation, neighbour concerns were raised regarding the noise of the demolition of the former wards which has been monitored by the Council pollution control officers. Whilst construction traffic may similarly cause some temporary nuisance, it is separately controlled by environmental health legislation, and is not material to the consideration of this application. Similarly any construction nuisance to neighbouring residents from dust etc. is controlled by environmental health legislation. Pollution control have raised no objections subject to conditions and informatives as recommended below.
Having regard to the above considerations, it is not considered that the proposal would have any material adverse impact on residential amenity that would result in a conflict with Policy EV1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Access and Car Parking
The proposal has been considered very carefully, following objections raised by residents regarding potential increased visitor traffic and overspill parking into neighbouring streets. By the very nature of the use the proposal has to be accessible to all users in accordance with Policy EV3. However, in response to neighbours concerns the NHS Trust have confirmed that there will be control of staff vehicular access and parking to ensure that there is no unacceptable overspill parking or impact onto the local streets. Moreover, the agent has clarified that the visitor use to these units is relatively low and even in the main Adult Wards at Cefn Coed Hospital the experience of the level of visitors is minimal when compared to normal general hospital services. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
The Slow Stream Unit (18 Beds) can be likened to the existing Ward 2 in Cefn Coed Hospital which receives only one or two visitors on some weekends. There will also, it is considered, be limited traffic between the new units in terms of services as they are not clinically linked to the rest of the main hospital.
The Head of Transportation and Engineering is satisfied that the proposal for 3 residential care units within the Cefn Coed site is unlikely to generate any significant increase in traffic movements as patients will not have access to cars. Staff can be accommodated within the campus and therefore there will be no adverse affect on the surrounding highway network. As such it is therefore not considered that there are sufficient grounds to warrant a refusal of this application on highway grounds.
Drainage
The Environment Agency (EA) raised concerns regarding the capacity of the foul and surface water drainage systems in the area. However, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water have subsequently raised no objection subject to conditions and informatives as recommended below. The agent has confirmed that the development will be catered for by existing foul and surface water drainage systems within the site, and that there is no intention to discharge surface water into the foul drainage system. The drainage system on site used to serve the original (now demolished) wards and there is no likely increase in impact on the system from this development alone. On this basis it is not considered in this instance that there is justification for refusal on drainage grounds.
Ecology
An ecology survey has been undertaken and the protected species found were the Lesser House Bat and the Common pipistrelle Bats. The recently approved bat house (application 2008/2245 refers) was constructed before the former hospital buildings were demolished, and provides a satisfactory replacement building to house these protected species.
During the course of the current application, further meetings and discussions have been held between the Department’s ecologist, officers from the Country Council For Wales (CCW), and the NHS Trust ecologist and planning agent to ensure that the current application supplements the protection of habitat for the protected bats. In addition to the protection of as many established hedges and trees in the vicinity of the scheme, it is recommended that an additional solid fence screen at approximately 2 to 3m high is proposed to the rear of the bat house, with additional supplementary planting of native species including trees and hedges between the energy centre and the northern hedge, and the avoidance of any additional lighting of the bat house. These matters can be controlled by condition, and on this basis there are no outstanding CCW objections.
Other Material Considerations
Other concerns raised in public consultation that are not covered in the above report include the ‘fear’ factor regarding the security of members of the public who live in the neighbouring residential estate. As referred to in the petition of objection and recent letters there are neighbour concerns that the clinical development should remain physically separate from the neighbouring residential streets and should be enclosed so that there is no pedestrian or vehicular access onto Pant-Yr-Odyn.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
Whilst the proposed hospital development is on established ‘brownfield’ hospital land, further explanation of the rational for its siting close to residential development has been sought from the agents, their advisors and NHS Staff. The response is that clinically, Cefn Coed is seen as appropriate for slower stream services. Moreover, in principle the proposed care units are acceptable at this hospital site. Whilst this is not a material planning consideration, officers have been advised that the patients housed in these units are not acute patients requiring constant care. Such patients are housed in separate secure wards elsewhere, and are not accommodated with or use the same clinical facilities as the proposed slow stream or step down patients.
In essence, this development is proposed for patients in their final stages of recovery. It is intended to provide them with a comfortable and stress free environment that is physically separate from the main hospital and as close as possible to an established residential community. The next phase in a typical patients’ recovery would be to be housed in appropriate Council or Housing Associated houses elsewhere in the community. The above matters are not, however, material planning considerations which would justify a recommendation of refusal in this instance.
Conclusions
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed Slow Stream Unit, Step Down Units, Energy Centre and associated access and car parking is a satisfactory form of development on this ‘brownfield’ land at this hospital site, with no significant harm to the visual amenities of the site or surrounding area; residential amenities of neighbouring residents; highway safety; or environmental concerns. Overall the proposal is in line with the thrust of national objectives to redevelop the facilities at this hospital and provide quality well designed accommodation in an environment that enhances recovery and rehabilitation, and as such meets the objectives of policy HC14 of the Unitary Development Plan. Approval is recommended, subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of the superstructure on site. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
3 Notwithstanding the plans submitted, before the development hereby approved is brought into beneficial use, an additional fence, approximately 2 - 3 metres high shall be provided as a screen to the rear of the bat house, in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed fence shall be maintained and retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
4 Notwithstanding the plans submitted, before the development hereby approved is brought into beneficial use, additional planting shall be carried out to reinforce the hedgerow between the energy centre and the northern hedge, in accordance with landscaping, phasing and maintenance details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed planting shall be maintained and retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
5 Notwithstanding the plans submitted, before the development hereby approved is brought into beneficial use, any external lighting shall be completed in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
6 Notwithstanding the plans submitted, and prior to the construction of the road to the Energy Centre, details of the surface change to the road shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety
7 Notwithstanding the boundary treatment details shown in the proposed site plan received 15th June 2009; further details of the boundary treatments to the east of the Step Down Unit and to the north of the main entrance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity of the site.
8 Prior to the commencement of demolition/construction works on the application site (including all access roads) a Construction Pollution Management Plan (CMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMP shall include the following:
a) Demolition/Construction programme and timetable b) Detailed site plans to include indications of temporary site offices/
compounds, materials storage areas, proposed compounds, delivery and parking areas etc c) Traffic scheme (access and egress) in respect of all demolition/construction AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 8 related vehicles; (Cont’d) d) An assessment of construction traffic generation and management in so far as public roads are affected, including provisions to keep all public roads free from mud and silt; e) Proposed working hours; f) Principal Contractor details, which will include a nominated contact for complaints; g) Details of on site lighting (including mitigation measures) having regard to best practicable means (BPM); h) Details of on site dust mitigation measures having regard to BPM; i) Details of on site noise mitigation measures having regard to BPM; j) Details of waste management arrangements (including any proposed crushing/screening operations); and k) Notification of whether a Control of Pollution Act 1974 (Section 61) Notice to be served by Principle Contractor on Local Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
9 No surface water or land drainage run off shall discharge either directly or indirectly into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent the hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment and to protect the health and safety of existing residents.
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 SP1, SP3, SP9, SP14, EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4, HC14, AS1, AS2, AS6, AS7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
2 i. The applicant is requested to contact the Head of Environmental Health Services prior to the commencement of any works on site in order to identify any statutory controls which may be required in relation to the specific works being carried out and the hours of working on the site.
ii. The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements of the Highways Act not to cause obstruction to the users of the public highway nor to allow soil, and or other materials to be deposited onto the street, and to obtain consent for the storage of building materials on the public highway. The applicant should contact the Director of Technical Services to advise on the requirements of the Act and the penalties for non-compliance.
3 To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System, foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.
4 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment, no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
5 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment, land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system.
6 To protect the integrity of the public sewer and avoid damage thereto no part of the building will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewer. The proposed development is crossed by a public sewer with the approximate position being marked on the Statutory Public Sewer Record. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times.
7 To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system, and sustain an essential and effective service to residents, the developer shall provide a suitable grease trap to prevent entry into the public sewerage system of matter likely to interfere with the free flow of the sewer contents, or which would prejudicially affect the treatment and disposal of such contents.
8 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has no objection to the proposed development. The developer should contact the New Connections Department, Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea, SA6 5BQ: Telephone 0800 9172652 for further information on this matter.
9 The developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Consultants on 01443 331155 if a connection is required to the public sewerage system.
10 It is likely that at the commencement of development of the site the Pollution Control Division will serve an enforcement notice under section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 limiting the hours of work relating to all activities capable of generating noise beyond the boundary of the development area.
11 The specified hours are likely to be: i. Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 6:30 pm ii. Saturday 8:00 am to 1:00 pm iii. Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays: No working. Please note that these hours may be varied according to local circumstances. Contravention of the relevant legislation is a criminal offence for which the responsible party may be prosecuted.
12 Please note that the burning of any waste material generated onsite is likely to constitute a contravention of the Environmental Protection Act 1990/ The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991. Contravention of the relevant legislation/ failure to comply with the requirements of an abatement notice is a criminal offence for which the responsible party may be prosecuted.
13 Please note that the dust generated from any site that causes a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties is likely to constitute a contravention of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Contravention of the relevant legislation/ failure to comply with the requirements of an abatement notice is a criminal offence for which the responsible party may be prosecuted AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2409
14 Any site lighting scheme should be designed in accordance with good practice such that the off site impact on adjacent residential properties is kept to a minimum and that no statutory nuisance is caused. [ref. http://www.ile.org.uk]
15 In the event of a statutory nuisance resulting from the installation of on site lighting an enforcement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be served on the appropriate person requiring its abatement. Failure to comply with the requirements of an abatement notice is a criminal offence for which the responsible party may be prosecuted.
PLANS
P016-BRA-A-V20-00-PL-001000B site location plan, P016-BRA-A-V20-00-PL-002000B existing site plan, P016-BRA-A-V21-UN-PL-003 110B proposed slow stream elevations and sections sheet 1, P016-BRA-A-V21-UN-PL-003 111B proposed slow stream elevations and sections sheet 2, P016-BRA-A-V20-00-PL-003120B proposed sections of slow stream, P016-BRA-A-V23-UN-PL-003300B bed sit unit proposed floor plans elevations and sections, P016-BRA-A-V21-00-PL-003400B slow stream proposed energy centre plans, P016-BRA-A-V21-UN-PL-003120A slow stream proposed sections, P016-BRA-A-V21-01-PL-003101A slow stream proposed roof plan, Amended plans: P016-LCA-A-V21-00-GA-092001G landscape existing features overall, P016-LCA-A-V21-00-GA-092002G landscape existing features detail P016-LCA-A-V21-00-GA-093001F landscape proposals detail. Additional plan: landscape proposals energy centre area received 23rd March 2009 Amended plans: P016-BRA-A-V20-00-PL-002001C-slow stream and step down units proposed site plan, P016-BRA-A-V21-00-PL-003100C- slow stream proposed ground floor plan, P016-BRA-A-V21-01-PL-003101C- slow stream proposed roof plan, P016-BRA-A- V22-UN-PL-003200C- step down unit, proposed plans sections and elevations received 15th June 2009. Additional plans: P016-BRA-A-V21-UN-PL-003112A-slow stream proposed elevations part elevations-sheet 1, P016-BRA-A-V21-UN-PL-003113A- slow stream proposed elevations part elevations-sheet 2, P016-BRA-A-V21-UN-PL-003114A- slow stream proposed elevations part elevations - sheet 3, P016-BRA-A-V21-UN-PL- 003115A- slow stream proposed elevations part elevations-sheet 4, P016-BRA-A-V21- UN-PL-003116A-slow stream proposed elevations courtyard 1, PL016-BRA-A-V21-UN- PL- 3117A- slow stream proposed elevations courtyard 2 received 15th June 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570 WARD: Area 2 West Cross
Location: Land fronting 20-25 Palmyra Court West Cross Swansea SA3 5SW Proposal: To fell 3 Wellingtonia trees covered by TPO no. 16 Applicant: McCarthy and Stone (Devs) Ltd
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Committee on the 23rd June 2009, to assess the damage being caused by the trees.
POLICIES
TAN10 (Wales) Tree Preservation Orders
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2004/1997 To raise the crowns of 2 Redwood trees covered by TPO no 16 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 22/10/2004
RESPONSES TO CONSULTATIONS
19 neighbouring properties were consulted. A site notice was also erected. ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION, THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT and a PETITION OF SUPPORT (42 signatures) have been received. These are summarised as follows:
Objections
1. Objection on the grounds that these are mature trees giving a wonderful backdrop to Palmyra Court, and could possibly trimmed rather than felled.
Support
1. Cwrt Beaufort Retirements Apartments. Support on the grounds that these were originally planted as parkland trees for the original Llanfair house, but the root spread of the trees is now damaging the tarmac in front of 20 to 25 Palmyra Court, plus the wall and pavement on Palmyra Court. As these trees are still young for the species they still have some considerable growth potential and are likely to cause further damage.
2. Cwrt Beaufort Residents association. Petition from 28 of the 31 residents in Support. Costs from the claim for damages made by neighbouring owner of the car park to be passed onto the residents. If the trees are removed then the new Company will endeavour to repair the car park as a gesture of goodwill.
3. A second petition was received on 30th June 2009 from the above Residents Association with further signatures
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
4. Peverel Management Services. Support the application as these trees are too big for their location and are causing damage and will continue to cause damage to the roads and pavements and the properties nearby .
Mumbles Community Council. Objection to the Order on the grounds that the trees are healthy
Other Constraints
Section 198 (6) (b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as follows: Without prejudice to any other exemptions for which provision may be made by a tree preservation order, no such order shall apply to the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of any trees in compliance with any obligations imposed by or under an Act of Parliament or so far as may be necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance.
Visual Amenity
These trees are of significant amenity value, both from a historical point of view as part of narrow row of Wellingtonias planted probably in the early 1900’s in the grounds of Llanfair House, and as a visually important element of this part of West Cross.
Access and Highway Safety
Highways have stated that they have no objection to the felling from a Highways point of view.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Mark Child and Councillor Des Thomas.
Introduction
This application is seeking consent to fell 3 Wellingtonia trees situated on a narrow strip of land measuring some 30 metres in length, and between 3 and 4 metres wide fronting the car park for 20 to 25 Palmyra Court, West Cross, Swansea. The applicants, McCarthy & Stone acquired the freehold of this land as well as the adjacent property to the east in 2002 for the development of the Cwrt Beaufort Retirement Apartments, a block of sheltered flats for the elderly.
The reasons given for the proposed felling are that the roots of the three trees are causing damage to the tarmac of the adjacent car park serving a row of 6 terraced houses at 20 to 25 Palmyra Court, and to the public footpath and retaining wall fronting Palmyra Court, both of which are on land outside their ownership.
The trees in question are part of the Tree Preservation Order for Llanfair House served in July 1969. This Order originally covered 28 individual trees, including 8 Wellingtonias and two groups of 20 and 52 trees.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
An Arboricultural Report from Ian Keen Limited acting on behalf of McCarthy and Stone provided details of the reasons for the felling and included a tree survey and recommendations from a tree consultant B J Harris, plus an Engineers Report from Graham Garner and Partners as well as further correspondence outlining the possible options for the car parking area and the wall. The report from Ian Keen and Graham Garner are summarised as follows:
Ian Keen Limited
Roots of trees have allegedly caused disruption to the car park to the extent that parking was made very difficult and it is known tree roots had caused severe disruption to the public footpath resulting in the Highways Department of the Council excavating the footpath and resurfacing it in the early part of 2008 to remove the trip hazards.
It can be seen that damage has been caused not only to the retaining wall, but also to the adjoining public footpath adjacent to Palmyra Court and the car park serving Nos. 20 to 25 Of particular interest is the fact that the public footpath had been repaired in the early part of 2008, but that by the end of that same year further damage was beginning to appear.
All parties involved in this long running problem agree the damage to the surrounding hard surfaces and retaining wall is a direct result of the physical growth of the roots from the three Wellingtonia trees.
As the car park serving Nos. 20 to 25 and the public footpath of Palmyra Court are outside the ownership of the land on which the trees stand the tree owner (freeholder of Cwrt Beaufort) is probably liable for the damage caused to third party property. Consequently in my opinion paragraph 198 (6) (b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relates to the three trees growing within this piece of amenity land by virtue of the fact that they are causing damage to adjoining property that is of an actionable nature and therefore no such Tree Preservation Order should apply.
This would entitle my client to remove the trees in any event without fear of prosecution. However, due to the very sensitive nature of the issue my client would prefer to reach agreement with the Council rather than risk the expense and difficulties associated with a potential prosecution.
Nevertheless my client advises me that they will pursue their rights under Section 198 (6) (b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, following legal advice, should it become necessary.
As all parties agree the damage to the built form is being caused by tree roots then a remedy to that damage is required.
A suggestion has been made by the Council’s Tree Officer, and the previous tree consultant, that there is potential for repair to the car park adopting a 'no-dig' technique.
Graham Garner & Partners Ltd, however, concludes that such a treatment, whilst physically possible will be contrary to part M1 of the Building Regulations and would place at a disadvantage the users of 20 to 25 Palmyra Court. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
Graham Garner have also considered the negative implications of tree removal on the nearby houses in respect of heave and the potential of the three trees to cause damage to the repaired hard surfaces and retaining wall in the future resulting in their recommendation for the trees to be removed.
It is also clear that where the Highway Authority has repaired the footpath, further damage has resulted within a very short period of time confirming the opinion of the engineers.
I am also convinced, from my experience of dealing with trees, that the roots of these trees will continue to grow close to the ground surface and cause damage in the future even if an effective repair was carried out at this present time. Any repair would therefore need to be considered temporary and will result in the same concerns and repair bill reoccurring at regular intervals in the future.
It is acknowledged the three Wellingtonias growing on the narrow strip of amenity land to the front of 20 to 25 Palmyra Court are prominent in the locality and provide some public amenity.
All parties agree the damage to the retaining wall, the public footpath of Palmyra Court and the car park serving 20 to 25 Palmyra Court has been caused by the roots from the three Wellingtonia trees.
Subject to legal advice it is probable that no such Tree Preservation Order should apply to these three trees as they are causing damage which could result in an actionable nuisance as defined by section 198 (6) (b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Whilst it may be physically possible to carry out a temporary repair, indeed a repair to the public footpath is already shown to be very temporary, the repair using a no dig solution for the car park cannot comply with Part M1 of the Building Regulations and hence would immediately meet opposition from the Building Control Department of the Council.
Removal of the three Wellingtonias will have no adverse impact on the local houses through heave and would enable a more permanent repair to the car park, retaining wall and public footpath at a reasonable cost without fear of further expenditure in the not too distant future.
Removal of the three Wellingtonias will result in a loss of public amenity. However, in mitigation three new trees of a more suitable species and ultimate size could be planted in similar locations.
Recommendations
The three Wellingtonia trees identified as 1, 2 & 3 on the attached plan be felled and their root systems ground out.
The retaining wall and car park to be repaired on a permanent basis.
Three new trees of Crataegus monogyna of 14 to 16cm stem diameter to be planted as replacements
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
Report from Graham Garner and Partners Ltd
We were requested to attend on site and carry out an inspection of the cracking that has occurred to a boundary brickwork retaining wall and in the tarmac surface of a private car park to No’s 20-25 Palmyra Court which is believed to have been caused by the close proximity of 3 N° Weliingtonia trees which are approximately 20m in height.
This structural inspection report is not intended to be a surveyor's general condition or valuation report, nor does it represent a full structural survey; our observations have been limited to a visual examination relevant to the particular faults on which our opinion has been sought. It should be noted that hidden defects or ground conditions may invalidate the reasonable conclusions-that-have been-drawn-from-a visual examination.
Location and Description
The car park and retaining wall under consideration are located on the south side of Palmyra Court, Swansea.
The retaining wall has a brickwork stem and forms the back edge of the Public Footpath it extends from the entrance of the McCarthy & Stone development, up the hill and finishes at the entrance to the car park under consideration.
Between the retaining wall and the car parking spaces to No’s 20-25 is a grassed area which is between 2.0 metres and 2.5 metres in width. It is in this area that the 3 N° Wellingtonia are located.
Inspection An inspection of the Public Footpath, retaining wall, grassed area and car park was carried out. All references to left and right and tree No.1, 2 or 3 relate to views from the road.
Footpath
The footpath, 1.5m in width, has recently been resurfaced with tarmac; localised cracking was noted in the surface parallel to the wall, the position of the crack in the footpath coincided with the position of the second tree in the grassed area. Three further grouped areas of localised cracking were noted further up the footpath, the position was equi- distant between the second and third tree. The surface around the crack is proud of the surrounding surface.
A concrete slab replaces the footpath at the cross over to the car park. Cover slabs marked as ST, Water and Cable were noticed in the footpath surfacing. Electricity cables are also likely to be present to provide power for two street lights located on the back edge of the footpath.
Front Boundary Retaining Wall
The wall stem is constructed from clay brickwork, 215mm thick at the top and is nine brick units high which equates to 675mm, the. coping is a brickwork soldier course. The wall extends for the full length of the front boundary and steps up to follow the slope of the footpath.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
The left hand end of the wall adjacent to the streetlight is 30mm out of vertical alignment. Diagonal and vertical cracking was noted in the brickwork bedjoints and perpends. Dense shrubbery is growing against the earth face behind the retaining wall in these locations.
The line of the wall alters in front of the second tree reducing the footpath width to approximately 1.0 metre; a section of the brickwork soldier course was loose at this position.
Diagonal cracking in the bedjoints and perpends was noted in the section of the wall adjacent to the third tree at the higher end of the site.
Car Park
The parking area has a tarmac surface laid to falls towards a central low point which in turn falls to a gulley located at the lower end of the car park using the natural topography. A precast bull nosed concrete kerb edging separates the car park and the grassed area on one boundary, the boundary to the houses is formed by a dwarf brickwork wall, 300mm in height. Surface cracking was noted in the tarmac across the majorlty of the area used for car parking. A section of tarmac has been removed adjacent to the entrance and at the lower end of the carpark. In these areas the tarmac was noted as 40mm thick laid onto granular fill of unknown thickness.
The car park surface at the upper end of the site adjacent to a tree NO.3 was extensively cracked and distorted; the pattern of the raised sections of tarmac is radial originating from the centre of the tree.
Recommendations The damage which has been caused to the boundary retaining wall and car park surfacing is in our opinion due to the proximity of the 3 N°Wellingtonia trees. The damage to the carpark surface in particular can be attributed to the construction make up. The compacted granular fill causes oxygen and nutrient depletion and the impermeable nature of the wearing course prevents water penetrating the underlying soils all of which are required for growth. As such the roots are forced up and in doing so have cracked and distorted the surface of the carpark.
The solutions available for preventing future damage to the wall and carpark surfacing are either removal of the trees or reconstructing the carpark in such a way that will allow air and water to penetrate the underlying soils.
Removal of Trees
The heights of the three trees have been visually estimated by Ian Keen Ltd, Consultant for Trees and Landscape, to be 20 metres. With reference to Appendix 4~2-B, Building Near Trees, of the NHBC Standards, the mature height of a Wellingtonia is 30 metres. The site investigation for the McCarthy & Stone development adjacent to the area under investigation revealed material of low shrinkage potential. With reference to Table 6, Appendix 4.2-C of the NHBC Standards, at its mature height the trees would need to be closer than 7.0 metres before the effects on building foundations would require consideration. The actual distance of the building from the trees is at least 21 metres and as such removal of the trees would not cause foundation movement due to heave.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
The distance from the trees to the boundary retaining wall however is approximately 1.0m and cracking and distortion to the wall has already occurred. When the road to Palmyra Court was constructed it is likely that the left hand edge was cut into the existing slope requiring retention of the ground. It is likely that tree roots were encountered and possibly removed during the construction of the wall, or if deep enough left in place and the wall foundation built directly over.
The potential exists for an additional 10 metres of growth if the trees are allowed to reach their mature height it should be anticipated that further damage will occur to the carpark in the form of cracking and surface distortions, and to the wall in the form of cracking. Effects on the wall stem would be vertical misalignment and tapered vertical cracking in- the wall stem resulting from root growth pushing against the rear of the wall and underside of the retaining wall foundation.
Reconstruction of the Carpark
Two reconstruction options are available that would allow air, nutrients and water to penetrate the underlying levels to the tree roots.
1. Remove the tarmac but leave the existing granular material in place and drill holes through to the natural ground underneath. This would be overlain with a geotextile separation fabric and 100mm thick Cellweb or similar tree root protection mat. The mat would then be filled with clean stone (no fines content) and overlain with either block paving or porous asphalt.
2. Alternatively the tarmac and granular material can be completely removed and replaced with clean stone (no fines content) and then overlain as described in option one.
Currently the carpark levels fall across the width to a position approximately midway between the garden boundary walls on one side of the carpark and from the precast concrete edging on the opposite side. The site then slopes lengthways following the natural ground levels to a gulley at the lower end of the site. The gradient adjacent to the garden boundary wall is estimated at 1 in 11. The extent of the reconstruction works would be from the precast concrete edging to the approximate mid point across the width allowing the surface to fall and tie into the existing levels thus maintaining the access levels to the existing plots.
With both options it would be necessary to level out the distorted areas of carpark by raising the levels adjacent to the precast concrete edging to achieve a uniform gradient prior to the installation of the Cellweb.
When considering reconstruction of the carpark it is important that reference is made to Part M1 of the Building Regulations; 'Means of Access to and into the Dwelling' in particular Section 6.10 states that 'The point of access should be reasonably level and the approach should not have cross falls greater than 1 in 40'. Currently the gradients across the width of the carpark appear to work, however along the length of the carpark the gradient is clearly in excess of the maximum gradient required.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
We consider that increasing the levels adjacent to the edging would increase the gradient along the length of the carpark and increase the fall to greater than 1 in 40 across the width. In order for the levels to work and maintain the existing access levels into the houses the carpark would have to be lowered which would potentially expose the tree roots.
In summary we recommend that the trees are removed and the carpark re levelled to achieve falls across the width of 1 in 40. This would provide a carpark surface free from cracking and distortion due to root growth; prevent further damage to the brickwork in the boundary retaining wall (which could lead to loosening of brickwork and potential partial collapse of the wall) and cracking to the recently re-Iaid surfacing to the public footpath.
Description
The three Wellingtonia, trees T18, T19 and T20 are growing in a line along the narrow strip with T18 being the tree to the east of the line. The trees are approximately 20 metres in height and appear to be below average in vigour with less foliage than the neighbouring tree T21 situated in the adjoining property to the west at 17 Palmyra Court. These trees are part of a row of 8 such trees (now only 6) which lined the southern side of the driveway to Llanfair House prior to its demolition in the 1960’s. The present line of Palmyra Court does for much of its length follow the line and levels of this previous access where the trees were on a slight bank above the drive.
Conclusions
The main issue here involves the statement by the applicants that the under Section 198 (6) (b) the Order should not apply, as the trees are causing nuisance to adjoining property of a kind which is actionable in nature.
It is accepted by all parties that the roots of the trees are causing damage to the surface of the car park, as well as to a retaining wall and Council owned pavement. However the Section 198 (6) (b) of the above Act uses the words ‘as far as may be necessary for the abatement of the nuisance’. It is this opinion that the felling of the trees would be more than is deemed to be necessary for the abatement of this nuisance and that other measures could be employed to reduce the damage from the roots. These measures have been outlined in the above report from Graham Garner and Partners Ltd and an earlier report from Tree Consultant, B J Harris. Though the report from Graham Garner does state that these measures would reduce the damage to the car park they have discounted this solution on the grounds that it would not be acceptable under the present Building Regulations.
They state that options with both options 1 and 2 for the Reconstruction of the Car Park the levels would increase both along the length of the car park where it is already in excess of 1 in 40, and also across the width where the present levels are presently acceptable under Part M1 of the Building Regulations ‘Means of Access into a Dwelling’. However this part of the Building Regulations would only apply to access points to dwellings built after this part of the Building Regulations came into force in the 1990’s -. The dwellings served by this car park were in fact built in the 1970’s and this Section of the Regulation would therefore not apply.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
A further option which has not been considered would be to extend the width of the strip of land on which the trees stand, bearing in mind that the car park area of approximately 380 sq.metres is well in excess of that required to serve the 6 town house dwellings, on the basis of 2 cars per dwelling and the average requirement for a grouped parking area being 20sq.metres per car. (South Wales Consortium of Local Authorities ‘Parking Strategy & Guidelines’ 1998)
As regards the damage to the wall. This is a stepped wall of between 500mm and 650 mm in height above the pavement and retains ground some 450mm to 600mm above the pavement level. The ground cover is predominantly grass for the top 60% of the strip but the lower end has several large evergreen shrubs and 2 semi-mature Cypress trees mainly in the area between trees 1 and 2. The main damage to the wall is in the area close to tree 2 which is closest to the wall and tree 3. Tree No.1 is further from the wall and there appears to be little damage in this area. If there was concerns over the safety of this wall, an option may be to remove it altogether along with the removal of the shrubbery and the 2 Cypress, (the roots of which are also likely to be causing damage to the wall), and re-profile the low bank to slope down to the pavement. Photographs from the 1960’s show the trees situated on a slight grassed rise above the driveway, which follows the same route as the present road.
For the reasons outlined above it is therefore considered that the Section 198 (6) (b) of the Act would not apply in this particular instance, as this Authority consider that something lesser than the felling of all three trees is possible to overcome the nuisance caused by these trees.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE, for the following reasons;
1 It is considered that the felling of the trees would be an unnecessary loss to the visual amenities of the area.
2 It is considered that the damage to the car park is not a sufficient reason for the removal of the three trees, as this could be largely overcome by the appropriate relaying with a porous surface material.
INFORMATIVES
1 Article 5 Certificate
The Council Certify in respect of the 3 Wellingtonia trees shown as T18, T19 and T20 of Tree preservation Order No.16 (Llanfair House, Norton Swansea) and which are the subject of this application, that they are satisfied that the 3 trees have an outstanding amenity value, on the grounds that they are a major feature within the landscape of this part of Swansea Bay.
The effect of this certificate is to remove the liability to pay compensation for any loss or damage suffered as a result of our decision.
You can appeal to the National Assembly within 28 days from the date you receive it. If your appeal is successful, the Assembly may cancel the Certificate.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0570
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: TAN10 (Wales) Tree Preservation Orders.
PLANS
10/928/LP site location plan, 10/928/SP01 site plan received 14th April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0315 WARD: Area 2 Oystermouth
Location: Land south of 20 Langcliffe Chalet Park, Mumbles, Swansea Proposal: Detached holiday chalet and associated parking Applicant: Ms Sally Williams
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at Area 2 Committee on 2nd June 2009 to consider the objectors concerns. The application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 Committee on 23rd June 2009 to allow consideration of this application at the same meeting as 2009/0310. My report has been updated to include reference to a further six objection letters and a further petition of objection. The wording of Condition 02 has been amended but my recommendation of approval remains unchanged.
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 AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
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 EC18 Development that improves the range and quality of serviced tourist accommodation will be permitted subject to specific criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy HC10 Proposals for the residential use of holiday chalets and static caravans will only be permitted where the premises and curtilage are suitable in terms of size, structure, amenity, garden area, parking provision and access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0315
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2002/2028 Removal of condition 06 of planning permission 77/0743 granted on 25th August 1977 to allow for 12 months occupation Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 21/01/2003
77/0743/02 ERECTION OF 40 HOLIDAY CHALETS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/08/1977
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
The application was advertised on site and five neighbouring properties consulted. TWENTY THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION and TWO PETITIONS OF OBJECTION containing 38 and 41 signatures respectively received which are summarised as follows:
• The road is too narrow to cope with the additional traffic generated as a result of the development. • There is no footpath which creates a danger to pedestrians especially children. • Larger vehicles experience great difficulty turning on this road. • Emergency vehicles could find it difficult to access as there is only one access to the chalet park. • The proposal represents overdevelopment and would have a major impact upon an already congested and fully developed site with limited open space. • The proposal creates an unacceptable narrow corridor into the site. • The entrance to the proposed chalet is to the side so anyone wishing to gain access to the front of the building would be forced to step out into the carriageway directly into the path of vehicles approaching form Plunch Lane. • The recent redevelopment of No’s 41 and 42 resulted in the removal of long standing hedges with no regard to the environmental impact. • The road realignment as set out in the previous approval has been carried out to a very poor standard and possibly not in accordance with the approved scheme. • How can the planning department consider the removal of hedge as acceptable as in previous instances hedges have been required to be retained. • The council acknowledged that the overall layout of the site is cramped and this further development will exacerbate this situation. • Submitting this application concurrent with two other separate application son the site is clearly a device to obtain planning permission for at least one of the bungalows. • The visual impact of the proposal as well as the practical difficulties that would arise should warrant refusal of the application. • Approval of this application would result in the appearance of a badly planned and congested site. • Approval of this application will inevitably lead to damage to properties due to the narrow and congested arrangements with no vehicle passing spaces. • The proposal will result in the loss of the little remaining green space on site. • The proposal is sited very close to the road boundary.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0315
• Further development within the chalet park would turn the site into a concrete jungle. • The proposal will obstruct existing open views of the surrounding countryside. • The proposal will result in loss of sunlight • The proposal is being squashed into a very limited space • Residents experienced sever disruption and problems during the construction of the most recently built pair of chalets such as losing water supply and incurring back charges for water supply; main sewer dug up and left open; private garden used for parking and deliveries; boundary dispute which is ongoing; electricity sub- station left open to the elements by the builders; loss of rental income during construction due to aggressive behaviour by builders and visitors not wishing to stay. • There remains a lot of mess and unfinished work on the site of the two previously approved chalets. • In the lease dated 12th February 1980, clause 5 stated “the landlord hereby covenants with the tenant to keep the play are and the landscaped area tidy and cultivated, and the lawns (if any) thereof mown and to keep pruned all shrubs and bushes thereon and to replace all those which die or decay” • The grassed area adjacent to 20 Langcliffe Park is designated and a landscaped area. The original grant of planning permission clearly envisaged that there would be open landscaped areas in addition to designated play areas. • The proposal will degrade the open outlook at the end of the estate. • The proposal will result in the loss of the only safe turning area. • The application is no more than landowner greed. • The plot is too small and too close to the road, the edge of the bungalow will touch the road markings • The proposal will create a blind spot and hazardous driving conditions • The two bungalows previously constructed encroached onto Cricket Ground land and were not built in accordance with the approved plans.
Petition of objection
• Valuable green space should be retained • Overdevelopment should be avoided.
Letter of Support
• The proposal will enhance the entrance to the site insofar as the land is at present overgrown and subject to dumping of foil, stones and other excavated material. • The development will curtail the parking of private vehicles on the private road, Langcliffe Park by those who are working the allotments Rossers Filed and Langcliffe Park. These vehicles obstruct the entrance to the site frequently.
Edwina Hart AM – OBJECTS on the grounds that the application represents an overdevelopment and would generate additional traffic at a difficult and potentially hazardous point in the road.
Mumbles Community Council – OBJECT to the planning application on the following grounds: • Loss of green area • Loss of existing parking
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0315
The Gower Society – OBJECT on the following grounds:
• We firmly believe that these developments are a step too far; they will significantly over-develop the site, and in fact ruin the ambience for other chalet occupants. • There are no other open spaces on the site, if this is developed. • If minded to consider the proposal we request that you look most critically at the design, impact on other chalets, parking, access and occupancy periods.
Highway Observations - This proposal is for a new holiday chalet at Landcliffe Chalet Park. Access is gained off the by-passed section of Plunch Lane and therefore traffic movements are restricted in the main to use by the Chalet Park itself. The proposed chalet includes facilities for off street parking which I consider to be sufficient for the size of chalet proposed.
I recommend that no highway objections are raised.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to committee for determination at the request of Councillor Anthony Colburn.
Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached chalet on land south of No. 20, Langcliffe Chalet Park, Mumbles.
The chalet is roughly square with a maximum width of 6.9m; a maximum depth of 6.3m and will have a ridge height of 4.3m. External finishes include facing brickwork to match existing chalets with grey concrete roof tiles also to match others in the vicinity.
The main issues for consideration in this instance relate to the suitability of the site for new chalet development having regard to visual and residential amenity and highway safety in the context of prevailing development plan polices. There are in this instance no additional overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
Policy EV1 of the Development Plan seeks to ensure that new development follow set objectives of good design that include, being appropriate to the local context in terms of scale height, elevational treatment, materials and detailing and ensuring that development does not result in significant detrimental impact upon local amenity in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy, disturbance or traffic movement. Policy EV2 states that the siting of new development must have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. Policy HC2 supports housing development within the urban area subject to criteria. Policy EC18 encourages development that improves the range and quality of serviced tourist accommodation. Where outside of the urban area, development should be limited to within existing villages, groups of farm or other buildings.
The site is within the urban area to the south of Plunch Lane, Limeslade Bay where there is a concentration of holiday chalet development including Langcliffe Park, which is a cul- de-sac containing 43 chalets. It is therefore considered that the principle of an additional chalet at this location would be acceptable.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0315
In terms of visual impact, it is considered that the proposed chalet will be of a form, scale and finish that will reflect that of the adjacent chalets. In respect of siting, it is noted that the chalet will be located on a currently undeveloped, landscaped area near the turning head of the cul-de-sac within Langcliffe Park. However, it is not considered that the proposed chalet will deviate from the established pattern of development in the immediate area, since it reflects the layout of the existing development. This limited open area is not considered to be of such significant amenity value that its loss would justify a recommendation of refusal.
The existing chalets at Langcliffe Park are subject to a restricted occupancy condition which precludes all year round occupation. The overall layout and design of the site is consistent with the intended use for holiday purposes, characterized by a narrow access road with restricted parking provision; very small chalets and a relatively constrained layout, which makes them inappropriate for continuous residential use. The purpose of the ten month occupancy condition is clearly to promote holiday use and to restrict permanent occupation.
The proposed chalet, is restricted in size, with a lack of private amenity space at the rear of the site, however, this situation is typical of the chalet development in Langcliffe Park and the surrounding area. Whilst the chalet will not therefore be suitable for permanent occupation, it is considered that its use for holiday accommodation would be acceptable subject to a condition limiting use to holiday occupancy only.
With regard to residential amenity issues, the chalet will be sited some 10m south of No. 21 and some 6m north of No. 20. Mindful of these separation distances and given that the chalet will be single storey in height only, it is not considered that the proposal will result in any unacceptable adverse overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact on the occupiers of these adjacent properties.
In terms of overlooking, whilst it is accepted that the proposed chalet is separated from the adjacent chalets by only the width of the narrow estate road, it is important to acknowledge that the residential amenities afforded to these chalets are distinctly different to those afforded to permanent residential dwellings. On this basis, the distance and relationship between existing and proposed chalets is considered typical of that found within this concentration of chalet parks. A degree of overlooking is accepted as an inevitable consequence of this form of development, however, it is not considered that refusal of this application on residential amenity grounds can be justified or sustained given the temporary nature of the occupation of the accommodation proposed.
The proposal is not considered to compromise or prejudice current highway safety standards and as such the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no objection to the proposal.
The objections received refer principally to matters of visual and residential amenity and highway safety which have been addressed in detail above. Further points relating to land ownership and boundary disputes are matters to be resolved between interested parties and are not material to the consideration of the application. Inconsiderate behaviour and disruption during construction is also a civil matter to be resolved between interested parties and not material to the consideration of this application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0315
Similarly the content and conditions of a private landlords lease have no bearing on the consideration of the planning application; however it is noted that planning permission is only one form of consent required and a number of other consents and/or easement may need to be satisfied in order for any development proposal to be implemented.
In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations the proposal is considered an appropriate form of development that will not have an unacceptable impact upon visual and residential amenity and highway safety and as such accords with the provision of Polices HC2, HC10, EC18, AS6, EV1 and EV2 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. Approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions;
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of any chalet forward of any wall of that chalet which fronts onto a road. Reason: To ensure that the overall open plan housing layout is not prejudiced by uncontrolled development.
3 The chalet shall be used for holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied by any person or persons as their main or sole place of residence. Reason: The site is only suitable for holiday use and is unsuitable for permanent residential use.
4 The owner/occupier shall ensure that an up to date register containing details of all owner of the chalet together with the dates of occupancy and details of the occupiers' main home address, is maintained and submitted to the Local Planning Authority on an annual basis (the register for each calendar year shall be submitted by the 31st January in the following year unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority), and shall also be made available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential accommodation.
5 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0315
6 No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.
7 Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.
8 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Class A, B, C and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.
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 AS6, EV1, EV2, HC2, HC10 and EC18 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan
2 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
L(99)01 site location plan, block plan and proposed plans received 1st April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0310 WARD: Area 2 Oystermouth
Location: Land adjacent to Mordav, Langcliffe Chalet Park, Mumbles, Swansea Proposal: Detached holiday chalet Applicant: Ms Sally Williams
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at Area 2 Committee on 23rd June 2009 to consider the objectors concerns. My report has been updated to include reference to a further 10 objection letters and a further petition of objection. A further letter from the Gower Society has also been received reiterating earlier comments. The wording of Condition 02 has been amended but my recommendation of approval remains unchanged.
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 AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
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 HC10 Proposals for the residential use of holiday chalets and static caravans will only be permitted where the premises and curtilage are suitable in terms of size, structure, amenity, garden area, parking provision and access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EC18 Development that improves the range and quality of serviced tourist accommodation will be permitted subject to specific criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0310
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2002/2028 Removal of condition 06 of planning permission 77/0743 granted on 25th August 1977 to allow for 12 months occupation Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 21/01/2003
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
The application was advertised on site and one neighbouring property consulted. Twenty four letters of OBJECTION and TWO PETITIONS of OBJECTION containing 41 and 38 signatures respectively received which are summarised as follows:
• The road is too narrow to cope with the additional traffic generated as a result of the development. • There is no footpath which creates a danger to pedestrians especially children. • Larger vehicles experience great difficulty turning on this road. • Emergency vehicles could find it difficult to access as there is only one access to the chalet park. • The proposal represents overdevelopment and would have a major impact upon an already congested and fully developed site with limited open space. • The proposal creates an unacceptable narrow corridor into the site. • The entrance to the proposed chalet is to the side so anyone wishing to gain access to the front of the building would be forced to step out into the carriageway directly into the path of vehicles approaching form Plunch Lane. • The recent redevelopment of No’s 41 and 42 resulted in the removal of long standing hedges with no regard to the environmental impact. • The road realignment as set out in the previous approval has been carried out to a very poor standard and possibly not in accordance with the approved scheme. • How can the planning department consider the removal of hedge as acceptable as in previous instances hedges have been required to be retained. • The council acknowledged that the overall layout of the site is cramped and this further development will exacerbate this situation. • Submitting this application concurrent with two other separate application son the site is clearly a device to obtain planning permission for at least one of the bungalows. • The visual impact of the proposal as well as the practical difficulties that would arise should warrant refusal of the application. • Approval of this application would result in the appearance of a badly planned and congested site. • Approval of this application will inevitably lead to damage to properties due to the narrow and congested arrangements with no vehicle passing spaces. • The proposal will result in the loss of the little remaining green space on site. • The proposal is sited very close to the road boundary. • Further development within the chalet park would turn the site into a concrete jungle. • The proposal will obstruct existing open views of the surrounding countryside. • The proposal will result in loss of sunlight • The proposal is being squashed into a very limited space AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0310
• Residents experienced sever disruption and problems during the construction of the most recently built pair of chalets such as losing water supply and incurring back charges for water supply; main sewer dug up and left open; private garden used for parking and deliveries; boundary dispute which is ongoing; electricity sub- station left open to the elements by the builders; loss of rental income during construction due to aggressive behaviour by builders and visitors not wishing to stay. • There remains a lot of mess and unfinished work on the site of the two previously approved chalets. • In the lease dated 12th February 1980, clause 5 stated “the landlord hereby covenants with the tenant to keep the play are and the landscaped area tidy and cultivated, and the lawns (if any) thereof mown and to keep pruned all shrubs and bushes thereon and to replace all those which die or decay” • The grassed area adjacent to 20 Langcliffe Park is designated and a landscaped area. The original grant of planning permission clearly envisaged that there would be open landscaped areas in addition to designated play areas. • The proposal will degrade the open outlook at the end of the estate. • The proposal will result in the loss of the only safe turning area. • The application is no more than landowner greed. • The plot is too small and too close to the road, the edge of the bungalow will touch the road markings • The proposal will create a blind spot and hazardous driving conditions • The two bungalows previously constructed encroached onto Cricket Ground land and were not built in accordance with the approved plans.
Petition of objection
• Valuable green space should be retained • Overdevelopment should be avoided.
Letter of Support
• The proposal will enhance the entrance to the site insofar as the land is at present overgrown and subject to dumping of foil, stones and other excavated material. • The development will curtail the parking of private vehicles on the private road, Langcliffe Park by those who are working the allotments Rossers Filed and Langcliffe Park. These vehicles obstruct the entrance to the site frequently.
Mumbles Community Council – OBJECT on the grounds of: • Loss of green area • Concern over safety of pedestrians as no footpath
The Gower Society – OBJECT on the following grounds: • We firmly believe that these developments are a step too far; they will significantly over-develop the site, and in fact ruin the ambience for other chalet occupants. • There are no other open spaces on the site, if this is developed. • If minded to consider the proposal we request that you look most critically at the design, impact on other chalets, parking, access and occupancy periods.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0310
Highway Observations – This proposal is for a new holiday chalet at Langcliffe Chalet Park. Access is gained off the by-passed section of Plunch Lane and therefore traffic movements are restricted in the main to use by the chalet park itself. The proposed chalet includes one off-street parking space which I consider to be sufficient for the size of chalet proposed. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.
Amended Proposal
The application was advertised on site and 18 individual letters sent. No response.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Anthony Colburn.
Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached chalet on land adjacent to Mordav, Langcliffe Chalet Park, Mumbles.
The chalet, originally ‘L’ shaped with a maximum width of 10.2m; a maximum depth of 8.5m and a ridge height of 4.3m, has been amended to reflect the character of other chalets on the site and now has a rectangular footprint measuring 4.2m in depth and 6.2m in width with a ridge height of 3m. External finishes include facing brickwork to match existing chalets with grey concrete roof tiles also to match others in the vicinity.
The main issues for consideration in this instance relate to the suitability of the site for new chalet development having regard to its impact upon visual and residential amenity and highway safety in the context of prevailing Development Plan polices. There are in this instance no additional overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
Policy EV1 of the Development Plan seeks to ensure that new development follow set objectives of good design that include, being appropriate to the local context in terms of scale height, elevational treatment, materials and detailing and ensuring that development does not result in significant detrimental impact upon local amenity in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy, disturbance or traffic movement. Policy EV2 states that the siting of new development must have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. Policy HC2 supports housing development within the urban area subject to criteria. Policy HC10 seeks to ensure that chalets and static caravans are retained for holiday use, and that permanent residential use will not be permitted unless the premises and curtilage are suitable for permanent residential accommodation in terms of size, structure, amenity, garden area parking provision and access. Policy EC18 encourages development that improves the range and quality of serviced tourist accommodation. Where outside of the urban area, development should be limited to within existing villages, groups of farm or other buildings.
The site is within the urban area to the south of Plunch Lane, Limeslade Bay where there is a concentration of holiday chalet development including Langcliffe Park, which is a cul- de-sac containing 43 chalets. It is therefore considered that the principle of an additional chalet at this location would be acceptable.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0310
In terms of visual impact, it is considered that the proposed chalet will be of a form, scale and finish that will reflect that of the adjacent chalets. In respect of siting, it is noted that the chalet will be located on a currently undeveloped, slightly overgrown area at the entrance to Langcliffe Park. However, it is not considered that the proposed chalet will deviate from the established pattern of development in the immediate area, since it reflects the layout of the existing development. This open area is not considered to be of such significant amenity value, given its unkempt appearance, that its loss would justify a recommendation of refusal in this instance.
The existing chalets at Langcliffe Park are subject to a restricted occupancy condition which precludes all year round occupation. The overall layout and design of the site is consistent with the intended use for holiday purposes, characterized by a narrow access road with restricted parking provision; very small chalets and a constrained layout, which makes them inappropriate for continuous residential use. The purpose of the ten month occupancy condition is clearly to promote holiday use and to restrict permanent occupation.
The proposed chalet is restricted in size, with a lack of private amenity space to the rear; however, this situation is typical of the chalet development in Langcliffe Park and the surrounding area. Whilst the chalet will not therefore be suitable for permanent occupation, it is considered that its use for holiday accommodation would be acceptable subject to a condition limiting use to holiday occupancy only.
With regard to residential amenity issues, the chalet will be sited some 30m from the nearest permanent dwelling and some 6.5m is achieved between the proposed chalet and the nearest neighbouring chalet. Mindful of these separation distances and given that the chalet will be single storey in height only, it is not considered that the proposal will result in any serious adverse overshadowing or overbearing impact on the occupiers of theses adjacent properties.
In terms of overlooking, whilst it is accepted that the proposed chalet is separated from the adjacent chalets by only the width of the narrow estate road, it is important to acknowledge that the residential amenities afforded to these chalets are distinctly different to those afforded to permanent residential dwellings. On this basis, the distance and relationship between existing and proposed chalets is considered typical of that found within this concentration of chalet parks. A degree of overlooking is accepted as an inevitable consequence of this form of development, however, it is not considered that refusal of this application on residential amenity grounds can be justified or sustained given the temporary nature of the occupancy of the accommodation proposed.
The proposal is not considered to compromise or prejudice current highway safety standards and as such the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no objection to the proposal.
The objection letters received refer principally to matters of visual and residential amenity together with highway safety which have been addressed in detail above. Further points relating to land ownership and boundary disputes are matters to be resolved between interested parties and are not material to the consideration of the application. Inconsiderate behaviour and disruption during construction is also a civil matter to be resolved between interested parties and not material to the consideration of this application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0310
Similarly the content and conditions of a private landlords lease have no bearing on the consideration of the planning application; however it is noted that planning permission is only one form of consent required and a number of other consents and/or easement may need to be satisfied in order for any development proposal to be implemented.
In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations the proposal is considered an appropriate form of development that will not have an unacceptable impact upon visual and residential amenity and as such accords with the provision of Policies HC2, HC10, EC18, AS6, EV1 and EV2 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. 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 chalet shall be used for holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied by any person or persons as their main or sole place of residence. Reason: 01 To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the situation at the end of that period and to ensure the proper monitoring of the use.
3 The owner/occupier shall ensure that an up to date register containing details of all occupiers of the chalet together with the dates of occupancy and details of the occupiers' main home address, is maintained and submitted to the Local Planning Authority on an annual basis (the register for each calendar year shall be submitted by the 31st January in the following year unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority), and shall also be made available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential accommodation.
4 Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of the chalet forward of any wall of that chalet which fronts onto a road. Reason: To ensure that the overall open plan housing layout is not prejudiced by uncontrolled development.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0310
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Class A, B, C and D of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.
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, HC2 and HC10 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
PLANS
Amended plans: L(99)02 site location plan, block plan, proposed plans received 5th June 2009.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562 WARD: Area 2 Bishopston
Location: Murton Rovers Football Club, Manselfield Road, Murton, Swansea Proposal: Demolition of club building and construction of 4 detached dwellings (outline) Applicant: Douglas-Jones and Mercer
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 EV24 Within the greenspace system, consisting of wildlife reservoirs, green corridors, pocket sites and riparian corridors, the natural heritage and historic environment will be conserved and enhanced. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy 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 EV29 Common land will be protected from development in recognition of its importance for agriculture, natural heritage, the historic environment and as an informal recreation resource. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV17 Within the boundaries of the large villages as identified on the Proposals Map, development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and, in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off, subject to the other defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2008/0138 Demolition of club building and construction of 5 detached dwellings (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25/02/2009
92/0681 SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION TO FORM NEW ENTRANCE FOYER, WITH STORAGE SPACE IN ROOF Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 02/09/1992
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS:
Neighbours: 110 neighbouring properties were individually consulted and the application was advertised on site in the form of a site notice and in the press as development which is contrary to the provisions of the development plan. A petition of 115 objectors was received along with 12 individual letters of objection which are summarised below:
1. Loss of a historical building. 2. Loss of right of way. 3. Loss of community facility. 4. Loss of light. 5. Loss of green. 6. Highway safety. 7. Removal of trees will be highly contested. 8. Out of character with the area. 9. Pollution. 10. Sewerage issues. 11. Adverse visual impact. 12. Development site not all within the ownership of the applicant. 13. Trees are horse chestnuts and not sycamores. 14. Some trees are to be removed 15. New dwellings will dominate and overshadow Chestnut Cottage. 16. Suburban development which has no regard for the ancient village green. 17. Turning and access. 18. Impact on common land. 19. Impact on AONB unacceptable. 20. Where will the youngsters who use the sports facility go? 21. Scale, density and siting of dwellings out of keeping with the existing pattern of development within this part of the settlement and would have an unacceptable impact upon the character, appearance and visual amenities of the area. 22. Loss of recreational and amenity value. 23. Unacceptable impact upon TPO’s. 24. Impact upon adjacent bus stop. 25. Proposal overcrowding and suburban. 26. Proposal will be out of keeping with the neighbouring dwelling in terms of size and scale. 27. Proposal will obstruct a public and private right of way.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
Gower Society: Following comment:
1. We note the revised layout and the attempts to comply with CCS requirements, which appear to be better that the previous versions. 2. The loss of so many trees is to be regretted in this area. 3. Four properties as shown (and we appreciate the status of an outline application) would still constitute a serious over-development of this site. 4. Extreme care must be taken when the final house design is considered.
Whilst not minded to object, we do ask that you take the above comments into consideration.
Tree Preservation Officer: I have no objections to these amended proposals, subject to the standard conditions regarding tree protection and landscaping.
Bishopston Community Council: The Council reiterates its previous objections on the grounds of size, scale, traffic danger to children using playground, risk to protected trees during any possible construction period and access by way of a rising noted footpath over land which is not in the possession of anyone or body other than Bishopston Community Council. Furthermore, the Council see the proposed development as consisting a loss of local amenity, removal of conifers conflicts with statement in the submission. Local indications suggest that the owner of Chestnut Cottage objects to the proposals and would not agree to access changes. Note should be recorded that a public sewer runs across the proposed re-development site.
Highways: This proposal is to redevelop the existing club house for 4 separate dwellings. Access is currently gained from 2 locations, one from the lane to the side of the site and another directly from Manselfield Road. The lane access is to be closed off as part of the proposal leaving one point of access in the form of a shared private drive. Access to the existing dwelling Chestnut Cottage will also be retained from Manselfield Road and therefore a total of 5 dwellings will be served. This number accords with adopted guidelines for shared private drives.
Sufficient room is available on the access drive for two cars to pass, which is the requirement for shared private drives in a location such as this. Whilst the actual width of the drive is slightly below the recommended width for part of its length it will accommodate the passing of two cars and is therefore acceptable. Visibility is also acceptable at the access junction.
In terms of traffic volume, it is likely that there will be an overall reduction in traffic attracted to the site albeit that the pattern of movements will differ slightly from the established use.
On balance I recommend that the application be approved subject to the access drive and parking facilities for each dwelling be completed prior to the development being brought into beneficial use.
Countryside Council For Wales: The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) agrees with the conclusion that the demolition of the building will require a licence issued under Regulation 44 of the Habitat Regulations from the Welsh Assembly Government to disturb or destroy the resting place of bats. The proposed works would have the effect of destroying the function of the building as a roost, which is an offence. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
In order to avoid committing an offence a licence from the Welsh Assembly Government will be required. One of the requirements for a licence is that:
‘the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’
The survey report identifies the requisite provision for the species that must be provided to fulfil the licence requirements. However, the architectural drawings supplied with the application do not indicate where, if at all, provision for bats has been incorporated into the design. We understand that this application is only for outline permission. The report indicates in section 5. Mitigation that the following provision should made for Pipistrelle species – at two of the five new build houses, bat access to behind barge board gaps, to gable walltops, and to gable wall cavities to be provided by 300mm long x 20mm deep gaps. Such provision should be clearly identified and annotated within the plans, including details of materials to be used. In addition to clearly identifying within the plans the location of bat roost areas and bat entrance/exits, the applicant should consider the other recommendations within the bat survey report and how they will be accommodated within the scheme, including time of demolition (4.2) and provision of bat boxes as temporary roosting sites (5). It may be necessary to incorporate planning conditions to address initial and long-term management of soft and hard landscape within certain areas of the development area in a condition suitable for the bats to use as a flightline to and from the roost facilities. Similarly external lighting may need to be designed and controlled in the long term via conditioning to ensure roosts and flightlines are used.
We would therefore recommend that the applicant liaises further at this stage with their bat consultant on these matters so that they can provide proposals on the above to support both the planning and EPS licence application.
Given the above, we do not object to this application subject to the following amendments to the application being made:
i. bat roost spaces and entrances (exits) to be incorporated into the development design, which will provide at least equal potential provision for the size of roost identified in the bat survey report. The detail of these features should be agreed with the planning authority and accord with the detail to be prescribed in any European protected species licence for the development. ii. a demolition method statement to be provided detailing timing and method of working, the detail of which will accord with any subsequent European protected species licence for the development area. This method statement to be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to the start of any works affecting the building. iii. plans are provided showing a) existing features that are presently most likely to be significant flightlines for bats to the existing roost and b) showing details of trees shrubs or other soft or hard landscape features to be retained or established for the use by bats as flightlines to and from the roosts are provided within the development.
If implemented in line with the above, the development should not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
APPRAISAL:
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillors Keith Marsh and Richard Lewis.
Outline planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing club building and construction of 4 detached dwellings at Murton Rovers Football Club, Manselfield Road, Murton. Details relating to siting and means of access are to be dealt with at outline stage, whilst all other matters are reserved for subsequent detailed consideration.
The application refers to the building as the “Murton Rovers Football Club”, although it is noted that the building is called the “Murton Sports and Social Club.” The site lies within what is arguably the centre of the village, adjacent to the village green.
The site lies in the centre of Murton village, is relatively flat, and has an area of some 0.5ha. The Club building comprises of a two storey building with some roof accommodation which has been much extended in the past.
The area wrapping around to the north, east and south east of the existing building comprises of a rough gravelled car park. A single small cottage lies immediately to the north east, part of the curtilage of which has been included within the revised application site similar to the previously refused application. To the south west is a lawned area. The boundaries of the site comprise dense hedging to the north and east with a significant group of deciduous trees forming the southern boundary. These trees are elevated above Manselfield and there are clear views under the canopies into the site. To the west is a stone wall alongside an existing lane and residential development beyond.
A number of trees along the southern, eastern and western boundaries of the site are subject to Tree Preservation Order.
Planning permission was recently refused (Ref: 2008/0138) at the site for the construction of 5 detached dwellings for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, density and layout and the siting of the proposed dwellings would be out of keeping with the existing pattern of development within this part of the settlement and would have an unacceptable impact upon the character, appearance and visual amenities of the area, contrary to Policies SP2, SP3, SP7(ii), EV1, EV2, EV17, EV24 and EV26 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.
2. The proposed garage serving Plot 4, by virtue of its siting, would have an unacceptable impact upon a protected tree which forms part of an important landscape feature at this location to the detriment of the visual amenities and character and appearance of the area contrary to the provisions of Policies EV24 and EV30 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.
Following pre-application discussions at officer level the current scheme has been submitted in order to try and address the previous reasons for refusal, the main amendments being:
1. The reduction in the number of dwellings from 5 to 4. 2. Revised layout moving the built form away from the protected trees.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
The main issues to be considered during the determination of this application are the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of neighbours having regard to the recent refusal (Ref: 2008/0138), the policies of the prevailing Development Plan Policies and on the conditions of highway safety. It is not considered that the submitted Access Statement or the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.
The application site lies within the settlement limit of the village of Bishopston. UDP Policy EV17 defines Murton as a Gower Fringe Settlement and a ‘Large Village’ where development will be restricted to limited rounding off and infilling within a relatively tightly drawn boundary. Crucially, the amplification states:
“Small-scale rounding off is defined as development which takes the developed area up to the village boundary limits as defined on the Proposals Map. It must be appropriate to its context in terms of scale, density and layout, respect the size and built form of the settlement, and not involve the loss of land of recreational, natural heritage or amenity value.”
Whilst the whole of the application site is white land on the UDP Proposals Map, the southern strip is still considered to be a ‘pocket site’ worthy of protection. UDP Policy EV24 has the aim of protecting valued areas of urban greenspace, including pocket sites, within the County. It states that development will not be permitted if it has a significant adverse effect on the greenspace system. Greenspace pocket sites are not individually allocated on the UDP Proposals Map and should be individually assessed in terms of their contribution to the area in terms of landscape significance, nature conservation value, local amenity benefit, contribution to local character and links to wider rural/countryside areas
Although the site does not lie within the Gower AONB, it is visible from the AONB, which lies approximately 220m to the north along Mayals Road, and careful consideration has to be given to the impact of the proposal on the visual character and appearance of the Gower landscape, so that it is preserved for the benefit of future generations. This is stressed in Planning Policy Wales para 5.3.7, which states that the duty to have regard to National Park and AONB purposes applies to activities affecting those areas, whether those activities lie within or outside the designated area. This is also reinforced in UDP policy amplification to Policy EV26.
UDP Policy HC2 presumes in favour of residential infill development unless there are overriding planning objections resulting from overdevelopment, significant loss of residential amenity, detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, loss of important urban greenspace or unsatisfactory highway conditions. Despite being within the settlement boundary, it does not automatically follow that the development of the site for residential purposes is acceptable, and in particular, Policy HC2 states that proposals for housing development should not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, or result in overintensive development or the loss of important urban greenspace.
Policies EV1 and EV2 require development to relate satisfactorily to its local context and existing development patterns integrate effectively with adjacent spaces and public realm protect the amenities of the surrounding area with particular regard to visual and residential amenity and highway safety.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
The Council wishes to foster high standards of design in all new development, and this is reinforced by Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 12: Design (para. 4.5), which states that the visual appearance of proposed development, its scale and its relationship to its surroundings are material planning considerations in determining planning applications. For the purpose of this advice, design is taken to mean the relationship between all elements of the built and natural environment, including its relationship between different buildings and between buildings and the streets. Key design issues include height and massing, relationship to site boundaries and adjoining properties.
The immediate context is the heart of Murton village with traditional buildings such as The Plough and Harrow pub and cottages all relating positively to the street. To the east is Chestnut Cottage, a modest single storey detached dwelling with accommodation in the steeply pitched roof and wrapping round from the north to east is an extensive area of common land known as Murton Green comprising open space, pitches and play area. The trees on the site frontage are an important element of this part of Murton reinforcing the traditional character of the ‘heart’ of the village focussed on the pub, post office and play ground.
Whilst it is recognised that substantial parts of Murton and the wider fringe village settlement are suburban in character, it is considered that the application site, together with the immediate surrounding properties and the adjoining substantial area of open space incorporates a semi-rural character. It is this semi rural character to which any redevelopment of the club should, it is considered, relate.
In sustainability terms, there is no objection to the principle of infill residential redevelopment at this site which is highly accessible to village facilities. Moreover, the existing building on site is of no architectural merit and the Planning Authority welcomes opportunities of this nature to develop sites provided the development is of a high standard of quality and design, sensitive to the context of the site and surrounds. The previous design guidance given by officers during the consideration of Planning Application No. 2008/0138 supported a layout of 5 units sited in a linear manner to reflect the traditional character of nearby village dwellings which face and front the main highway through Bishopston. However, the current scheme has retained a cul-de-sac horseshoe layout, and the number of houses has been reduced to four in total. It is considered that this layout reflects the character and appearance of other recent housing development within Bishopston, and would provide an inclusive design and layout that still respects the character and context of this large village site.
The proposed layout incorporates two units facing the trees to relate positively to this open space area and the core village beyond, plus two units set back within the site. The well defined space between will form a communal ‘village green’ area, which will contribute to the informal character and open nature of the site and make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, in compliance with the provisions of the Development Plan.
The revised cul-de-sac arrangement and reduction in the number of dwellings has resulted in a more spacious layout with larger rear gardens that are proportionate to the plot to dwelling ratio. This revision is not considered unacceptable given the size of the units proposed in relation to the village context. The re-orientation of the dwellings with house types 1 and 4 fronting the road and house types 2 and 3 overlooking the communal ‘Village Green’ will ensure the proposed dwellings will have a positive outlook. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
Furthermore subject to the submission of a sensitively designed scheme being submitted at reserved matters stage, it is considered that the proposal can ensure that both the residential amenities of the future occupiers of the dwellings and neighbouring properties can be ensured. In addition to this the re-orientation of the dwellings has also maintained the important links between Murton Green and the village.
Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering it is considered that subject to conditions being attached that there are no objections to the proposed scheme.
The objection from the occupiers of Chestnut Cottage refers to there being no agreement with them as legal owners to develop part of this land, however the applicant has served the necessary Certificate B. Records indicate that there are no Public Rights of Way over the application site, but a further letter from a solicitor reiterates their right of way to the property and concerns that the plans have not correctly shown the extent of their land ownership. These are private matters that will need to be resolved between the parties concerned.
Whilst submitted representations refer to the loss of the social club from the community, eroding the character of the village, the retention of such facilities are not required by Development Plan Policies and the decision to close the facility is purely a commercial one. It is also noted that Murton contains a number of village facilities, including a public house, health centre, pharmacy, church and post office and so is relatively well provided for in terms of village facilities.
With regards the Community Council’s additional concerns, the applicant provided an initial Planning and Access Statement, and subsequently provided further information in support of the application. Also, a Tree Preservation Order was served on the trees considered to be of amenity value. This TPO excluded the conifers which were not considered to be of amenity value, and could be removed at any time, irrespective of any planning application. Any neighbouring protected trees would only be potentially affected if the conifers were to be uprooted rather than felled.
The Department’s Tree Officer has commented that he has no objections to the development of this site in principle, subject to conditions being attached to any approval. The new pathway proposed through the trees is regarded as acceptable subject to it being constructed using a no dig technique, the details of which should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The remainder of the scheme is regarded as acceptable subject to tree protection and landscaping conditions.
Dwr Cymru Welsh Water have no objection to the proposed scheme subject to the attachment of the conditions and advisory notes submitted in order to ensure no detriment to existing residents or the environment and to Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water’s assets.
Having consulted the Countryside Council for Wales it is acknowledged that the application is submitted as an outline application and details of the proposed building can be agreed at a later date. Whilst the existing building is a recognised roost it is considered a condition is sufficient controlling its demolition until a license is agreed with the Welsh Assembly Government.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
Notwithstanding the above a petition of 115 objections and 16 letters of objection were received raising concerns relating to the loss of a historical building, loss of a public right of way, loss of a community facility, unacceptable impact upon residential amenities, unacceptable impact on highway safety, removal of protected trees, sewerage issues, the proposal being out of character with the area, visual impact on the wider area, the ownership of the land, affect upon the Gower AONB, scale of development, density and siting of the proposal and the impact upon the adjacent cottage. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.
Concern has been raised relating to the impact upon the Common Land, however the application does not involve alterations to the existing access, which is the only land identified as Common Land and as such the proposed development will have no impact upon it in compliance with the principles of Policy EV29 of the UDP.
In conclusion therefore, and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposal is an acceptable form of development which subject to acceptable details being submitted at reserved matters stage will have a positive impact upon the visual amenities of the area and the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. Having consulted the Council’s Highway Officer and Tree Preservation Officer, it is not considered the proposed scheme would have an unacceptable impact upon highway safety or the protected TPO’s. As such it is considered that the proposal complies with the principles of UDP Policies EV1, EV2, EV3 EV17, EV24, EV29 and EV26 and is subsequently recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions: 1 Details of the appearance, landscaping, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.
2 Detailed plans and drawings with respect to the matters reserved in condition (01) shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is determined within a reasonable period.
3 The development to which this permission relates shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this outline permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that development is begun within a reasonable period. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
4 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.
5 Before the development hereby approved is occupied the means of enclosing the boundaries of the site and individual curtilages of all dwellings shall be completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and general amenity.
6 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of the levels of the building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to the adjoining land and highway(s) together with any changes proposed in the levels of the site shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access, and the amenities of adjoining occupiers.
7 Where any species listed under Schedule 2 and 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 is present on the site (or other identified part) in respect of which this permission is hereby granted, no works of site clearance, demolition or construction shall take place in pursuance of this permission unless a license to disturb any such species has been granted in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations and a copy thereof has been produced to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of protecting species listed under Schedule 2 and 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulation 1994.
8 Notwithstanding the plans submitted, the proposal pathway indicated on the submitted site layout plan, leading from the proposed development to Manselfield Road, shall be constructed using a no dig technique, details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The pathway shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the trees and in the interests of visual amenity.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0562
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV17, EV24, EV26 and EV29).
2 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.
Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.
Land drainage run-off not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system.
Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.
The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer with the approximate position being marked on the attached Statutory Public Sewer Record. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No part of the building will be permitted within 3m either side of the centreline of the public sewer.
Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewer and avoid damage thereto.
3 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
4 If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.
5 Please note: The site in question abuts Common Land Register Unit CL15, Fairwood and Clyne Common. Any alterations to the existing track (including tarmacadam) may require consent from the Welsh Assembly Government and as such should be contacted prior to the commencement of any work.
PLANS
Site location plan, BBA369 block plan received 21st April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2008/2251 WARD: Area 2 Penyrheol
Location: Former Penylan Coal Handling Deport, Alltygraban Road, Grovesend, Swansea Proposal: Change of use of site to the storage of caravans Applicant: Mr Dennis Egan
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EC22 Control of camping and touring caravans on farms and storage of touring caravans. (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 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)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal A00/0116 Change of use of site from coal handling depot to caravan storage site Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 24/03/2004
99/0203 Residential Development (Outline) (Additional information received) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 18/12/2008
A00/0120 Change of use of part of site from coal handling depot to travelling showpeople's quarters Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 24/03/2004
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2251
2008/2249 Construction of a building for the recycling of non ferrous metals (outline) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 24/06/2009
97/0976 USE FOR COAL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION DEPOT (APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED USE) Decision: *HIL - IS LAWFUL Decision Date: 24/10/1997
Response to consultations
That application was advertised on site and in the local press as a development that does not accord with the Development Plan. A PETITION OF OBJECTION containing 34 signatures received from the West Glamorgan Commoners Association along with SIX individual LETTERS OF OBJECTION received raising the following points.
• The application site should have been restored to common land once sold by the NCB. • Common land is also for the amenity of local people, and the commoners have legal rights to use the land. • Any form of development on common land would require permission of the Welsh Assembly. • The application site is NOT a Brownfield site. • There would be an increase in traffic, especially heavy lorries travelling through Grovesend. • Allt Y Graban Road itself is not able to cope with further traffic; the hump-back bridge is not strong enough to withstand a greater volume of vehicles. • The proposal could also result in early morning and late night noise disturbance as well as smell from the recycling plant. • The proposal represents development in the open countryside. • Detrimental effect upon the visual and environmental amenities of local residents. • Noise, fumes, smell, and general pollution concerns, • Increased volume in traffic • The proposal will seriously affect the rural character of the area. • The proposal will result in the serious devaluation of neighbouring properties. • The countryside and rural way of life is enjoyed by local residents. • This proposal has been refused previously and nothing has changed. • Local residents have suffered greatly over recent years due to the burning tip and should now be allowed to enjoy their homes and life. • No formal letter of notification has been received. • The whole site is part of the urban common CL53 and as such is subject to full public rights of access. • The land is clearly identified on the proposals map of the UDP as common land and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy EV29 of the UDP. • The proposal is contrary to Policy AS4 of the UDP which recognises the need to continue the cycle network route over the “missing link” from Grovesend to Pontarddulais. • The land is low-lying and the road at Waungron has a notorious propensity for flooding and land adjacent to the site is also known to flood AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2251
• There is a caravan storage site at the other end of Alt Y Graban Road, however this is located near to and accessed off Bolgoed Road an A road, the application site will be accessed via un unsuitable B road.
Grovesend & Waungron Community Council – NO OBJECTION subject to the following:
• Strict controls regarding the type and size of caravan • No caravans to be accommodated on a residential or overnight basis
Environment Agency Wales – No Objection subject to no excavation/earthworks being undertaken
Highways Observations – This application is for the storage of caravans on part of the former coal storage yard off Alltygraban Road, Grovesend. The site has a history of commercial use and I do not consider that the storage of caravans will generate a significant amount of regular traffic movement. Access is currently overgrown and in a disused state and this will need to be re established before any work on the site commences.
There is a concurrent application for metals recycling on part of the site which will share the access. This aspect is not likely to generate a significantly different amount of traffic movements than the site has generated previously and is considered acceptable subject to details.
On balance I recommend that no highway objections are raised subject to satisfactory access and site layout details being submitted for approval.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to committee as it is considered to constitute a departure to the Development Plan.
Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of the former Pen Y Lan Coal Handing Depot, Grovesend for the storage of caravans. The principal issues for consideration in this instance relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenity, highway safety and the location of the site on an area of common land within the open countryside having regard to the prevailing development plan policies. There are not considered to be any additional overriding issues for consideration under the provision of the Human Rights Act.
The application site forms part of the former Pen Y Lan Coal Handling Depot situated on the northern side of Allt Y Graban Road, Grovesend. The entrance to the site lies approximately 180m east of the junction of Alltygraban Road with Pentre Road and the site has a frontage onto Alltygraban of some 34m. The application site was formerly leased to British Fuels Ltd for use as a coal-storage and distribution depot and consists largely of a tarmacadam/concrete hardstanding, with sparse traces of revegetation albeit the peripheral planting is now quite dense. There is also a brick built flat roofed storage building on site. The Coal storage and distribution facility ceased operation in 1995, however a Certificate of Lawful Use as a coal storage and distribution depot was granted in October 1997.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2251
The site lies within the open countryside, on the outskirts of the designated small village of Grovesend as defined by Policy E16 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. UDP polices SP1 and SP2 state that the countryside will be protected and conserved and that natural heritage will be protected and enhanced to safeguard from materially harmful development. UDP policy EV21 states that within the countryside non residential development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that (i) it is beneficial to the rural economy or rural employment, or (ii) it meets the overriding social or economic needs of the local community, or (iii) it provides and acceptable economic use for previously developed land. In these circumstances it needs to be demonstrated where relevant that the development needs to be located in the countryside rather than a nearby settlement; the business is viable and financially sustainable and is in accord with the conservation and design policies of the plan. Policy EC22 states that outside the AONB the storage of touring caravans will only be permitted in unobtrusive locations. Paragraph 2.6.3 states that “unobtrusive storage locations are those which are not prominent and are well screened by existing landscape features”.
The planning history of the site is also an important material consideration as is the status of the land as Common land. The site is currently unused and is enclosed along its frontage to Alltygraban Road with a mature planting screen interspersed with occasional small breaks in the planting which currently offer informal access to the site.
Turning first to the planning history of the site, and in particular the Certificate of Lawfulness for use as a coal storage and distribution centre, it is necessary to consider what is described as “the fall-back position”, in the event of the application being refused. It is then necessary to compare what is proposed with what could be undertaken without the need for planning permission and a balanced opinion on which represents the greater wider harm. In this instance it is considered that the storage of caravans is a more appropriate land use in terms of visual and residential amenity harm than the authorised “fall-back” use of the site as a coal storage and distribution yard. The perimeter of the site currently offers ample screening to the site, and whilst it is considered that areas of the frontage need to be supplemented with additional planting so as to ensure a continuous screen, this can be controlled and achieved via an appropriately worded condition. The siting of the touring caravans is such that they would be relatively well screened from the adjacent carriageway.
In terms of residential amenity the nearest neighbouring dwelling is sited a minimum of 100m west of the application site. The level of disturbance associated with the proposed use is considered to be limited to comings and goings which are likely to be at their greatest during the summer months and relatively infrequent during the winter months. Notwithstanding the use during the summer months, this is considered to amount to little more than the vehicle being towed into or out of the site and being hitched up or un- hitched form the towing vehicle. Given the relatively isolated location of the site in terms of nearest neighbouring properties it is not considered that the level of activity associated with the proposed use will give rise to any significant demonstrable harm to local residential amenity such that a refusal could be justified on residential amenity grounds.
With regard to highway safety matters, the site has a history of commercial use and the Head of Transportation and Engineering does not consider that the storage of caravans will generate a significant amount of regular traffic movement. Access is currently overgrown and in a disused state and this will need to be re established before any work on the site commences. The proposal is not likely to generate a significantly different amount of traffic movements than the site has generated previously and is considered acceptable subject to details. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2251
On balance the Head of Transportation and Engineering recommends that no highway objections are raised subject to satisfactory access and site layout details being submitted for approval.
The application site is registered common land, forming part of Register Unit CI53, Mynydd Lliw Common. Policy EV29 of the UDP states that common land will be protected from development in recognition of its importance for agriculture, natural heritage historic environment and as an informal recreation resource. Whilst the site is finally registered Common land the private rights were suspended by agreement in 1965 when the site formed part of the NCB colliery site at Brynlliw. The significance of this is that any works carried out on the site will be likely to require consent form the Welsh Assembly Government and this is a matter to be addressed by the applicant prior to any works commencing on site. It is important to note that the planning status of the land will not prevent any works being ruled unlawful by the Courts in the event that WAG refuses consent.
The amplification to Policy EV29 states that “the retention of the open unimproved character of common land will be the main criterion to be considered in assessing any development proposal”, whilst this is acknowledged, it is considered that a significant distinction can be made between the application site and other areas of common land insofar as is it is not considered that the site holds any significant value for agriculture, natural heritage, historic environment or as an informal recreation resource. The authorised land use of the site, and the ability for coal handing operations to resume lawfully at any time is a significant and material consideration in this particular case.
The application site also falls within the water catchments of the Loughor Estuary and as such Environment Agency Wales have been consulted. EA Wales consider that given the past use of the site and the fact that the site is already provided with a tarmacadam surface, no objection can be raised to the proposal subject to no earthworks or excavation being undertaken.
Finally with regard to the objection letters received, the points raised relate predominantly to the visual and residential amenities of the area which have been addressed in detail above. Similarly points relating to traffic movement and highway safety are also addressed in detail above, as is the status of the site as Common Land. The appropriateness of the land use within the context of prevailing policy is also detailed above and matters relating to devaluation of neighbouring properties is not a material planning consideration. Further points relating to the risk of the caravans being used rather than stored on site are noted and can be adequately controlled via condition.
Having regard to the planning policy context and the planning history of the site it is concluded that the development provides an acceptable economic use for previously developed land within the open countryside, the lawful use for which would have the potential to be significantly more intrusive in terms of noise, dust, traffic movements and visual impact. The site currently appears as an unused tarmaced area with the occasional bush or small tree breaking through the surface and is out of keeping with the rural character of the surrounding landscape.
It is relatively well screened but would benefit from additional landscaping around its periphery which this development could require. Most importantly however it would secure the removal of a potential non conforming use in the form of a coal storage and distribution facility. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2251
The storage of caravans in this specific location can accord with the conservation and design policies of the plan if well screened and landscaped. There is a demand for this facility and there is no reason to doubt its viability and it is considered that overall this represents a more suitable site than in more isolated and visible farm or other rural locations which do not have the same fall back position in terms of a lawful use.
It is considered therefore that overall the development conforms to Development Plan Policy EV21 (rural development) and subject to a planning condition regarding landscaping Policy EC22 (storage of caravans). 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 use shall not commence until a comprehensive scheme for the landscaping and enclosure of the periphery of the site has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be completed at the latest in the first planting season following the commencement of use and shall include provision for the future management of the landscaping. Reason: To adequately screen the site from surrounding areas, and in the interests of biodiversity.
3 The application site shall be used for the storage of caravans only and for no other purpose. This consent expressly excludes the use of any caravan stored at the site for holiday use, residential use or any other purposes. Reason: In the interest of visual and general amenity
4 No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until details of the proposed access and site layout have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
5 No excavations or earthworks shall be carried out on site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that any site contamination is satisfactorily dealt with in the interests of public safety and amenity.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2251
6 The use shall not commence until a layout and lighting plan for the storage use has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any stacked storage is specifically excluded from this permission. Any lighting will be low level only. Reason: In the interest of visual and 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: Policies AS6, EC22, EV16, EV21.
2 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.
3 The application site is registered common land forming part of Register Unit CI53, Mynydd Lliw Common. Please note that any works carried out on this site will be likely to require consent from the Welsh Assembly Government. Planning consent will not prevent any works being ruled unlawful by the Courts.
PLANS site location plan received 21st November 2008
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0306 WARD: Area 2 Penclawdd
Location: 26 Chapel Road, Crofty, Swansea, SA4 3SJ Proposal: Two storey side extension, rear conservatory and detached garage Applicant: Ms Naomi Hillen
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 23rd June 2009 to assess the character of the street scene.
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 2006/1971 Detached dwelling (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 26/10/2006
2007/1708 Two storey side/rear extension and detached garage Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 20/09/2007
2007/2758 Two storey side/rear extension and detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/02/2008
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
EIGHT neighbouring properties were consulted. No responses were received.
Highway Observations - The application site is located on a long sweeping bend. The proposed extension includes relocating the access and whilst visibility will still be restricted by the road alignment it will be no worse than existing. A new drive to a detached garage is proposed and this will provide more than adequate parking for the extended dwelling.
I recommend that no highway objections are raised.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0306
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Paul Tucker.
Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey side extension to an existing semi detached dwelling, rear conservatory and detached garage at No. 26 Chapel Road, Crofty.
The proposed two storey extension is to be located off the southern elevation and will have a width of approximately 6.3m, a depth of 12m and will be constructed with a pitched roof to a ridge height of 8.4m. The front wall of the extension would be set back 1.2m from the main front elevation. The proposed detached garage would be sited some 25m away from the proposed extension in line with the southern site boundary. The conservatory projects off the main rear wall of the dwelling, running along the shared boundary with No.24 Chapel Road.
A two storey side/rear extension was refused planning permission at this location in September 2007 (2007/1708) on grounds of impact upon the character of the existing dwelling and the symmetry of the pair of semi detached dwellings. Subsequently, a two storey side/rear extension of a reduced scale and detached garage was approved in February 2008 (2007/2758).
Pre-application advice has been provided in respect of a very similar proposal to that submitted as part of this application. In this respect the applicants agents was advised that the scale of the side extension was regarded as unacceptable as it would unbalance the symmetry of the pair of semi detached properties and conflict with the provisions of the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development.
The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact upon visual and residential amenity having regard to prevailing Development Plan policies and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for household extensions. There are in this case considered to be no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
Policy HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan identifies a number of criteria which should be considered when assessing household extensions. These include the relationship to the existing dwelling, impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene, and the effect upon neighbouring properties with particular reference to physical impact, overshadowing/loss of light and privacy. Policy EV1 is a more general policy which seeks to ensure developments have proper regard to the amenities of surrounding areas in particular visual impact, loss of light or privacy, increased activity, traffic and parking implications.
Whilst the set-back of 1.2m of the two storey side extension is acknowledged, as is the lower ridge height of the extension, it is important to note that the width of the proposed extension at 6.3m wide is 1.2m longer than that of the host dwelling. This excessive width, it is considered, is well in excess of the scheme previously refused by this Authority (4.8m) (Ref2007/1708) and as a consequence is regarded as being out of keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and would seriously unbalances the symmetry and proportions of the pair of semi-detached properties to which it relates having a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene contrary to the advice contained within the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0306
The relocation of the front door from the main dwelling to the side extension is also considered to reduce the primacy of the exiting dwelling and exacerbate the visual dominance of the extension. It is therefore considered that the extension would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building and the streetscene within which it is situated contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Notwithstanding the above, the garage and rear conservatory is considered to be acceptable in terms of their visual impact, the garage being set back significantly in the plot and the conservatory being located to the rear of the property.
Turning to impact upon residential amenity, given the distance and relationship between the neighbouring properties to the south it is not considered that the two storey side extension would result in unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impacts in this respect. Adequate separation distances are also achieved to rear with a substantial rear garden depth being maintained. The windows located within the south facing elevation of the extension are indicated as being glazed with obscure glass and as a consequence would not result in unacceptable overlooking of the properties to the south. Whilst a balcony is incorporated into the rear element of the side extension, it is not considered that there would be any adverse overviewing due to the proposed design which incorporates two side wall screens coupled with the relative orientation of the platform in relationship to the neighbouring properties. It is not, therefore, considered that the proposed side extension would cause any unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impact or create any opportunities for unacceptable overlooking, over and above that currently experienced.
The garage is similarly not considered to be either overbearing or cause any significant overshadowing due to various outbuildings (on neighbour’s side) and existing landscape screening running parallel to the south and west elevations of the garage. The fenestration located within the garage is also not considered to result any overlooking due to its sympathetic north facing location. The rear conservatory is also not considered to overbear or overshadow the adjoining neighbouring dwelling due to existing additions and extensions projecting off the main back wall of the this property (No. 24 Chapel Road) running parallel with the side of the proposed conservatory. The fenestration within the conservatory faces directly onto the application property’s rear amenity space, thus, will not have an unacceptable impact upon the privacy currently enjoyed by neighbours, it is considered.
In terms of highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering Services has advised that the application site is located on a long sweeping bend, the proposed extension includes relocating the access and whilst visibility will still be restricted by the road alignment it will be no worse than existing. A new drive to the proposed detached garage is proposed and this will provide more than adequate parking for the extended dwelling. Therefore, no highway objections are raised to the proposal.
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal as submitted represents an unacceptable form of development that would have a significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the original dwelling house the pair of semi detached properties to which it will relate and the streetscene contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development. Refusal is therefore recommended.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0306
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE, for the following reason;
1 The siting, scale and design of the proposed two storey side extension would result in the introduction of a prominent and visually incongruous feature which would dominate the host property and would unbalance the symmetry of the pair of semi detached properties to which it relates to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the visual amenity of the streetscene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled 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: (Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan)
PLANS
01 site location & block plan, 02 design statement, 03 design statement, 04 sketch views, 05 existing layout, 06 existing elevations, 07 proposed site plan, 08 proposed layout, 09 proposed front & rear elevation, 10 proposed side elevations, 11 proposed garage elevations & floor plan received 20th April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468 WARD: Area 2 Cockett
Location: Land at junction of Gors Avenue/Brynffordd, Cockett, Swansea Proposal: Construction of 1400 m2 retail unit (Class A1) and associated infrastructure (outline) Applicant: Taylor Wimpey
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 23rd June 2009 to consider the impact of the development on the surrounding area.
Four additional letters of objection have been received. The report has been updated accordingly and my recommendation of approval remains albeit with an additional condition recommended to deal with opening hours and deliveries. a. Relevant Planning Policies
National Planning Policy Guidance
Planning Policy Wales (2002) Wales Spatial Plan Update (2008) Technical Advice Note 4 – Retailing and Town Centres Technical Advice Note 11 – Noise Technical Advice Note 12 – Design Technical Advice Note 18 – Transport Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement – Planning for Retailing and Town Centres (MIPPS – 02/2005)
City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
Strategic Policy SP1 Development designed to a high quality and standard will be favoured.
Strategic Policy SP6 New retail development that is best located within the City Centre, District or Local Centres will not generally be supported at out-of-centre sites. Additional edge of centre shopping should be restricted to that which would not prejudice established shopping centres.
Strategic Policy SP14 New development will be favoured in areas that are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, and where they minimise dependency on the private car.
Policy EV1 Development must accord with key objectives for achieving good design.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
Policy EV2 Development must be sited appropriately, having regard to key issues such as the physical character of the site and its relationship with surroundings. Preference is given to the use of previously developed land.
Policy EC4 All new retail development will be considered against key criteria including: sequential suitability; impact on vitality & viability of existing shopping centres; and accessibility.
Policy EC6 Appropriate small scale local shopping provision will be encouraged in areas of acknowledged deficiency in order to meet local need. Mayhill/Townhill is identified as an area of deficiency in this regard.
Policy EC9 Retail development at out-of-centre locations will generally be resisted.
Policy HC1 The site forms part of a wider mixed use allocation (site 36).
Policy AS1 New retail development should be located in areas that are currently highly accessible by a range of transport modes or in areas where this can realistically be achieved.
Policy AS2 The design and layout of new developments should: promote the use of public transport; facilitate sustainable travel choices; provide suitable facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and other non- motorised modes of transport; allow for the safe, efficient and non intrusive movement of vehicles; and comply with the principles of accessibility for all.
Policy AS5 Development proposals should consider the access requirements for pedestrians and cyclists and provide appropriate facilities/infrastructure to encourage their use.
Policy AS6 Parking provision to serve development will be assessed against adopted standards. b. Relevant Planning History
94/1412 Outline application for mixed development including 14,000 sq ft supermarket, 8000 sq ft of small shops (including betting office, financial and professional services and hot food takeaway/restaurant; non-residential. Planning permission granted March 1995.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
99/0031 Variation of Conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 94/1412 granted on 1st March 1995 to allow for the extension of time for the submission of reserved matters until 1st December 1999. Planning permission granted March 1999.
A01/0383 Mixed development including a supermarket (Class A1), public house (Class A3), surgery (Class D1), nursery (Class D1), nursing home (Class C2), individual shops/offices (Classes A1,A3,B1) and residential units. Planning permission granted June 2001.
2006/1873 Construction of 57 dwelling houses and 75 flats (outline). Application withdrawn October 2008.
2007/2101 Residential development comprising 72 dwellings and 71 flats with associated landscaping and highway works. Planning permission refused January 2008.
2008/0307 Residential development comprising 74 dwellings and 58 flats with associated landscaping and highway works. Planning permission granted subject to S106 Agreement October 2008. c. Response to Consultations
The application was advertised by way of Site and Press Notice as a development which does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan. As a result 12 LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received.
A summary of the points is made below: 1. Concerned about the impact of increased traffic on existing infrastructure leading to congestion and adverse impact on local amenity and highway safety. There should be a separate access. 2. Concerned about the catchment area being referred to in the retail reports. 3. Concerned about the impact on property prices. 4. Concerned about the impact of a store of this size on established local shops in the area. It would put local traders out of business. 5. The current climate may mean the premises will be vacant which could be the subject of antisocial behaviour. The new development may also give rise to other antisocial behaviour. 6. There are sufficient facilities already in the area. 7. Concerned about an increase in noise and litter pollution. 8. The large car park would attract antisocial behaviour. 9. The development would overlook and be overlooked by existing residential properties. 10. Concerned about the impact of opening hours and deliveries upon the residential amenities of neighbouring residents. 11. Concerned about the level of public consultation that has been undertaken and that more time should be given for residents and local traders to raise any concerns. 12. The scheme is contrary to Policies SP1, SP6 and EC4 as the quality and standard are not yet known, it will prejudice current established shopping amenities and impact on the vitality and viability of existing shopping. 13. The development is not in Mayhill/Townhill therefore the argument in Policy EC6 is invalid. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
14. There is no valid ground not to comply with Policy EC9 and there is no unmet need for convenience food shops in the area. 15. The size of the proposal will result in an over development of the site. 16. Concerned about the loss of affordable housing as part of the housing development. 17. The development is out of character with the surrounding area. 18. The development exceeds the 1000sqm threshold set by the Council by 40%. 19. The Council should ask the opinion of local traders.
Environment Agency – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions and informatives.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions and informatives.
Highways Observations – The original outline consent for the Brynffordd estate included commercial use on that part of the site which is currently the subject of this application for a food store. More recently this was changed to residential use where consent was granted in 2008. This proposal therefore seeks to change back the use of the land for a foodstore.
The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment in support of the application and this indicates 56 arrivals and 35 departures in the am peak hour and 83 arrivals with 91 departures in the pm peak hour. When distributed onto the surrounding highway network it is predicted that in the afternoon peak 33 vehicles will likely approach the Cockett Road traffic signals from the site. This equates to one vehicle every 2 minutes and is not considered a high volume, adding little to the current traffic levels at this signal controlled junction. The remainder of the traffic will arrive and depart in the opposite direction. Assessment of the roundabout access into the estate indicates that this will continue to operate within capacity with little or no queuing expected when the store opens.
In general Transportation terms, the provision of a foodstore at this location will be beneficial to residents of the Brynffordd estate and the surrounding residences as it will provide convenient shopping in the locality and avoid the need to travel to Fforestfach or into the centre of Swansea.
Public Transport provision is frequent in the vicinity of the site, where buses run every 20 minutes and therefore the site is well served for those who do not travel by car. Pedestrian footways are also provided along Gors Avenue and along Brynffordd into the site providing safe and relatively easy access on foot. There are no dedicated cycle lanes accessing the site and therefore any cyclists have to share the carriageway with other traffic. Parking is being provided for 59 cars which is well within the range recommended by adopted parking guidelines which is 35 to 70 spaces.
The previous consented housing scheme was required to upgrade the pedestrian crossing outside the school. As this proposal will generate a slightly higher volume of traffic, I consider it necessary that those improvements to the crossing are in place before the development is brought into use. The traffic movements generated by this proposal can be accommodated on the surrounding highway network and I recommend as follows; AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
No highway objection subject to the following;
1. Prior to beneficial use of the site commencing, the crossing facility outside Gors Primary School shall be up-graded to a pelican crossing.
2. Cycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.
3. A Travel Plan shall be implemented on beneficial use of the development commencing.
Note: The Travel Plan shall include details of car reduction initiatives and methods of monitoring, review and adjustment where necessary. Advice on Travel Plans can be obtained from Jayne Cornelius, SWWITCH Travel Plan Co-ordinator Tel 07796 275711.
APPRAISAL:
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor V A Bates Hughes.
The application site consists of a vacant parcel of land, measuring approximately 0.47 hectares, located to the east of Brynffordd and north of Gors Avenue, Cockett. The roughly square shaped site has a flat topography and has frontage onto Brynffordd. A triangular strip of highway verge separates the site from Gors Avenue to the south. The site is adjoined to the east by existing residential dwellings fronting Heol Y Gors (No.15 shares a boundary with the site) and by land that is allocated for residential development in the Unitary Development Plan.
The site benefits from extant planning permission for residential development. In October 2008 planning permission was granted for 74 dwellings and 58 flats and this permission has since been partly implemented.
The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, for the development of a 1400 square metre (gross) retail store, together with associated car parking, access and landscaping. The illustrative plan submitted in support of the application indicates a building height of 8.5 metres, with a width of approximately 44 metres and depth of approximately 31 metres and a 59 space car park located to the south.
The application is supported by an Access Statement; Planning Statement; Retail Assessment and Transport Assessment. All of these reports are available for inspection on the planning application file.
The main issues for consideration with this application are the principle of development having regard to National Planning Policy and the Development Plan; the retail need and impact of the proposal on established stores and nearby shopping centres, including sequential considerations; the transport impact of the proposal in terms of traffic generation, public transport accessibility, accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists and car parking; the impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers; the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and any environmental implications. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
The 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. Also of relevance are National planning policy as set out in Planning Policy Wales (March 2002), and Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement 02/2005 Planning for Retailing and Town Centres (November 2005).
National Planning Policy
National planning policy guidance on retail policy is set out in the Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement (MIPPS) 02/2005, which replaces sections 10.1 to 10.3 of Planning Policy Wales (PPW). The guidance makes clear that town, district and local centres are the most appropriate locations for retailing, in the interests of sustaining communities, enhancing accessibility and safeguarding the vitality and viability of established shopping centres. The critical factors for determining a planning application for a retail scheme best located in a town centre are identified as: the need for the development; the sequential approach to site selection; the impact on existing centres; accessibility and transport implications; and compatibility with the development plan. In terms of the sequential test, developers are required to demonstrate that all potential town centre locations have been thoroughly assessed before edge of centre sites are considered, requiring a flexibility of approach from both the developer and planning authority. The guidance makes clear that the retailer must be innovative about the format, design and scale of the proposed store, which should be tailored to fit local circumstances. In establishing the need for the development, the retailer is required to demonstrate quantitative need, in precedence of any qualitative need. Fundamentally, the MIPPS makes clear that the scale, type and location of out-of-centre retail developments should not be such as to be likely to undermine the vitality, attractiveness and viability of those town centres that would otherwise serve the community well.
Development Plan Policy
The City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was formally adopted in November 2008. The application site is designated in the UDP as forming part of a wider mixed use allocation (Policy HC1 [36]). A quantum of residential development has already been built out at this location and much of the infrastructure works, including the new access road, has been implemented. The UDP allocation for the site emanated from the outline planning permission for the wider area in 1995 (ref 94/1412), which was consented on the basis of a mix of housing, retail (1300 square metre retail unit plus small shops) and a community facility. In broad terms the principle of a commercial, non-residential use at this location is therefore accepted in the Development Plan; however a retail development of a single unit of the scale being proposed was not originally envisioned.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
The Retail Assessment submitted in support of the application (produced by RPS) states that RPS as agents for the applicant have been “advised that the floorspace is to be provided in a single retail unit”, and that the unit will operate as a “discount foodstore”. The applicants were informed at pre-application stage that prescribing the proposed end user of the unit is essential in order to determine the suitability of the proposal. Notwithstanding the description of the proposal on the application form as being a retail unit of no particular type, the development has been assessed on the basis of it being a deep discount foodstore retailer selling predominantly convenience goods (with very limited ancillary comparison goods floorspace). Should planning permission be granted, a suitably worded condition would need to be imposed in this regard.
The retail policies of the UDP are generally aimed at supporting the maintenance and enhancement of the established shopping structure. They aim to prevent the dispersal of major retail investment to locations outside established shopping centres where such development would serve to undermine the appeal and ultimately the success of nearby centres. The Development Plan is fully consistent with National Planning Policy guidance in this regard. Strategic Policy SP6 emphasises that out of centre retailing will not generally be supported in the interests of the above stated aims. This is amplified by Policy EC9 which states that retail development at out of centre sites will be resisted except for certain exceptional forms, for example small scale shopping facilities required to meet local needs (Policy EC6 refers). Small scale is defined as a maximum 1000 square metres, which is less than the 1,400 square metre scheme that is proposed. Aside from the exceptions stipulated, Policy EC9 does also acknowledge that an out-of- centre retail scheme in excess of local needs provision may be considered appropriate if a clear deficiency in shopping provision exists and there are no sequentially preferable sites available. The key criteria against which all significant retail proposals are considered are set out in Policy EC4. As well as the standard tests of need and sequential suitability, the policy emphasises that schemes must not adversely impact on the vitality and viability of established centres; must be compatible with the function, scale and character of the centre near to which it is located; and be sited in a highly accessible location.
The Council commissioned specialist retail planning consultants Roger Tym & Partners (RT&P) to undertake a Retail Capacity Study in 2005, the findings of which were used to inform UDP policy formation and were based on a robust, evidence based assessment of retail provision within the County. In general terms the 2005 study advised that there is little quantitative need for the development of further convenience goods floorspace within the City and County looking forward to 2016. It also emphasised that retail policy should: • maintain the focus on only allowing new convenience shopping floorspace within town and district centres; • make it clear that there will be a strong policy assumption against any additional convenience floorspace in out-of-centre or edge-of-centre locations, with the possible exception of sites immediately adjoining centres other than the city centre; • ensure that any such new space in centres other than the city centre is commensurate with the role of that centre and is not of a magnitude that it could damage other centres;
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
• state that, within acceptable parameters, any additional floorspace should be designed such that it improves the quality of the local retail offer.
Preventing retail development that is likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on established shopping centres is a key objective of planning policy at both local and national level. The City Centre and all district and local shopping centres within Swansea are recognised as vital to the retail hierarchy and significant to the social and economic fabric of community life. The enhancement of these centres is important to sustain communities, support other essential services, and provide combined shopping facilities.
The application site does not lie within any established shopping centre. The abovementioned UDP policies make clear that proposals for significant new retail floorspace in such locations will only be supported if it can be demonstrated that: there is an identified need (quantitative/qualitative) for the size of store proposed; no suitable sequentially preferable sites exist; there would be no detrimental impact on established centres and stores; and it is a highly accessible site and can realistically be reached by a choice of means of transport.
It is the extent to which the application sufficiently addresses these matters as well as the other matters in respect of residential and visual amenity and highway safety that dictate the acceptability of the submitted scheme.
Retail Need, Impact and Sequential Considerations
Need for the store New retail proposals not within existing centres must, as a starting point, demonstrate a need for the scale of provision that is proposed. In broad terms the development plan highlights that existing limited provision in the area does not meet all the shopping needs for the local community, and that there is a quantitative requirement for additional convenience retailing up to a limit. Clearly the Local Planning Authority has to be satisfied that the quantum of retail floorspace proposed is not an unacceptable overprovision, and reach an on balance decision as to whether the proposal would appropriately complement the existing facilities in the area to the net benefit of the community. The Council’s 2005 retail capacity study provides an important evidence base to inform the determination of the proposal, however it is accepted that the work is dated and that there have been changes in the retail market since the report was published. The applicant has undertaken a broad level retail capacity review for an area surrounding the store that they have defined. This work has concluded that the vast majority of local residents’ expenditure is being spent outside the local area, which is accepted. It also concludes that the turnover of the proposed store at 2014 will equate to 30% of the identified surplus, suggesting a clear quantitative local need for additional convenience goods floorspace in the area. Importantly, the application is for a 1,400 square metre gross store, which is in excess of the threshold for ‘local needs’ provision defined in the UDP. As such, whilst it may meet a degree of unmet need for additional convenience goods shopping, the proposal cannot be categorised as a local needs scheme in accordance with the adopted policy context. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468 In retail policy terms it is therefore an out of centre scheme and should be considered with reference to UDP Policy EC9, which permits such proposals in certain instances where a clear deficiency exists and there are no sequentially preferable sites available. On balance it is considered that the size of store proposed is generally justifiable on quantitative grounds and would meet a clearly identified deficiency. A store of 1000- 1200 square metres gross would be more appropriate for a small convenience store to cater just for the local demand (which was conveyed to the applicant at pre-application stage), however the additional 200 square metres that is proposed is not considered over excessive in this case particularly in light of the planning history in the area. In terms of qualitative need, the proposal is for a discount foodstore (predominantly selling convenience goods). There is no discount retailer of this sort trading within Mayhill/Townhill, although there is an Aldi around 0.5km from the site, access to which is constrained by significant topographical differences and the rail line that divides the Cwmdu and Mayhill areas. There is also a Lidl store around 1.5 km away at Caer- eithin. Generally speaking it is accepted that a discount foodstore would improve choice for the local community, which equates to a qualitative need and therefore a material consideration.
Impact upon established stores and shopping centres It is clear that development plan policies and national guidance require new store development to safeguard against any significant adverse impacts on town centre vitality and viability. The store does not have an in-store pharmacy; opticians; post office, café, dry cleaners, which reduces the potential impact upon the high street. Notwithstanding this, the proposed store will have some degree of adverse impact upon existing businesses within the nearest shopping centre at Fforestfach. The key question is whether the anticipated adverse impact is regarded as being so materially adverse and over-riding that this out weighs the benefits associated with the proposed new store. It is considered that the impact on existing retailers within the community (which is limited to small convenience shops on Heol Y Gors and further east on Gors Ave), and existing foodstores within the nearest shopping centres, would not be significant. It is noteworthy that there has been no objection to the proposal from other retailers in this regard. Overall it is considered that the proposal is likely to enhance facilities for the community rather than have any adverse impact on provision.
Sequential Test
Since the proposal is intended to meet a ‘local’ need for shopping facilities, the sequential assessment should consider the availability of sites within the Mayhill/Townhill area. The UDP does not identify any specific site within Mayhill/Townhill for new retail foodstore provision. As noted earlier however, the mixed use allocation that the application site forms part of had originated from a planning consent that included a proposed new foodstore. The principle of small format retailing from the site is therefore supported by the Development Plan. The application site is also centrally located for the surrounding community that it is intended to serve. For these reasons it is considered that there are no clearly sequentially preferable sites of comparable size available to accommodate the proposal within the Mayhill/Townhill area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
Transport Impact
The application site is highly accessible by a range of transport modes. It is centrally located for the surrounding community that it is intended to serve and a short walking distance for a significant proportion of residents of Townhill, Mayhill and Cockett. Pedestrian footways are provided along Gors Avenue and along Brynffordd into the site providing safe and relatively easy access on foot. There are no dedicated cycle lanes accessing the site and therefore any cyclists have to share the carriageway with other traffic. Public Transport provision is frequent in the vicinity of the site, where buses run every 20 minutes.
The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment in support of the application and this has been considered by the Head of Transportation and Engineering who considers that any additional traffic movements generated as a result of the development can be accommodated on the surrounding highway network and not be so significant as to give rise to any highway safety concerns.
The illustrative plan submitted in support of the application demonstrates how parking for 59 cars could be provided within the site, which would be well within the range recommended by adopted parking guidelines which is 35 to 70 spaces. Given that the intention of the proposal is to serve a local need in the area there is an argument that the development should cater for the lower figure in the range. Nevertheless, the plan submitted is illustrative and merely demonstrates the capabilities of the site to meet the standards specified and the precise detail and amount of parking can be adequately controlled at the reserved matter stage, should planning permission be granted.
The previous consented housing scheme was required to upgrade the pedestrian crossing outside the school, by virtue of a £15,000 contribution via a S106 Obligation. The Head of Transportation and Engineering considers that the improvements to the crossing should be in place before the development is brought into use. The £15,000 contribution has already been made by the applicant, Taylor Wimpey, to the Highways Authority and these works have been completed.
Impact upon Residential Amenity
It is not considered that the proposed development would give rise to any significant harmful impact on the residential amenities of existing adjoining occupiers. Neither is it considered that the living conditions of proposed occupiers of the consented residential development would be compromised by the nature of the proposal. In terms of the latter there may be a requirement to alter the housing layout slightly in order to satisfactorily accommodate the proposed development; however, this is more a matter for the developer.
The existing neighbouring property most likely to be affected by the proposed development in visual, physical, overshadowing and overlooking terms is No.15 Heol Y Gors. However, the illustrative plan submitted in support of the application demonstrates that any proposed building can be sited sufficiently far away from this property so as not to be overbearing or give rise to harmful overshadowing or overlooking impacts. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
The applicant has indicated a maximum height of 8.5 metres for any building and in the interest of residential and visual amenity, should planning permission be granted, it would be reasonable to impose a condition to reflect this maximum height. The illustrative plan also shows potential parking spaces in close proximity to the boundary with No.15 Heol Y Gors, which may give rise to additional disturbance to the occupiers of this property. However, it is felt that such an impact can be adequately mitigated by the erection of a suitable boundary enclosure, supplemented by planting in front, the detail of which could be controlled by condition. Other properties adjacent to No.15 Heol Y Gors would be less affected by the proposed development than this property.
Other existing properties on Brynffordd and Charlotte Court are more than 30 metres away from the application site and existing properties on the opposite side of Gors Avenue are about 25 metres away from the application and are unlikely, therefore to be significantly adversely affected in residential amenity terms.
Concerns have been expressed about opening hours and delivery times and in recognition of this a condition is recommended to be imposed controlling these aspects in the interest of residential amenity.
Other land to the east has an industrial background and whilst this site is earmarked for residential development in the Unitary Development Plan it is not considered that the proposed development would prejudice the comprehensive development of this adjoining land.
Noise and litter disturbance have been raised as concerns by neighbouring residents, however, neither of these factors are likely to be so harmful as to warrant a refusal of permission, particularly given the distances mentioned above and the previous use and planning history of the site. Antisocial behaviour has also been raised as a concern; however this is more a matter for the Police.
Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the Area
In land use terms the surrounding area is predominantly residential in character although there still remains an element of industrial uses. The planning history of the site and the sites’ allocation in the Unitary Development Plan for mixed use purposes dictate that the proposed use is compatible with the locality. The application is made in outline with all matters reserved thereby the final appearance of any building is unknown, however, subject to a restriction being placed on the maximum height of any building and gross floorspace being limited to 1,400 square metres it is not considered that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area. There is also considered to be sufficient control at reserved matter stage to ensure that the development has a sympathetic visual relationship with its surroundings.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
Concern has been expressed about the loss of affordable housing opportunity on the site, given the extant consent. However, the Section 106 Obligations relating to the land are still in force and will continue to be in force notwithstanding the outcome of this application which must be considered on its own merit. Whilst a separate application could be made to modify the terms of the S106 such an application would have to be considered on its own planning merits.
Environmental Considerations
Site investigation and contamination issues have been comprehensively considered on this site as part of the residential development, therefore the applicant should be made aware of the recommendations contained within the relevant consultant reports. The Environment Agency Wales and Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water have raised no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions, which are also recommended. There are not considered to be any ecological constraints on the site.
Conclusion
Having regard to all material considerations it is considered that the proposal represents an acceptable form of development that whilst departing from some elements of planning policy, does sufficiently accord with the broader aims and objectives of national guidance and the adopted Unitary Development Plan. For the reasons discussed in the main body of the report it is not considered that the likely level of adverse impact to existing stores to be of such material significance to outweigh the benefits that the proposal would be bring in terms of securing the redevelopment of a vacant, highly visible and accessible brownfield site; assisting the regeneration objectives for the wider area; meeting an identified quantitative need for new shopping provision in the area; providing a complimentary retail offer not currently represented in the area thereby widening choice and meeting a qualitative need; and clawing back trade to Townhill/Mayhill currently lost to outlying areas, thereby retaining investment within Townhill/Mayhill and reducing the length of shopping trips. Furthermore, because it is considered that the proposed development would not be prejudicial to highway safety or detract from the character and appearance of the area, the amenities of neighbouring residents or any other interests of acknowledged importance approval of outline planning permission is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE as a Departure from the Development Plan with a recommendation that it be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1 Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
2 Detailed plans and drawings with respect to the matters reserved in condition (01) shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is determined within a reasonable period.
3 The development to which this permission relates shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this outline permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that development is begun within a reasonable period.
4 The gross floorspace of the retail unit shall not exceed 1,400 square metres. No mezzanine floors shall be installed without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to minimise any adverse retail impact upon the existing shopping hierarchy in the area.
5 The development shall be used as a single unit 'Deep Discount Foodstore' selling predominantly convenience goods, with very limited ancillary comparison goods floorspace. Prior to the beneficial use of the development commencing a scheme indicating the proportion of convenience and comparison goods floorspace shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once brought into use the development shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to minimise any adverse retail impact upon the existing shopping hierarchy in the area.
6 No building on any part of the development hereby permitted shall exceed 8.5 metres in height. Reason: In the interest of visual and residential amenity.
7 Before the development hereby approved is brought into use 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.
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 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
10 No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.
11 Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.
12 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. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development, and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system.
13 No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a Method Statement detailing all necessary pollution prevention measures for the construction phase of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of pollution prevention.
14 A detailed scheme for the eradication of Japanese Knotweed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be implemented prior to the commencement of work on site. Reason: In the interests of the ecology and amenity of the area.
15 Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development commencing cycle parking shall be provided on the site and shall therefore be maintained in accordance with details that will previously have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of promoting sustainable travel objectives.
16 A Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details upon beneficial use of the development commencing. Reason: In the interest of promoting sustainable travel objectives.
17 The development hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 08.00 to 20.00. No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 08.00 to 20.00 nor at any time on Sundays, Bank or AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 Public Holidays. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0468
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: SP1, SP6, SP14, EV1, EV2, EC4, EC6, EC9, HC1, AS1, AS2, AS5 and 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 The Travel Plan shall include details of car reduction initiatives and methods of monitoring, review and adjustment where necessary. Advice on Travel Plans can be obtained from Jayne Cornelius, SWWITCH Travel Plan Co-ordinator on 07796 275711.
4 The developer’s attention is drawn to the site investigation report prepared by Integral Geotechnique to support planning permission 2008/0307 and the need to have regard to the same.
5 The developers attention is drawn to the advice of the Environment Agency Wales in their letter dated 15th April 2009 (ref: SH/2009/106987/01-L01) and copied to the applicant's agent, Asbri Planning.
6 If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.
PLANS
Site location plan received 27th March 2009.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0603 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Ilston Cottage, Ilston, Swansea, SA2 7LD Proposal: Two storey side extension and replacement front porch Applicant: Mr C Carr and Mrs M Bowen
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 23rd June 2009 to consider its visual impact.
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).
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 EV9 Development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area will only be permitted if it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2008/0564 Two storey side extension Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 05/06/2008
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The proposal was advertised by way of press and site notice. No letters of objection have been received.
Ilston Community Council – Does not object
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0603
The Gower Society – Has provided the following comment:
1. The existing architecture is not good; it appears to represent earlier attempts at modernisation. 2. The latest application will not enhance the existing property; yet an opportunity arises to correct mistakes. 3. The property is in a most conspicuous location opposite one of the most beautiful listed churches in the AONB.
Environment Agency – No adverse comments subject to receipt of a Flood Consequences Assessment.
Highways & Transport - According to our adopted parking guidelines the area of the two storey rear extension requires 3 car parking spaces. There is sufficient car parking and turning within the curtilage of the site. – No Highways Objection
APPRAISAL
This application has been reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis
The dwelling lies within the Ilston Conservation Area and Gower AONB where Development Plan Policy and National Guidance requires a high standard of design that conserves or enhances the character and appearance of these areas irrespective of how prominent a proposed form of development may be. The property also lies in proximity to St Illtyd’s Church, a Grade II Listed Building, dating from the 12th Century in a picturesque setting of high public amenity value.
Planning permission has previously been refused by this Authority in June 2008 for a substantial two storey extension to the side of this property on grounds that it’s siting, scale and design would appear as a discordant feature which would be out of keeping with the character of the existing dwelling to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Ilston Conservation Area and Gower AONB.
In this case the side extension and porch would be visible from the grounds of the Listed Building, St Illtyds Church which lies opposite. The side extension would be some 6.0m in width and 12.4m in depth incorporating an eaves height of approximately 4.5m and an overall height of approximately 6.7m to the ridge some 0.2m below the principle ridge of the main dwelling and be set back approximately 0.5m from the front elevation of the property. The width across the property frontage is currently 9.6m, the proposal will therefore result in this frontage being increased to some 15.7m. The side extension would also incorporate a substantial rear wing which would extend some 7.3 metres back from the main back wall of the existing dwelling.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled 'A Guide to Householder Development' provides advice to applicants to the effect that “When designing the extension you should look at the width of the front of your house to determine how wide the extension should be. As a guide the extension should be no greater than one-half the frontage width of the original house. The general shape of the roof should be repeated in the roof design of the extension.”
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0603
This advice was given to the applicant and their agent in post application discussion following the refusal of planning permission Ref: 2008/0564 it has not, however, been incorporated as part of the current submission.
With regard to impact upon visual amenity, therefore, the proposal would not, it is considered, respect the design or proportions of the existing dwelling and would give rise to an unsympathetic overdevelopment of the host property that would in terms of its scale, and design fail to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the dwelling or the Conservation Area, or this part of the Gower AONB.
In relation to the proposed replacement porch, the dwelling currently has a simple box style porch, which, it is considered, fails to relate well to the character of the current dwelling. The porch as proposed will introduce a more sympathetic form of development to the front elevation and as such, it is considered, that this element of the proposed scheme would be acceptable were it to be considered in its own right.
Overall it is considered that the form and extent of the extension and of the proposed porch would not reach the high standards of design required in either the Conservation Area or Gower AONB.
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 or the porch would harm their living conditions through any overshadowing, overbearing or overlooking impacts. As such it is not considered that the proposal would introduce any negative impacts upon residential amenity.
In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations, it is considered that the proposal by virtue of its siting, scale and design would adversely affect the proportions of the building and undermine the character and appearance of the existing building, the Conservation Area and the Gower AONB contrary to Policies HC7, EV1, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance “A Design Guide for Householder Development”.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE, for the following reason:
1 The proposed extension by virtue of its scale and design would appear as a discordant feature which would fail to respect the proportions and the character of the existing dwelling and be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Ilston Conservation Area and the Gower AONB. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies HC7, EV1, EV9 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance 'A Design Guide for Householder Development'.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0603
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, HC7, EV9 and EV26.
PLANS
DRWG No. 149/08- site location plan , block plan, existing & proposed floor plans & elevations received 21st April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0742 WARD: Area 2 Fairwood
Location: 104 Summerland Park, Upper Killay, Swansea SA2 7JA Proposal: Replacement rear conservatory Applicant: Mr & Mrs Jeffrey & Diane Johnson
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 93/0808 SINGLE STOREY FRONT AND SIDE EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 06/08/1993
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
Seventeen neighbouring properties were consulted. No responses have been received.
Upper Killay Community Council – The Council supports the application, for being an improvement that does not adversely affect neighbours, and appears to be in keeping with the estate.
APPRAISAL
The application is reported to Committee for decision as the applicant is an employee of the Environment Department.
Full planning permission is sought for a construction of a conservatory to the rear of 104 Summerland Park, Upper Killay. The application property is bungalow and the proposed conservatory will be sited on the western side of the rear elevation. There is currently an existing conservatory in the position of where the proposed conservatory is to be located.
The main issues to consider in this instance are the impact of the proposed development upon the character of the host property, the visual amenities of the street scene, and the residential amenities of neighbours. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0742
The proposed scheme has been considered against Policies EV1 and HC7 of the adopted Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.
With regard to impact upon visual amenity the rear conservatory incorporates a scale and design which is considered acceptable in terms of its impact upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The only significant difference between the existing conservatory and its replacement is that the replacement (proposal) has a pitched roof and the existing conservatory has a flat roof. The proposed conservatory will also be constructed from oak pvc whereas the existing conservatory is constructed from white pvc, this change, however, is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on either the host dwelling or the surrounding area.
Turning to issues of residential amenity, the proposal is not considered to give rise to any unacceptable overshadowing or overbearance due to its indiscriminate location, sited away from any neighbouring properties. Similarly, there are considered to be no overlooking issues given existing boundary treatment surrounding the property coupled with the fact the viewing achieved will not be over and above the viewing already achieved from the existing conservatory. Therefore, it is considered that there will be no unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of the surrounding neighbouring properties by way of either overbearance, overshadowing and overlooking.
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 and the provisions of the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development. 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.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0742
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 Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development.
2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
PLANS
Site location plan, block plan, existing elevations, proposed elevations, proposed ground floor plan received 19th May 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2008/2280 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Land opposite Box Farm Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1AA Proposal: Detached dwelling with detached garage Applicant: Mrs Maria Jones
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description 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 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 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 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 91/0732 TWO PREFABRICATED BOXES AND TACK ROOM Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 30/07/1991
89/0005/03 NEW DWELLING. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 07/03/1989
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2280
90/1016/03 ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 12/10/1990
Response to consultations
ORIGINAL SCHEME
The application was advertised on site and in the local press as a Development within the Reynoldston Conservation Area and one individual property was consulted. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received which are summarised as follows:
1. The land on which our house is built is lower than Treffos and the new house therefore would look significantly higher than the plans suggest. 2. It would block out much of the sky through our lounge window and other windows and we would be looking at a long length of the new house as well. 3. Could the proposed house not be set closer to the road swapping places with the proposed garage? 4. The plans are labelled wrongly and there are three upper floor windows overlooking my garden. 5. The proposed house would block out the only open view from my property and the bulk of the proposed dwelling would seem to dwarf even that of Treffos.
ONE LETTER OF COMMENT has also been received from one of the objectors which is summarised as follows:
1. We have discussed the house being set closer to the road with the applicant and she has explained why this is not feasible and even thought the new house would significantly affect ours because out house is set so very low, we would not wish our concern to deprive Mrs Jones of her house.
The Gower Society - objects –
1. The application is for a large and inappropriate house on a small plot. 2. The plot is only partly within the Conservation Area; however this is still a most sensitive location. 3. We note in the applicant’s statement that they “wish to construct a dwelling of much less mass than Box Farm”; however, the impact of this proposal on the dwellings around and the Lower Green itself should not be minimised. 4. We query whether the land may have been captured from open countryside at some stage; it appears that a degree of equestrian activity is taking place at this location. 5. We would strongly object to the removal of the old cart shed that is within the Conservation Area.
Reynoldston Community Council – No response
Highways Observations: Access to the site is in existence and is set back from the edge of the carriageway with splayed side walls. Normally new development would be required to provide a `Gower Set-back’ however in this instance the existing access complies with the visibility requirements that a set back would achieve and therefore there is no merit in requiring a further set back. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2280
The site area and indicated layout is sufficiently large to provide more than adequate parking and suitable turning facilities together with a garage.
There are unlikely to be any highway safety implications with this proposal and I therefore recommend that no highway objections are raised.
AMENDED SCHEME (where the three windows facing Treffos are replaced with two obscure glazed windows and the plans have been re-labelled)
THREE individual properties were consulted. No response.
The Gower Society – “The Gower Society has inspected the application, visited the site and has the following observations to make:
The omitted window now seen on the plans does not change the Society’s stance on the application.”
APPLICANTS STATEMENT
I do not agree that the design of the property does not reflect the prevailing character of the dwellings which front onto the Green and in particular the introduction of a proposed front gable, front bay window and front roof porch which on the ground floor will all be screened by the existing stone garage and therefore not evident from the Green. Twelve residences surround the Lower Green at Reynoldston, none of which are similar or alike and hence do not offer any prevailing character…..
1. Seven dwellings are detached, two are semi-detached and three form the block referred to locally as Florida House. 2. Two dwellings enjoy an external finish of natural stone, one is pebble dashed and nine are finished with varying shades of white render. 3. Two roofs are finished with concrete tiles, the rest with slate. 4. There are no two similar roof styles. Two have complex roof shapes, two have gable ends and one roof accommodates dormer windows. 5. Two residences provide bay windows (one has two) similar to the shape presented on our proposals for the land opposite Box Farm. 6. Two residences have flat roofed porches similar tot eh form presented on our proposals for the land opposite Box Farm. One residence has a pitched roof porch and one residence has an integral garage to the front elevation. 7. Window finishes area as follows: a. white painted softwood b. brown painted softwood c. black painted softwood d. white UPVC e. white painted hardwood f. brown painted hardwood 8. Window styles are as follows: a. mock Georgian casement b. mock Georgian sash c. fixed metal windows d. plain casement in a number of styles e. mock sash (top half opening outwards) f. picture windows
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2280
9. The Post Office, which is one of the older buildings in the village and is featured prominently in postcards and paintings, enjoys a hipped roof with a large gable dormer. Box Farm itself enjoys a hipped roof profile to the elevation facing the new proposals opposite which we wish to emulate in the new scheme.
Comments regarding delays in the processing of the application and states:
“Would it please therefore now be possible to proceed with the application for determination without further distraction taking into account the contents of my letter and the scheme that has already been passed through our Community Council and make positive progress?”
AMENDED PLANS (Following consultation with the Planning Authority, amended plans were submitted). All previous objectors were consulted and ONE letter of Objection was re received.
Gower Society: Object on the following grounds:
1. It wishes its comments contained on the two letters of 19th December 2008 & 29th January 2009 to remain. There is nothing in this new application to change its view of this proposal. 2. The plot shape appears confusing in the plan; there now appears to be a new second entrance to the lane & the adjacent field. 3. We note the slightly smaller ground plan. 4. We note the use of the roof space to include an additional living space. The roof windows are intrusive. 5. This remains unsympathetic over-large house for its plot.
We object to this application and ask that you take the above comment into consideration.
Highways: No additional comments.
AMENDED PLANS Following further concerns expressed by the Local Planning Authority amended plans were submitted which involved the relocation of a rear chimney to the side elevation, alterations to the pattern of fenestration to the front elevation, reduction in size of the front porch, and the resiting of the dwelling closer to the road by 1.5m). All previous objectors and adjoining neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted and NO letters of OBJECTION were received.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a detached 2 storey dwelling house with detached garage on land adjacent to Box Farm in Reynoldston.
The land lies in a sensitive location on the south western edge of the Lower Green within the boundaries of the Reynoldston village settlement area. The majority of the land lies outside of the Reynoldston Conservation Area although an existing outbuilding on the site, which will be converted as part of the scheme to form the proposed garage, lies within its boundaries.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2280
The plot is roughly triangular in shape, having a frontage width of approximately 7m, extending to a width of approximately 23m before reducing in width again to approximately 8m. The plot depth is approximately 49m.
The main issues to be considered in this instance are the principle of dwelling at this location and its impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Reynoldston Conservation Area and the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty together with its impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents and highway safety. It is not considered that the provisions of the submitted Access Statement or Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.
The application site is considered to lie within the Gower settlement of Reynoldston and the application falls to be considered against the criteria under Policy EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy EV16 requires that development within small Gower Villages, such as Reynoldston, must be appropriate in terms of a number of criteria including scale, density, elevational design, prominence, materials, screening, acceptable access and relationship to adjacent buildings, spaces and landscape features. It should also be noted that as the application site adjoins the Reynoldston Conservation Area, any new dwelling would have to be of a sensitive design to ensure that there would be no adverse impact upon the visual amenities and character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
It is considered that the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate a detached dwelling, and as it is located within the village boundaries, and that an appropriately designed dwelling would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.
Following consultation with the Local Planning Authority, the scheme has been amended and revised plans have been submitted for a more traditional designed dwelling. As such the current proposal incorporates a more traditional double fronted design and traditional materials including stone to all elevations. The house incorporates a roughly rectangular footprint fronting onto the village green and subject to minor changes to the design of the base of the chimney is considered to relate in terms of scale and design with the character and appearance of more traditional dwellings within the area. Although the dwelling will incorporate accommodation in the roof the height of the proposal will be similar to that of the adjacent property Treffos with which the proposed dwelling will most closely relate. On this basis the proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area or this part of the AONB and would not adversely impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Turning to the impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring residents the proposed dwelling will mainly affect Box Farm and Treffos. Box Farm is situated opposite and there are sufficient separation distances it is considered, to ensure the proposed dwelling will not have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling.
The proposed dwelling would be sited to the north west of the nearest dwelling, Treffos, approximately 7.5m from the side elevation of the property and approximately 1m at its nearest from the boundary with this property. Whilst the two-storey element will extend some 6m behind the rear of this neighbouring property, given the proposed dwellings siting to the north west and separation distances it is not considered that, on balance, the proposal would justify a recommendation of refusal on grounds of overbearing visual impact or overshadowing in this instance. With regard overlooking an agreed level of boundary treatment would overcome any issues in relation to ground floor windows. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2280
At first floor however the proposal will incorporate a flank window which will serve a bathroom, within close proximity to Treffos, and as such a condition is considered expedient requiring this window to be fixed shut and obscurely glazed in order to overcome issues relating to loss of privacy.
Finally the alterations to the existing outbuilding to form the proposed garage would not, it is considered, detract from either the character of the existing building, or the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
With regard to highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering has no objection to the proposal as the site area an indicated layout is sufficiently large to provide more than adequate parking and suitable turning facilities together with a garage.
The issues raised by the objectors with regards to whether the land is countryside or not, loss of light, privacy and the suitability of the design have been addressed above. The comment made with regards to the loss of a view is not a material planning consideration.
Turning to the comments made in the applicant’s statement, it should be noted that the pre-application advice given did not state that the original design submitted was acceptable. With regards to the timescales involved since submission, whilst every effort is made to determine an application within 8 weeks, the submission of amended plans, which required additional consultations to be undertaken together with the provision of further advice and meetings, dictated that the proposal would not be determined within this timescale.
It should be noted that two planning applications for a dwelling at this location - 89/0005/03 and 90/1016/03 refer, were refused as being inappropriate development within the open countryside. However, whilst part of the current application site formed part of the previously refused applications, these applications involved the capture of a vast area of agricultural land and open countryside to the south west of Reynoldston. The current application site includes a much smaller area of land which currently is not in agricultural use and is considered to represent the rounding off of the Lower Green and not encroachment into the open countryside.
In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposal represents an acceptable form of infill development which respects the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the wider Gower AONB whilst at the same time introducing a modern dwelling which conserves and enhances the protected area. The proposal has been carefully designed to ensure that the development does not have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and as such it is considered that it complies with Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the Adopted UDP. Approval is therefore recommended.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2280
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS:
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Classes A, B and C of Schedule 2 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.
3 The first floor window in the south-east facing elevation, 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.
4 No further doors, windows or openings at first floor level shall be inserted in the south east flank elevation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
5 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.
6 Prior to the commencement of development details of the external finishes of the dwelling including stonework, natural slate for the roof, eaves and verge, window cil and reveal details, windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area and character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the wider Gower AONB.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/2280
7 Notwithstanding the approved plans revised details of the proposed chimney illustrated on the proposed south east elevation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area and character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the wider Gower AONB.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV9, EV16, EV22, EV26
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.
PLANS
Site location plan received 1st December 2008, design & access statement received 1st May 2009. Amended plans Drawing 5.01- ground, first, second, roof plan & north elevation and 5.02- elevations, section AA & stables converted to garage received 24th June 2009 and block plan dated 30th June 2009.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 12 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0768 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Ash Grove, Vicarage Lane, Llangennith, Swansea SA3 1JA Proposal: Detached workshop/store Applicant: Mr Derek 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 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 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 EV22 The countryside throughout the County will be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural environment and agricultural and recreational value through: i) The control of development, and ii) Practical management and improvement measures. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV26 Within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area's natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 96/4069/S Two storey front, ground and first floor side extensions, two storey rear extension to form granny annexe, addition of front and side porches, and replacement hipped roof. Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 05/12/1997
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0768
2006/2192 Retention of two conservatories on south elevation and porch on north elevation Decision: Grant Permission Unconditional Decision Date: 14/11/2006
2007/0890 Retention of swimming pool Decision: Grant Permission Unconditional Decision Date: 23/11/2007
90/1590/03 TWO STOREY EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/04/1991
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The application was advertised on site and in the local press as development within the Llangennith Conservation Area and one neighbouring resident was individually consulted. NO RESPONSE.
Llanmadoc, Llangennith and Cheriton Community Council - We have reservations about the size and purpose of this garden workshop. If it is a workshop for garden machinery we would have expected a wider doorway – it seems that it may become a garden room or similar.
APPRAISAL:
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
This application seeks full planning permission for a detached workshop/store at Ashgrove, Vicarage Lane Llangennith. The application property is situated within the Gower AONB and the Llangennith Conservation Area.
The main issues for consideration therefore relate to the impact of the detached workshop/store on the character and appearance of the Rhossili Conservation area and the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, residential amenity and highway safety, having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan. There are in this instance no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
In terms of visual amenity, the detached workshop/store would be sited to the east of the dwelling to which it relates, adjacent to the boundary with Vicarage Lane and proposes a footprint measuring approximately 8.4 metres long by 3.8 metres wide, with a ridge height of approximately 3.6 metres. The proposed workshop would be finished in painted render and slate roof to match the existing dwelling. On this basis, the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed scheme is domestic in appearance and would be in keeping with the dwelling house and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the building is well screened by the existing boundary hedgerow and as such would not appear unduly prominent when viewed from public vantage points. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0768
It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a significant harmful effect upon the street scene, the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the visual relationship of the character of the area and its setting which contributes positively to the quality of the Gower AONB.
In terms of residential amenity, it is considered that the siting of the application property and existing boundary treatments would dictate that there would be no significant detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties from the proposed development by virtue of unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing physical impact, over and above that which currently exists.
There are no highway safety implications with this proposal.
In response to consultations responses received, the comments raised by the Community Council have been noted and issues relating to visual and residential amenity have been addressed in the main body of the report.
In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development, which would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area and would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area or the wider Gower AONB, the amenity of nearby residents or highway safety standards. The proposal is therefore considered to be an appropriate form of development, which would accord with Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan. 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.
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, EV9, EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0768
3 Birds may be present in the 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 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.
PLANS
02 site location plan, 1/1 proposed plans received 21st May 2009, Amended block plan received 10th June 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0465 WARD: Area 2 Penclawdd
Location: Land adjoining Sunningdale Wernffrwd Llanmorlais Swansea Proposal: Detached bungalow (renewal of outline planning permission 2006/1196 granted on 17th July 2006) Applicant: Mr & Mrs Thomas
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)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 91/1010 ERECTION OF ONE BUNGALOW (OUTLINE) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 10/09/1991
A00/0781 ERECTION OF A DETACHED BUNGALOW (RENEWAL OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 97/0762 GRANTED ON 5th AUGUST 1997) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 21/07/2000
2003/1051 Detached bungalow (renewal of outline planning permission A00/0781 granted on the 21st July 2000) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 31/07/2003
2006/1196 Detached bungalow (renewal of outline planning permission 2003/1051 granted on 31st July 2003) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 17/07/2006
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0465
97/0762 ERECTION OF DETACHED BUNGALOW (OUTLINE) (RENEWAL OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION 94/0756 DATED 02.09.94) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 05/08/1997
94/0756 ERECTION OF DETACHED BUNGALOW (OUTLINE) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 02/09/1994
86/0285/01 DWELLING UNIT, ONE BUNGALOW. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/06/1986
81/0807/03 ERECTION OF ONE BUNGALOW Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 30/07/1981
CONSULTATIONS The application was advertised on site by site notice and three individual properties were consulted. No response.
Llanrhidian Higher Community Council – No objection only concern over traffic and access problems in such a narrow lane.
Highway Observations - No highway objection on condition that the Developer;
1. Sets back the entrance gateway 5 metres from the edge of the existing carriageway and realigns the property boundaries to form 45 degree vision splays. 2. Ensures that the recessed area is not obstructed by any chain or other barrier and is kept open at all times. 3. Surfaces the recessed area to Highway Authority satisfaction. 4. Ensures that the entrance gateway is no more than 150mm above or below the level of the near side carriageway. 5. Ensures that the drive gradient is no steeper than 1 in 6. 6. Provides a satisfactory turning space within the curtilage of the site. 7. Ensures that no surface water from within the site flows onto the highway.
APPRAISAL This application is called to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
The application seeks the renewal of outline planning permission on land adjoining Sunningdale Bungalow, Wernffrwd.
The main issues to be considered therefore if there has been any material change in planning circumstances since the previous approval and whether or not these changes have now rendered the site unacceptable in terms of development.
The principle of the development of this site for one bungalow has been firmly established by previous permissions and the last permission granted in July 2006 remains extant. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0465
However, only a short period of time remains for the submission of a reserved matters application, and as such an application has been resubmitted for a further outline permission. Although the Unitary Development Plan has been adopted since the outline was last renewed in 2006, the thrust of Policy EV16, which covers criteria for development within small villages, remains the same as the previous Policy V3 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No.1. Therefore, it is considered that has been no material change in policy or other material planning considerations since the granting of the previous permissions and it is considered that the site remains suitable for the accommodation of a single bungalow. Therefore, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions that were previously imposed.
Details of a bungalow that could be accommodated on the site have been submitted to for illustrative purposes. However, these details are not considered acceptable in terms of design and external appearance as the two bungalows either side of the site have hipped roofs and the bungalow proposed has a large gable roof. Therefore, these details have not been considered as part of this planning permission.
In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that in principle the proposal remains an appropriate form of new scale development within the small village of Wernffrwd, which is considered to comply with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2 and EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 Approval of the details of the siting, design and external 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.
3 The development to which this permission relates shall be begun either before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this outline permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that development is begun within a reasonable period.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0465
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 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.
6 A minimum of 2 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site, at least one of which shall be set behind the building line, and shall be used only for the purpose specified. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway.
7 The bungalow details submitted as part of the application do not form part of this planning permission. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
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, EV16
2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
3 To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System, foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.
4 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment, no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment, land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system.
PLANS
Site location plan, block plan, sections, proposed elevations, proposed floor plan, proposed first floor plan received 17th April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 14 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0852 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: The Gables Llanmadoc Swansea SA3 1DB Proposal: Single storey side/rear extension Applicant: Mr Geoff Clement
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 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 99/1245 SINGLE STOREY SIDE/REAR EXTENSION AND FIRST FLOOR REAR BALCONY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 19/11/1999
96/4258/S TWO STOREY AND SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSIONS, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND ADDITION OF SIDE CONSERVATORY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 12/07/1996
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0852
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
Two neighbouring residents were individually consulted. NO RESPONSE.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a single storey side/rear extension at The Gables, Llanmadoc, Gower. The application property is situated within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and is set well back from the main highway being accessed from a narrow single track access lane known as Frog Lane.
Within the Gower AONB the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area. This is further underlined by recent national planning policy guidance, Planning Policy Wales 2002, which emphasises that development control decisions affecting the AONB should respect this primary objective and favour the conservation of natural beauty and protect the character and appearance of the AONB from inappropriate development.
The main issues for consideration with regard to this application are the impact on the character and appearance of the original dwelling, the surrounding area and AONB, the impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents and highway safety, having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human rights Act.
In terms of visual amenity, the land levels fall from north to south and part of the extension would be below the existing ground level. The proposed ‘L’ extension would be sited to the side (north) and rear (east) of the application property and would measure approximately 6.4 metres in length, 4.6 metres in width, with a maximum ridge height of 3.2 metres. The proposed extension would be finished in materials to match the dwelling approved and are considered appropriate to the local character of the area. On this basis, the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed extension would be in keeping with the dwelling house and 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 street scene or the visual relationship of the character of the area and its setting which contributes positively to the quality of the Gower AONB.
Having regard to the siting of the dwelling and the relationship with the nearest neighbouring dwellings, it is not considered that the proposed extension would give rise to any overbearing or overshadowing impacts in this instance. The topography of the land at this location dictates that the proposed extension would be set down into the ground. The window to the front (west) overlooks the access lane, whilst the proposed windows to the rear (east) and the side (north) overlook the curtilage and amenity area of the application property and as such, it is not considered that there would be any demonstrable unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy impact from the ground floor windows in the proposed extension over and above that which currently exists. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0852
On this basis, it is not considered that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on residential amenity.
The proposal does not affect the existing car parking arrangements and there are no highway safety implications.
In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding area and would not have any detrimental impact on the wider AONB. The proposal is considered an appropriate form of development which would not have a significant unacceptable impact upon the visual and residential amenities currently enjoyed in the vicinity. As such the proposal complies with Policies EV1, EV2 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. 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: Policies EV1, EV2, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development.
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 this building and grounds, please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0852
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 (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).
PLANS
1 site location plan, 2 block plan and existing floor plan, 3 existing elevations, 4 proposed plans received 9th June 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 15 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0624 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Field 7700, Bank Farm, Horton, Swansea Proposal: Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum 160 units from 23rd July to 15th August 2010 (inclusive) Applicant: The Camping and Caravanning Club
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EC22 Control of camping and touring caravans on farms and storage of touring caravans. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2008/1728 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum 160 units from 16th August 2009 to 5th September 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 16/10/2008
2001/0897 Use of land for caravanning rally for approximately 150 units from 24 May to 2 June 2002 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/07/2001
2001/1364 Use of field for a caravan rally for approximately 150 units from 24 May to 5 June 2002 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 21/09/2001
2002/0950 Use of land for a caravan and camping rally for approximately 160 units from 18th July to 10 August 2003 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 19/07/2002
2002/0951 Use of land for a caravan and camping rally for approximately 300 units from 23rd May to 1 June 2003 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 19/07/2002
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0624
2003/1025 Use of land for a caravan rally for approximately 160 units from 28th May to 6th June 2004 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 23/07/2003
2003/1032 Use of land for a caravan rally for approximately 160 units from 16th July to 8th August 2004 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 23/07/2003
2004/1557 Use of land for a camping and caravan rally for approximately 160 units from 15th July 2005 to 7th August 2005 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 20/08/2004
2004/1554 Use of land for a camping and caravan rally for approximately 160 units from 27th May 2005 to 5th June 2005 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 20/08/2004
2005/1021 Use of land for a caravan rally for approximately 160 units from 26th May to 4th June 2006 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 24/06/2005
2005/1023 Use of land for a caravan rally for approximately 160 units from 14th July to 6th August 2006 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 24/06/2005
2006/0751 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 160 units from 19th October to 28th October 2007 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 19/06/2006
2006/0752 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 160 units from 25th May 2007 to 3rd June 2007 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2006
2006/0753 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 160 units from 27th July 2007 to 19th August 2007 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2006
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0624
2007/1206 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for a maximum of 160 units from 25th July to 17th August 2008 inclusive Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 06/07/2007
2008/1227 Use of land for a camping and caravan rally for a maximum 160 units from 24th July to 16th August 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 04/08/2008
2008/1232 Use of land for a camping and caravan rally for a maximum 160 units from 22nd May to 31st May 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 04/08/2008
2009/0953 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 30 units from 5th to 23rd August 2010 (inclusive) Decision: CALLED IN Application (Swansea) Decision Date: 01/07/2009
CONSULTATIONS The application was advertised on site. No response.
The Gower Society – Objects:
1. We have repeatedly expressed our concerns about such rallies that appear to us to be a back door method of getting around the planning restrictions within the AONB and the UDP. 2. This rally will add to the large amount of caravans that will already be present on this site during this period. 3. We query whether the site can cope with such number i.e. waste water disposal, water supply and refuse disposal, as well as the local sewerage system and water supply from Welsh Water. 4. 160 units entering Gower and Bank farm at the peak of the season will add to the traffic congestion on the Gower Roads, 5. Field 7700 is well away from the main site and in the open countryside. 6. We note the large number of applications of applications for caravan rallies at Bank Farm and ask that you rigorously check these for overlap and legality.
Penrice Community Council – Wish to make the same comments as previous (on planning permission 2008/1728 for the same number of units they stated - Concerned with the large number of caravans that were proposed to attend this caravan rally and wish to raise the question of how the City and County of Swansea monitor the total number of rallies in each week of the year in this camp site.)
Highway Observations – No highway objection to this renewal of temporary permission.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0624
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
This farm is used frequently for holiday rallies and the planning history goes back for many years. There has been no material change in planning circumstances and there is no policy objection to the proposal. In addition, this rally does not exceed the number of units that have previously been approved and does not clash with any other rally that has been already been allowed on the site.
Turning to the comments made by the Gower Society and the Community Council, their concerns are noted but the site has been used for rallies for numerous years with no complaints. Each caravan rally is carefully monitored by Officers to ensure there are no unacceptable clashes in time and location and that the numbers requested do not exceed those which have previously been allowed. Therefore, this careful monitoring undertaken should, it is considered, overcome the concerns of The Gower Society and the Community Council. It should also be noted that no objections have been received from Welsh Water with regards to the impact upon waste water disposal or water supply and the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal.
In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, it is considered the proposal would comply with the objectives of Policy EC22 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following condition:
1 This permission is granted for the following dates only, 23rd July 2010 to 15th August 2010 (inclusive), and is without prejudice to any application that may be received in the future either from the applicants or in respect of this site. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may review the situation and in order to achieve a satisfactory form and pattern of development in accordance with the intentions of the Article 4 Direction.
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: EC22
2 The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Head of Environmental Health Services of the City and County of Swansea.
3 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0624
PLANS
Site location plan received 27th April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 16 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0636 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Weobley Castle Farm, (Field 8753), Llanrhidian, Gower Proposal: Use of land for camping and caravan rally for the maximum of 30 units from 7th - 9th May 2010 (inclusive) Applicant: The Camping and Caravanning Club
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EC22 Control of camping and touring caravans on farms and storage of touring caravans. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2009/0923 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for the maximum of 50 units from 25th - 27th June 2010 (inclusive) Decision: CALLED IN Application (Swansea) Decision Date: 26/06/2009
2008/1204 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for the maximum of 90 units from 8th - 10th May 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 25/07/2008
88/0097/04 RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY PERMISSION FOR THE SITING OF 5 CARAVANS DURING THE 1988 AND 1989 SEASONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/02/1988
88/1904/04 CARAVAN RALLY FROM 26TH MAY TO 30TH MAY 1989 INC FOR 80 UNITS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/01/1989
90/0601/04 CARAVAN RALLY FOR APPROX 80 UNITS FROM 18TH MAY 1990 TO 20TH MAY 1990 INCLUSIVE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/05/1990
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0636
91/0022/04 CARAVAN RALLY FOR 90 UNITS APPROXIMATELY FROM 7TH JUNE 1991 TO 9TH JUNE 1991 Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/02/1991
91/0023/04 CARAVAN RALLY FOR 70 UNITS APPROXIMATELY FROM 28TH MAY 1991 TO 2ND JUNE 1991 INCLUSIVE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/02/1991
91/1436 TEMPORARY PERMISSION FOR THE USE OF LAND FOR CAMPING AND CARAVAN RALLY FOR APPROXIMATELY 70 UNITS FROM 8TH TO 10TH MAY 1992 Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 17/01/1992
A00/1375 USE OF LAND FOR A CARAVAN RALLY FOR APPROXIMATELY 80 UNITS FROM 6TH JULY TO 8TH JULY 2001 (INCLUSIVE) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/10/2000
2001/0902 Renewal of temporary permission for the siting of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is earlier) to 31st October during the 2002 and 2003 seasons Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/07/2001
2002/1074 Use of land for a caravan rally for approximately 35 units from 11th to 13th July 2003 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 19/07/2002
2003/0440 Use of land for a caravan rally for approximately 20 units from 27th June until 29th June 2003 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 02/05/2003
2003/1285 Use of land for a caravan rally for approximately 40 units from 2nd to 4th July 2004 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 08/08/2003
2004/0757 Use of land for caravan rally for approx. 20 units from 18th-20th June 2004 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 06/05/2004
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0636
2004/2252 Use of land for caravan rally for approximately 60 units from 1st July until 3rd July 2005 (Inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 12/11/2004
2005/0051 Use of land for a caravan rally for approximately 20 units from 9th September to 11th September 2005 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 18/02/2005
2006/0634 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 50 units from 30th June 2006 to 2nd July 2006 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2006
2006/0758 Renewal of temporary permission for the siting of 5 touring caravans from 15th May-30th October during 2006 season and Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is earlier) to 31st October during the 2007 seasons Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2006
2007/0319 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 20 units from 15th to 17th June 2007 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 28/03/2007
2007/0434 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum 45 units from 22nd June 2007 to 24th June 2007 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 30/03/2007
2007/1203 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for a maximum of 90 units from 2nd May to 5th May 2008 inclusive Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 01/08/2007
2007/2376 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum 50 units from 27th June 2008 to 29th June 2008 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 17/12/2007
2008/0556 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum 20 units from 14th August 2008 to 17th August 2008 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 28/04/2008
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0636
2008/1179 Use of land for caravan rally for approx. 50 units from 26th - 28th June 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 24/07/2008
CONSULTATIONS The application was advertised on site and in the press as a development which may affect a public right of way. No response.
The Gower Society – Objects: 1. We have repeatedly expressed concerns about such rallies which are a back door method of increasing caravan numbers in the AONB. 2. Whilst it is not a peak time or for a lengthy period the access to this site is long and narrow and traffic congestion is likely. 3. The site is already licensed as a Caravan Club CL for 5 vans in adjacent field. 4. We ask what is the overall policy with the authority for rallies?
Highway Observations – I have no objection to this renewal of temporary consent.
APPRAISAL
The application is called to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
This farm has been used frequently for holiday rallies and the planning history goes back a number of years. There has been no material change in planning circumstances. Whilst it is acknowledged that The Gower Society has concerns with rallies at this location, the site has been used for rallies in the past whilst also being a 5 van site. However, the number of units do not exceed the number that have been allowed on the site previously, and the short timescale over which the rally would take place would dictate that any visual impact would not be so significant to warrant or sustain a recommendation of refusal or cause any undue impact upon highway conditions, services or neighbouring residents.
The proposal does not conflict with other possible rallies and therefore it is considered that the proposal complies with the objectives of Policy EC22 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE, subject to the following condition:
1 This permission is granted for the following dates only, 7th May 2010 to 9th May 2010 (inclusive), and is without prejudice to any application that may be received in the future either from the applicants or in respect of this site. Reason: In order that the Local Planning Authority may review the situation and in order to achieve a satisfactory form and pattern of development in accordance with the intentions of the Article 4 Direction.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0636
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: EC22
2 The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Head of Environmental Health Services of the City and County of Swansea.
3 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
PLANS
Site location plan received 7th May 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 17 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0540 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Part of Field 4823 Port Eynon Swansea Proposal: Two detached dwellings (outline) Applicant: LAE, C and P Jones and R Morris
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 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 EV6 Scheduled ancient monuments, their setting and other sites within the County Sites and Monuments Record will be protected, preserved and enhanced. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0540
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 82/0653/03 TO REGULARISE THE SITING OF THREE STATIC CARAVANS (EXISTING) Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 29/07/1982
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS:
Gower Society: Following observations:
1. The application is totally against the UDP. 2. We note that the site is only entitled to 3 caravans; yet we have picked up 4 on our surveys since August 2006 (as well as the application claiming the same number). 3. Any consideration of this outline application would set a dangerous precedent for the Gower AONB. 4. We suspect that this a speculative and ill advised application.
We have no alternative but to strongly object to this application.
Highways: I have no objection in principle to development of this site subject to satisfactory access arrangements and adequate parking and turning facilities within each plot.
Port Eynon Community Council: Object on the following grounds:
1. Application should be refused. 2. Construction of two dwellings at this location contrary to the Development Plan. 3. Approval would set a dangerous precedent. 4. New Access should not be permitted.
Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust: Observations summarised as follows: The site has an archaeological restraint, and should be deferred until a report on the archaeological evaluation has been submitted.
APPRAISAL:
This application has been reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
Outline planning permission is sought for two detached dwellings at part of field 4823, Port Eynon, Swansea. All details relating to layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping to be determined as reserved matters at a later date. The plots themselves are located within the middle of field within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are currently three holiday caravans on the site.
In this particular case, the application was advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan as the site is located within the open countryside and no information has been submitted to support the agricultural need for the dwellings.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0540
The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposed residential development on this greenfield site and the surrounding landscape and environment having regard to the prevailing policies of the Development Plan and recent national planning policy guidance, which seek to protect the open countryside from inappropriate urban encroachment, and conserve and enhance the character and quality of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.
Policies EV16 and EV20 of the UDP presume against new housing within the open countryside of the Gower AONB other than on suitable plots within the boundaries of an existing settlement or where development is required to meet the overriding economic or social needs of a local community. In essence these policies seek to ensure that the AONB countryside is conserved and enhanced and that the natural beauty and environment of the countryside is protected for its own sake. These policies are further developed in the Swansea UDP with Policies EV22 and EV26 reflecting the main objective of conserving and protecting the Gower AONB from inappropriate development. In particular Policy EV20 seeks to resist new residential development in the open countryside unless there is a proven agricultural or forestry need or there are overriding economic or social needs. In addition, Policy EV16 specifically restricts development outside the settlement boundary of Gower villages, and in particular resists “capturing” surrounding countryside by extending the built up area, and ribbon development will not be permitted.
Policies EV1 and EV2 require that the design and layout of new development proposals should respect and be sympathetic to the character and amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings, and protect the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. As all further details are to be considered as reserved matters issues relating to residential amenities and design could be considered and controlled at a later date.
In this case no evidence has been submitted that the proposal is required for an agricultural or forestry workers dwelling and no overriding economic or social need (eg. social housing or similar) has been identified. There is no justification therefore for the introduction of a new dwelling within the Gower countryside and the proposal would result in an undesirable visual intrusion into the open countryside and would comprise unacceptable ribbon development along this lane which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Gower AONB.
The proposal therefore fails to provide an essential agricultural or overriding economic or social need for a dwelling at this open countryside location within the Gower AONB, and there are no other material considerations that outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. Moreover, if approved it would establish an undesirable precedent for the consideration of other applications of a similar nature, the cumulative impact of which would seriously detract from the natural beauty of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering there are no highways objections subject to conditions.
Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust has identified that the application site is central to a known area of flint implements. Ground disturbance of the scale needed for the proposed development will require foundations and services and may also locate archaeological features as well as finds.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0540
The proposed development therefore has the potential to affect archaeological remains and the Local Planning Authority in line with Planning Policy Wales and Welsh Office Circular 60/96 should request the prospective developer to arrange for an agricultural field evaluation to be carried out prior to determination.
However it is not considered reasonable to request the applicant to incur further expense given the overriding policy objections and therefore the application fails to address the archaeological objections, contrary to National Planning Policy Guidance and the provisions of the Development Plan.
Two letters of objection were received raising concerns relating to the proposal being contrary to the Development Plan policies, access and precedent for future developments of this sort. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.
In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the release of this land for new dwellings would result in an unacceptable urbanising and visually intrusive form of development within the Gower AONB and countryside, with no satisfactory rural justification or need, to the detriment of the rural character and status of this site and its landscape quality. As such the proposal would not only detract significantly from the character and appearance of the immediate surrounding vicinity, but would unacceptably harm the visual amenities and quality of this sensitive landscape and natural beauty of this part of Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Furthermore In these circumstances allowing this development would also set a precedent for the consideration of other applications for permanent dwellings on other sites of a similar nature in the Gower, the cumulative effect of which would be a significant erosion of the character and natural beauty of the AONB. Finally, the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust has advised the Council that the site has an archaeological restraint and in the absence of a report of the archaeological evaluation, the proposal fails to comply with Policy EV6 of the Swansea UDP. Therefore the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV6, EV16, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea UDP. On this basis it is not considered that there is any justification to warrant a departure from the Development Plan at this location. Refusal is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE, for the following reasons:
REASONS
1 The proposed development constitutes an unjustified new dwelling in the countryside where no agricultural need or overriding economic or social justification has been demonstrated. The proposed development would result in unacceptable ribbon development along this rural lane, and would capture an important area of countryside. As such it will represent an unacceptable sporadic form of urbanising development that detracts significantly from the character and appearance of this countryside location and the natural beauty of this part of Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV16, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea UDP.
2 Approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for the consideration of other proposals of a similar nature, the cumulative effect of which would be the incremental erosion of the natural beauty and character of the Gower AONB contrary to the provisions of Policies EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea UDP. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0540
3 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact upon pre-historic archaeological features which are prevalent in the area. As such the proposal is contrary to Planning Policy Wales 2002 Sec. 6.5.1, Welsh Office Circular 60/96 Sec 13 and Policies EV1, EV2 and EV6 of the Swansea UDP.
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, EV6, EV16, EV20, EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea UDP).
PLANS
Site location plan, existing site plan, block plan received 6th April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 18 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0750 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Sibrwd Y Coed Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1AQ Proposal: Side conservatory Applicant: Mr K Bethell
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV26 Within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
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 A01/0117 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 01/02/2001
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
Two neighbouring properties were consulted. No responses have been received.
Penrice Community Council: Supports this application
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
Full planning permission is sought for a construction of a side conservatory extension at the property known as ‘Sibrwd y Coed’, Penrice which is located in a secluded position within the area known as Little Reynoldston, within Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed conservatory will not be readily visible from surrounding areas due to the existing topography and the orientation of the property. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0750
The proposed conservatory will be orientated towards Tegfynydd to the south west. Whilst the dwelling is located next to an area of common land it is not considered that the proposed works will affect the common in any way.
The main issues to consider in this instance are the impact of the proposed development upon the visual amenity of the property, the street scene, the wider context of Gower AONB, and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, having regard to the prevailing provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: A Design Guide for Householder Development. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional issues.
The proposed scheme has been considered against Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
With regard to impact upon visual amenity the side conservatory incorporates a scale and design which is considered sympathetic to the character of the host dwelling. Moreover, the secluded location of the proposed conservatory is considered to ensure that it would not have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed works are not, therefore, considered to have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance and natural beauty of the AONB.
Turning to residential amenity it is considered that the siting, modest scale and orientation of the proposed conservatory extension will not have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of increased overbearing and/or overshadowing impact. Similarly, the siting of the conservatory opposite the pine end of Tegfynydd, together with satisfactory separation distances and substantial screen afforded by boundary treatments will ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties are satisfactorily protected.
In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposed side conservatory is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which complies with current development plan policy and has an acceptable impact upon the visual amenities of the area, the character and appearance of the AONB and residential amenities of neighbouring properties. 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 & County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0750
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 and HC7
2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
PLANS
BBA441.F.03 site location plan, BBA441.F.01 existing plans, BBA441.F.02A proposed plans received 26th May 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 19 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0602 WARD: Area 2 Bishopston
Location: Seren, Reigit Lane, Murton, Swansea SA3 3AN Proposal: Detached outbuilding Applicant: Mr Jonathan 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).
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2002/1245 Two storey rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 17/09/2002
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
Three neighbouring properties were consulted individually. No response.
Bishopston Community Council: Objects, for the following reason: The proposed shed is forward of the building line.
APPRAISAL This application is called to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Keith Marsh
The proposal is for a detached store/outbuilding for the storing of disability aids in the front garden serving a bungalow named Seren. The property is located near the corner of Reigit Lane and Mansel Drive, Murton. The development would involve the erection of a rendered block and brick outbuilding with a footprint measuring 2.8 metres x 3.2 metres. The development would be fairly modest rising to a maximum height at the ridge of 3.1 metres.
The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposed shed on the character and appearance of the property, and the surrounding street scene, and the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers having regard to the prevailing provisions of the Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: A Design Guide for Householder Development. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional issues.
The Council is committed to achieving high standards of design in all new developments, and Policy EV1 requires that this is appropriate to its local context and integrates effectively with adjacent spaces and the public realm to create good quality townscape. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 19 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0602
In addition, Paragraph 7.2 of the Council’s Supplementary Design Guidance: A Design Guide for Householder Development requires that the size and position of a proposed new outbuilding should not impact detrimentally on the space around the house. This is reinforced by Paragraph 7.4 of this SPG guidance that explains that outbuildings should not generally be positioned in front of the main house unless this forms part of the character of the street.
The applicant has indicated that the outbuilding is proposed to be sited forward of the building line in order to preserve rear amenity space at this property. However, in visual terms it is considered that this siting does not respect the pattern and form of development that is considered to contribute to the overall character of the area and therefore conflicts with the guidance for domestic outbuildings in Chapter 7 of the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development
Whilst the proposed development is relatively well screened from its neighbours and from the nearest highway this is not considered sufficient justification to warrant in this case a recommendation of approval. Furthermore it is considered that approval of the proposed development would establish undesirable precedent for future development of this nature giving rise to further erosion of the character and appearance of the surrounding street scene. Moreover, whilst it is noted that there are a number of small sheds in neighbouring gardens, these do not appear to have been formally approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Turning to residential amenity the siting of the proposed development would dictate that there would be no undue impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties by virtue of unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing physical impact.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that whilst the proposed shed is relatively small, its siting in the front garden of the property forward of the building line is unacceptable and as such fails to comply with policy EV1of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan, and the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development.
RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE for the following reason:
1 The proposed outbuilding, by virtue of its siting would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing street scene and that of the surrounding area and give rise to an unacceptable precedent for development of a similar nature in the future contrary to Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance Document entitled: A Design Guide for Householder Development.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 19 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0602
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, proposed elevations received 1st May 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 20 APPLICATION NO. 2008/1223 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Land adjoining Town House, Llangennith, Swansea Proposal: Two detached dwellings (one with integral garage) Applicant: Mr Aubrey Davies
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV9 Development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area will only be permitted if it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV26 Within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area's natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy 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 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 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 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 2007/2523 Three detached dwellings (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 22/01/2008
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/1223
2003/0041 Construction of two detached dwellings (outline) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 16/09/2003
CONSULTATIONS The application was advertised in the local press and on site as a Development within the Llangennith Conservation Area and seven individual properties were consulted. SIX LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which are summarised as follows:
1. Outline planning permission was granted on this site in 2003 and the increase in the number of residents, visitors and traffic in the most tightly congested part of the village must be taken into account during the review of the proposal. 2. The danger that this stretch of road presents cannot be over-emphasised and the dangers of this section of road are evident to anyone who cares to investigate. 3. The proposed dwellings do not take into account the character of the area and do not bear relationship to the words infill or small scale development. 4. The plans fail to indicate that there is a hedge of mature trees on the boundary to no.3. 5. It is not clear why the development at the Kings Head is mentioned in the supporting statement but this tourist development will do nothing to enhance the village. 6. We will be overlooked reducing our privacy. 7. We object to two storey houses but are less opposed to bungalows. 8. We would urge the Council to insist on fewer/smaller/frosted windows in the rear especially in plot 2. 9. We would plea for an increase in the number of trees proposed along the boundary with our property. 10. We would urge the Council to ensure all of the existing mature trees along the boundary are retained to retain some element of privacy. 11. If there is no pavement on the same side of the road as the development, then I object. 12. The access is physically impossible to construct due to the proximity of the access to Town House. 13. The houses will result in hazards to both pedestrians and road users; an increase in traffic has not been accommodated by an improved road infrastructure.
In addition a detailed highway report by a local resident has been received, which indicates why they feel that the access to the site should not be constructed.
The Gower Society – Comments as follows:
1. We assume that this development could be classified as infill; however, it is more akin to a rear development in the open countryside. 2. The note that the proposal is for one less dwelling than a previous application’; we still consider this to be an overdevelopment for the location. It should be noted that each similar sized plot in the vicinity only has 1 house on the plot. 3. We are still concerned about the access onto this narrow section of the highway.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/1223
Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water – ORIGINAL OBSERVATION - Objects – as the proposed development would overload the existing public sewerage system.
AMENDED OBSERVATION – Having reviewed the information, we are now in a position to remove the objection for planning application 2008/1223, subject to conditions.
Environment Agency – ORIGINAL OBSERVATION – Object – as it involves the use of a non-mains foul drainage system in a publicly sewered area with no justification for this method.
AMENDED OBSERVATION – Withdraw objection subject to a condition “as it is stated that a connection is sought for foul water only and that “storm water disposal should be relatively straight forward on this site” suggesting the use of soakaways and rainwater harvesting as a “green” sustainable drainage system (SUDS). We would agree with the content of this letter and recommend that connection to the main sewerage system be sought for the disposal of foul water.”
Highway Observations - This proposal has been consented previously in 2003 and is to construct two dwellings with a shared access from the narrowed highway near the Kings Head public house. Traffic speeds along the narrow section are restricted due to the narrowing and I am satisfied that additional turning movements can be accommodated without resulting in any unacceptable harm to local highway safety conditions.
The shared access width is acceptable and will allow two vehicles to pass and provided that visibility is secured at the access junction the access proposal is acceptable. The front boundary wall is proposed to be below 1m high which will allow visibility across it for emerging drivers to see and be seen. Adequate parking is indicated within the curtilage of each plot and vehicles will be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear provided that a communal turning facility is included.
I recommend no highway objection subject to the following;
1. Visibility splays shall be provided at the access junction and shall measure a minimum of 2.4 x 25m in each direction in accordance with details to be submitted and approved. 2. A communal turning facility shall be provided within the site in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.
APPRAISAL:
This application is called to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
Full planning permission is sought for the erection of two detached dwellings on land adjoining Town House within the Llangennith Village Conservation Area. Details of the siting, design, external appearance and the means of access were considered and approved as part of the previous outline application (2003/0041 refers), with only the landscaping being reserved for future consideration. This current scheme, with landscaping details submitted, apart from an amendment to the turning area in the site, is identical in detail to that previously approved. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/1223
The landscaping details include the planting of native double row staggered hedgerow to all boundaries with the introduction of hawthorn trees and rowan tree within the site as well as a variety of ornamental shrubs and lawn to the rear of the dwellings. The species proposed are considered appropriate for this area.
The site is broadly rectangular in shape with a frontage along the road to the south of 31m and a depth which varies between 28m and 44m. A stone wall with a hedge above runs along the southern site boundary, hedges bound the site to the north and west, and a low stone wall delineates the curtilage of the Town House to the east. The site contains grass, bracken and bramble.
Access would be by means of a shared drive of 4.5m in width situated at the south eastern corner of the site. It is proposed to replace the existing stone boundary wall fronting the highway with a new stone wall designed to accommodate the necessary visibility splays.
The gable wall of the dwelling proposed on Plot 1 will face the road to the south and will be set back 2m from the stone boundary wall. It will be two storey and of traditional farmhouse design with a rectangular footprint with a depth of 6.3m and width of 13.5m. The pitched roof will have a ridge height of 8.4m, a small pitched roof porch is proposed to the front elevation and there will be an integral garage to the north of the front elevation. The submitted plans indicate rendered walls, a concrete tile roof, brick chimney and uPVC windows. However, it is considered that the proposed materials should be controlled by condition to ensure conformity with the sensitive location of the site within the Llangennith Conservation Area.
The dwelling proposed on Plot 2 will be situated to the north of Plot 1 with the gable walls orientated on a similar north-south axis, although the property will be positioned approximately 1.5m forward of the property at Plot 1. It will be two storey and of a similar traditional farmhouse design with a pitched roof, central front porch but no integral garage is proposed. The footprint is rectangular with a depth of 7.5m and width of 12.8m and the pitched roof will have a ridge height of 9m. The submitted plans indicate rendered walls, a slate roof, brick chimneys and Upvc windows. However, again it is recommended that the external materials are controlled by condition.
The main issues to consider are the suitability of this site for residential development, the effect of the proposal on the character of the Llangennith Conservation Area and this part of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and its impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of adjoining dwellings. In considering these issues, specific regard should be made to adopted development plan policy and previous planning history relevant to this file. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional material considerations in this case.
Within the Gower AONB the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area. This is further underlined by recent national planning policy guidance, Planning Policy Wales 2002, which emphasises that development control decisions affecting the AONB should respect this primary objective and favour the conservation of natural beauty and protect the character and appearance of the AONB from inappropriate development.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/1223
The principal relevant development plan policies are Policies EV9 and EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Policy EV9 requires development proposals within Conservation Areas to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of their design, scale, massing, materials and relation to existing buildings and spaces. Policy EV16 lists similar criteria for new development within all of the small Gower Villages. In addition Policy EV1 seeks to protect the amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties and Policies EV22 and EV26 refer specifically to the protection of the countryside and the AONB. The site is bound by residential properties on three sides and is considered to be within the village of Llangennith.
Turning to detailed matters, it is considered that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate two dwellings. Part of the character of the village is derived from stone wall boundaries to front gardens and although a shared driveway will be created at the south east corner of the site, the existing stone wall will be replaced with a new stone wall to reflect this characteristic. The gable end of the plot 1 dwelling will face onto the road as is characteristic in many small Gower villages and its siting 2m from the road will maintain the tight knit core of this part of the Conservation Area. However it is proposed to retain approximately 20m between the proposed dwellings and the Town House which will ensure that the development maintains spaces between buildings and does not appear too cramped.
The proposed dwellings are of a traditional rural scale and design and in general traditional materials will be used. It is proposed however, to attach conditions should planning permission be granted which will ensure that the roofs are constructed of natural slate, the windows of timber and that the walls are rendered. It is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the Conservation Area and this part of the AONB and would therefore be broadly in accord with current planning policy which requires new development to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and appropriate to the small village location.
With regard to residential amenity and notwithstanding that the application site is at a slightly higher level than properties in Walters Lane to the west, the rear garden of Plot 2 varies in length different from 10m to 16m with the rear of the dwelling facing the side elevation of the bungalow at 3 Walters Lane. The rear garden of Plot 1 is smaller with its length ranging from 10.8m to 7.4m, however, the rear of the proposed dwelling faces onto the front garden of 3 Walters Lane which is located on the corner of Walters Lane and does not currently enjoy a significant degree of privacy. It is not considered that the proposal will detract to a significant degree from the residential amenities presently enjoyed by the occupiers of that property by virtue of overbearing physical impact, loss of privacy or overlooking. With regard to the Town House the front elevation of the proposed dwelling at Plot 2 is 19.8m from its rear elevation and again it is not considered that the proposal will detract to a significant degree from the residential amenities presently enjoyed by the occupiers of that property by virtue of overbearing physical impact, loss of privacy or overlooking.
Concerns have been raised that the proposed dwellings would result in direct overlooking and loss of privacy and this issue has been addressed above. The concern with regards to the design of the dwellings, this has also been addressed above where the design is described as “traditional design”, which is acknowledged would not match the bungalows in Walters Lane. However, Llangennith has a mixture of styles and design of dwellings and it is considered that the traditional design of the houses will relate well to this part of the Llangennith Conservation Area, the street scene and the surrounding AONB. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/1223
The issue of additional trees to the west of the site has been raised but it is not considered, given the distance between the rear of the dwellings and the boundary together with the acceptable landscaping details submitted that there is a need to increase the planting over and above that which is already proposed.
Turning to the highways issues raised in the objection letters which include a report prepared into the proposed road junction by a local resident. A plan has been submitted by the applicant indicating the extent of the vision splay and The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no objection after considering these details subject to the turning facilities indicated on the submitted plans being retained in perpetuity. An appropriately worded condition is therefore recommended.
When the application was initially submitted both the Environment Agency and Welsh Water raised an objection to the scheme. However, after both Authorities had lengthy discussions with the applicant and his agent, a scheme for the drainage of the site has been agreed and as such both objections have now been withdrawn subject to conditions, which will be included as part of this planning permission.
In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to be a satisfactory form of development which complies with Development Plan Policy for new development within the Llangennith Conservation Area and small Gower Villages and represents a satisfactory form of development at this location, with no adverse impact on the character and natural beauty of the Gower AONB. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to conditions.
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 roofing materials for the proposed dwellings shall be natural blue/grey slate or synthetic alternatives in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: In order to ensure that the external appearance of the building is visually acceptable and in harmony with its surroundings.
3 The proposed dwelling shall have timber windows and be roughcast rendered and painted in a colour to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the external appearance of the building is visually acceptable and in harmony with its surroundings.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/1223
4 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Classes A, B and E 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.
6 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul and surface waters has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Foul drainage shall connect with the existing mains drains. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
7 The turning facilities indicated on plan No. PO3 dated 28th August 2008 shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and be retained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the freeflow of traffic.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV9, EV12, EV16, EV22, EV26
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 this building and its 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 To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System, foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 20 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2008/1223
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.
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.
PLANS
Site location plan, block plan, plot 1 elevations and floor plans, plo1 side elevation, landscaping for plot 1, plot 2 elevations, plot 2 floor plans, landscaping for plot 2, planting details received 23rd June 2008, PO5, PO2, PO3, PO4, PO1dated 28th August 2008.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 21 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0609 WARD: Area 2 Gower
Location: Gelli Deg Penmaen Swansea Proposal: First floor rear extension Applicant: Mr J T and Mrs M A Hart
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy 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 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 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 EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 89/1727/03 EXTENSION OF EXISTING DWELLING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 14/02/1990
78/1193/03 CONVERSION OF AN OUTBUILDING INTO LIVING ROOM Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/10/1978
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 21 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0609
77/1039/01 IMPROVEMENT OF BARN AND COALSHED TO EXTEND LIVING ACCOMMODATION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/10/1977
CONSULTATIONS The application was advertised on site. No response.
Ilston Community Council – No response
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
Full planning permission is requested for a first floor rear extension at Gelli Deg, Penmaen, which is situated at an open countryside location within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed extension would replace an existing first floor open balcony, which was approved as part of a scheme in February 1990 (Ref: 89/1727). The proposed extension would measure 2.1m in depth, 4.65m in width and would have a height of 2.9m; the overall height matching the height of the existing dwelling and extension. Materials proposed would match those of the existing dwelling.
The main issues for consideration with regard to this application are the impact on the character and appearance of the original dwelling, the surrounding countryside and AONB and the impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents, having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV22, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human rights Act.
In terms of residential amenity, the detached nature of the property would dictate that there would be no undue impact with regards to direct overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing physical impact.
At present on site, there is a single storey rear extension with a balcony above, against which a white uPVC conservatory has been constructed, which the applicant has indicated would be removed. The proposed extension would effectively enclose the existing balcony, two sides of which would be glazed and two sides would be of solid construction. The unsympathetic extension allowed in 1990 has already changed the character of the original dwelling and it is not therefore considered that the first floor extension proposed under this application would further compromise the appearance of this dwelling to an extent that would warrant a recommendation of refusal. Indeed, it is considered that if the existing conservatory is removed, the visual amenities of the property would be improved.
In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding countryside and would not have any detrimental impact on the wider AONB. The proposal is considered an appropriate form of development which would not have a significant unacceptable impact upon the visual and residential amenities currently enjoyed in the vicinity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009
ITEM 21 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0609
As such the proposal complies with Policies EV1, EV2, EV22, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. 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 materials used in the development hereby approved shall match those of the existing building. 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, EV22, EV26 and HC7 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development.
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 (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 this building and grounds please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14TH JULY 2009 ITEM 21 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0609
PLANS
Site location plan, existing plans, existing elevations, proposed floor plans, proposed elevations received 22nd April 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
Councillors:
V A Bates-Hughes (Non-Voting) R D Lewis (Chairman) J E Burtonshaw K E Marsh M C Child P M Matthews A R A Clement(Non-Voting) P N May A C S Colburn P M Meara A M Day J T Miles W Evans W K Morgan E W Fitzgerald J Newbury R Francis-Davies C L Philpott N A Holley (Non-Voting) D Phillips (Non-Voting) P R Hood-Williams D Price D H James T H Rees W E A Jones J C Richards D I E Jones G Seabourne J W Jones M Smith Mary H Jones P B Smith S M Jones R J Stanton A Jopling N J Tregoning J B Kelleher D W W Thomas R H Kinzett (Non-Voting) D P Tucker (Vice Chairman) E T Kirchner S M Waller Thomas