CITY AND COUNTY OF

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

At: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, SWANSEA

On: Tuesday 22 November 2011

Time: 2.00p.m. Members are asked to contact John Lock (Planning Control Manager) on 635731 or Phil Baxter on 635733 should they wish to have submitted plans and other images of any of the applications on this agenda to be available for display at the Committee meeting.

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence.

2. Declarations of Interest To receive Disclosures of Personal and Prejudicial Interests from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. (NOTE: Members are requested to identify the Agenda Item /minute number/ planning application number and subject matter that their interest relates).

3. To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 25 October 2011.

FOR DECISION

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

5. Appeals Information Report.

6. Enforcement Information Report.

7. Exclusion of the Public.

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

8. Enforcement Progress Report.

9. Report Seeking Authorisation to take Enforcement Action.

Patrick Arran Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement 15 November 2011 Contact: Democratic Services 01792 636820

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

Item No. 2

Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item No. 3

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2011 AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor D P Tucker (Chair) presided

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

A C S Colburn S M Jones W K Morgan W Evans J D Kelleher J N Newbury E W Fitzgerald R D Lewis C L Philpott M E Gibbs K E Marsh G Seabourne D I E Jones P M Matthews C W R W D Thomas J W Jones P M Meara D W W Thomas M H Jones

45. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J E Burtonshaw, E T Kirchner, B G Owen, T H Rees, J C Richards and R J Stanton.

46. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct, the following interests were declared:

Councillor R D Lewis - Personal - Minute No. 50 - Items 1 and 2 - 2010/1101 and 2010/1102 - Daughter had wedding there - and left during discussion.

Councillor D P Tucker - Personal - Minute No. 50 - Item 7 - 2011/0192 - Business Interests and vacated the chair during debate; Personal - Minute No. 50 - Items 10 and 12 - 2010/1835 and 2011/0366 - knows both applicants and vacated the Chair and left during discussion.

47. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 27 September 2011 be agreed as a correct record.

48. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL

(1) RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning applications be DEFERRED for the reasons outlined below:

Item No. 3

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (25.10.2011) Cont’d

(#) (Item 3) Application No. 2011/0564

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

Reason

To enable further consideration to be given and to assess whether development has commenced on site.

(NOTE: Prior to deferral Mr Segar (agent) and Mr Strick (objector) addressed Committee and Members received a visual presentation.)

(#) (Item 12) Application No. 2011/0366

Removal of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission 89/0557 granted on 2 December 1991 to remove the agricultural occupancy condition at Penyfro, Penuel, Llanmorlais, Swansea

Reason

To consider further information submitted by the applicant.

(NOTE: Prior to deferral Mr Jenkins (applicant) addressed Committee.)

(NOTE: Councillor K E Marsh (Vice-Chair) presided for the above item.)

49. SITE VISITS

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

(Item 6) Application No. 2010/0332

Replacement detached dwelling house at Mermaid Cottage, Caswell Road, Caswell, Swansea.

Reason

To consider the impact of the changes to the scheme upon the residential amenity of neighbours.

Item No. 3

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (25.10.2011) Cont’d

(Item 7) Application No. 2011/0192

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

Reason

To assess the agricultural need and impact of the development on the area.

(Item 9) Application No. 2010/1708

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

Reason

To assess the impact of the development on neighbouring occupants and to assess structural stability.

(Item 14) Application No. 2011/0625

Retention of conversion and extension of barns to form wedding venue facility with ancillary accommodation and car park at Windmill Farm, Llanrhidian, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development given that the development has been completed.

(Item 15) Application No. 2011/0957

Retention of one internally illuminated fascia sign and one internally illuminated double sided projecting sign at The Seafarer, , , Swansea.

Reason

To assess the visual impact of the advertisement.

Item No. 3

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (25.10.2011) Cont’d

(Item 16) Application No. 2011/0982

Single storey side extension, first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers at 27 Mydam Lane, , Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area.

(Item 18) Application No. 2011/1012

Increase in eaves and ridge height of existing side extension at 11 Glanyrafon Close, , Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development upon the streetscene.

(Item 19) Application No. 2011/1091

Retention of single storey side/rear extension and detached garage at 2 Malt Hall, Llanrhidian, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the scale and impact and to consider landownership issues.

(Item 22) Application No. 2011/1221

Part two storey part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension at Oyster Gallery, 70 - 72 Newton Road, , Swansea.

Reason

To assess the highway impact of the development and the impact on neighbours.

(Item 24) Application No. 2011/1276

Retention of directional sign at Entrance Gate to Field 0042 , Swansea. Item No. 3

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (25.10.2011) Cont’d

Reason

To assess the need for the advertisement.

50. SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

The Planning Control Manager submitted a schedule of planning applications, reserved matters and planning applications. Amendments to this schedule were reported and are outlined below by (#).

RESOLVED that:

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

(#) (Item 4) Application No. 2011/0869

Addition to first floor and associated increase in ridge height providing accommodation in roof space with two front and one rear dormer, front bay window, front porch and front canopy at The Spinney Caswell Road, Caswell, Swansea.

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

• Mrs Evans (objector) addressed Committee.)

(#) (Item 5) Application No. 2011/0479

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

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

• Mr Cairns (applicant) and Mr Taylor (agent) addressed the Committee.

Item No. 3

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (25.10.2011) Cont’d

• Application approved contrary to Officer recommendations and subject to the following conditions as Committee considered the proposal would enhance the character of the area:

Condition

1. The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.

Condition

2. The materials used for the external surfaces of the development shall be in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced.

Reason

In the interests of visual amenity.)

(#) (Item 8) Application No. 2010/0914

Construction of 14 dwellings (outline) at North Gower Hotel, Llanrhidian, Swansea.

(NOTE: Approved subject to Section 106 Obligation)

Item No. 3

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (25.10.2011) Cont’d

(#) (Item 10) Application No. 2010/1835

Replacement dwelling and conversion of one barn to 3 holiday let units and construction of a detached two storey building to provide 2 holiday let accommodation units at Gelliorllwyn Farm, Llanmorlais, Swansea.

(NOTE: Councillor K Marsh (Vice-Chair) presided for the above item.)

(#) (Item 11) Application No. 2011/0250

Modification of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission 2/1/89/1910/03 granted on 26 April 1991 to permit amendments to Schedule 3 of the agreement to enable the amount of land tied to agricultural purposes to be reduced at Bishopswood Farm, Bishopston, Swansea.

(NOTE: Approved subject to Section 106 Obligation)

(Item 13) Application No. 2011/0371

Alterations to existing side porch, replacement rear dormer, raised decking with undercroft parking area and formation of new access at 17 Higher Lane, Swansea.

(#) (Item 17) Application No. 20110990

First floor rear extension at 2 Frogmore Lane, Knelston.

Additional Condition 03 added:

No additional windows or openings shall be inserted at first floor level in the south facing elevation of the extension herby permitted.

Reason

In the interest of privacy protection.

(2) the undermentioned planning applications BE REFERRED to Planning Committee with a recommendation of approval:

Item No. 3

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (25.10.2011) Cont’d

# (Item 1) Additional No. 2010/1101

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

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

• Mr Williams (applicant) addressed the Committee.

• Late letters of support and objection were reported.

• Application approved contrary to Officer recommendation for the following reason.

Reason

There were overriding economic benefits associated with the proposal and subject to conditions concerning colour of the fabric and landscaping.

# (Item 2) Additional No. 2010/1102

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

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

• Mr Williams (applicant) addressed the Committee.

• Late letters of support and objection were reported.

• Application approved contrary to Officer recommendation for the following reason. Item No. 3

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (25.10.2011) Cont’d

Reason

There were overriding economic benefits associated with the proposal and subject to conditions concerning colour of the fabric and landscaping.)

(3) the undermentioned planning application BE REFUSED for the reasons outlined in the report.

(Item 20) Application No. 2011/1093

Detached dwelling (outline) at Land at Wellpark Farm, , Swansea.

The meeting ended at 4.20 p.m.

CHAIR

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 25 October 2011 (GB/RR) 20 October 2011 CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA 1. BISHOPSTON DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE 5. 7. DUVANT Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration 8. FAIRWOOD & Planning to the Chair and Members of the 9. GORSEINON Area 2 Development Control Committee 10. GOWER 11. 12. DATE: 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 13. 14. KINGSBRIDGE 29 18. LOWER 20. 9 27 23. NEWTON 35 18 24. 14 25. 27. PENLLERGAER 11 28. 5 29. PENYRHEOL 25 32. 35. 7 8 12 36. WEST CROSS

13 32

20 10 36 28 1 23 24

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

CONTENTS

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

1 2010/0332 Mermaid Cottage Caswell Road Caswell Swansea SA3 APPROVE 4RH Replacement detached dwelling house

2 2011/1221 Oyster Gallery 70-72 Newton Road Mumbles Swansea APPROVE SA3 4BE Part two storey part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension

3 2011/1012 11 Glanyrafon Close Penllergaer Swansea SA4 9AS REFUSE Increase in eaves and ridge height of existing side wing

4 2011/0192 Tircoch Isaf Farm Llanmorlais Swansea SA4 3UQ APPROVE Construction of an agricultural stock barn

5 2011/0982 27 Mydam Lane Gorseinon Swansea SA4 4YA REFUSE Single storey side extension, first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers

6 2011/1091 2 Malt Hall Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EN APPROVE Retention of single storey side/rear extension and detached garage

7 2010/1708 178 Bishopston Road Bishopston Swansea SA3 3EX APPROVE Two storey side extension incorporating two dormers, part two storey part single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and two front dormers

8 2011/0957 The Seafarer Port Eynon Gower Swansea SA3 1NN REFUSE Retention of one internally illuminated fascia sign and one internally illuminated double sided projecting sign

9 2011/1276 Entrance Gate to Field 0042 Oxwich, Swansea REFUSE Retention of directional sign

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

10 2010/0330 The Laurels Priors Town Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU APPROVE Detached dwelling with attached garage

11 2011/1356 The Laurels Priors Town Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU APPROVE Demolition of existing garage/store (application for Conservation Area Consent)

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

13 2011/0916 Land at Hill End Farm Gower APPROVE Construction of 3 no. agricultural buildings (application for Prior Notification of Agricultural Development)

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332 WARD: Newton Area 2

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT to assess the impact of the changes upon residential amenity.

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 facilities and services. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

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

SITE HISTORY

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

2004/2828 Replacement of existing dormer and erection of glazed canopy on front elevation, enlargement of dormer on side elevation, alterations to roof design to incorporate gable and construction of dormer on rear elevation, construction of two storey extension and first floor balcony on rear elevation, alterations to external doors and windows and detached garage/storeroom Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 09/05/2005 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: This application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and all neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. Five letters of response were received which are summarised below:

1. Drainage concerns, in particular location of pipes. 2. Concern over the scale of plans. 3. Impact upon residential amenities. 4. New independent residential location established. 5. Current building was never a separated site. 6. Rights of access over the highway. 7. Discrepancies raised relating to the Design and Access Statement. 8. Design out of keeping with the area. 9. Overlooking issues. 10. Overbearing. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

11. Overdevelopment of the site. 12. Mermaid Cottage is not a lawful dwelling. 13. Highway safety. 14. Noise. 15. Legal covenant to prevent any further development. 16. Inaccurate plans. 17. Proposal is visually intrusive. 18. Impact on the boundary treatment. 19. Concern relating to the finishes proposed. 20. Noise associated with vehicles coming and going. 21. Levels of the proposed property in relation to Singlewood are significantly larger. 22. Concern over the use as two separate dwellings. 23. Loss of vegetation.

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

Gower Society: Following comment to make:

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

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

Following concerns expressed by Members at the Site Visit, the following additional information was requested:

1. Existing plans and elevations of existing property (superimposed on proposed elevations). 2. Proposed parking layout and turning area to be formally indicated on plans along with clarity as to whether the existing garage is to be demolished. 3. Trees along boundary to be shown on plans with ones to be removed indicated. 4. Amended block plan showing the position of the neighbouring properties. 5. Existing and proposed levels and sections across site. 6. Privacy screen to be indicated on balcony. 7. Obscure glazing to be shown on southern elevation. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

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

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

Highways: Amended Plans

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

My earlier recommendation of no highway objection is unchanged.

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

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

Amended plans were submitted by the applicant in order to try and address the concerns raised by neighbouring properties. All neighbouring properties and previous objectors were re-consulted. Two letters of response were received which are summarised below:

Neighbours:

1. Overlooking. 2. Sewage run off concerns. 3. Proposal is close to my property and intrusive. 4. There is a legal injunction preventing further development on the land. 5. There is no planting to minimise impact. 6. Out of keeping with the area. 7. Footprint 300% larger than existing and roofline significantly higher. 8. Proposal could be moved further away from 70 Caswell Road. 9. Increase in traffic. 10. Highway safety concern. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

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

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

APPRAISAL

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

Description

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

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

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

Background

The site has a long and varied planning history and outline consent was originally granted for a detached dwelling under planning permission Ref: 92/1069. This consent was subject to a Section 106 agreement which restricted the site to the development of a single dwelling only.

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

Issues

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

Principle of Development

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

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

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

Policy Context

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

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

Visual Amenity

The area is characterised by a mixture of dwellings situated within varying plot sizes, predominately fronting the highway. Given that the principle of development at this location has been clearly established with the existing dwelling, coupled with the adjacent back land site it is not considered that the development of this area behind the building line is unacceptable in visual terms. The proposed dwelling incorporates a contemporary design which due to its low height and siting behind No 70 Caswell Road will not be visually prominent from the highway. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

The adjacent Bishopswood House and 72 Caswell Road are sited in a similar position to the proposed house and as such the proposed siting is considered acceptable. Concern has been expressed that the development would represent an over development of the site, however, it is considered that with a depth of over 30 metres and width of 22m at its widest, the site is large enough to accommodate a dwelling of this size without appearing over intensive for the site or the area.

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

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

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

Residential Amenity

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

With regard the impact upon the dwelling situated to the rear the proposed dwelling would be separated by a rear garden in excess of 10m in depth and given the dwellings minimal height this is considered to be a sufficient separation distance to ensure that the residential amenities of this neighbouring property is maintained. With regard the impact upon the dwelling situated toward the front (No. 70 Caswell Road) the two storey element of the proposed dwelling would be situated approximately 5m from the boundary of this neighbouring property, however the minimal height of the dwelling (less than 7m), coupled with its siting to the north of No 70 will ensure that there will not be an unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impact sufficient to warrant a recommendation of refusal of this application. In terms of overlooking there are no habitable windows which overlook this dwelling and as such subject to condition the level of privacy enjoyed by No 70 will, it is considered, be maintained. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

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

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

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

Protected Trees

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

It is acknowledged that the proposal will involve the removal of one semi-mature Whitebeam, covered by TPO 360 however a standard size replacement white beam tree (Sorbus aria) should be planted in a location as agreed by the LPA in order to mitigate against this loss. Care must be taken to ensure no adverse impact occurs to any retained trees/shrubs. Suitable protective fencing (As detailed in the British Standard 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction) must be installed before any demolition or construction work is undertaken on site and in a position as agreed by the LPA. This protective fencing must remain in position for the entirety of the construction phase. Furthermore any removal of hard surfacing within 3 metres of any retained trees should be hand dug and any replacement surfaces within this area must be permeable. Post construction further planting of suitable hedgerow species is required to strengthen the screening between Singlewood and Mermaid cottage. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

Highways

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

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

Response to Consultations

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

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

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

Concern has also been raised relating to drainage and sewerage, however, the proposal will replace an existing building and no objections have been raised from Welsh Water in this respect.

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

Conclusion

In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development creates a dwelling that respects the local character whilst offering modern, flexible accommodation for its occupants that respects the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers, highway safety and trees. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

It is, therefore considered that the development complies with the principles of Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, and HC2 of the Swansea UDP and approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

2 All first floor windows in the south east facing elevations (facing 70 Caswell Road), as indicated on the approved plans shall be obscure glazed, and unopenable except for a fan light and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

3 Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into beneficial use a 2m high privacy screen shall be erected on the balcony along the south west facing elevation with No 72 Caswell Road , in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The balcony screening shall thereafter be maintained in the condition as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

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

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

6 No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of a scheme for the landscaping of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out within 12 months from the completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, become seriously diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

6 Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

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

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

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

INFORMATIVES

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

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

3 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0332

3 If evidence of bats is encountered during site clearance, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Countryside Council for sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).

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

PLANS

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1221 WARD: Oystermouth Area 2

Location: Oyster Gallery 70-72 Newton Road Mumbles Swansea SA3 4BE Proposal: Part two storey part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension Applicant: Mr John Camm

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT by the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 25th October 2011 to assess the highway impact of the development and the impact on neighbours.

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/0279 Part two storey part single storey rear extension and two single storey side extensions Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 10/06/2011

2002/1363 Conversion of existing residential use to bedsit on ground floor and self contained flat on first and second floors Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 20/09/2002

98/6075 RETENTION OF NON ILLUMINATED WALL AND PROJECTING SIGNS Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 06/10/1998

81/0682/11 CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR OF PREMISES TO OPTHALMIC OPTICAL PRACTICE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 12/05/1981

80/1230/11 CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR ONLY TO SHOWROOM/OFFICES Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 25/09/1980

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1221

80/1608/11 CHANGE OF USE TO OPTHALMIC OPTICAL PRACTICE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 27/11/1980

97/1391 ERECTION OF A NEW SHOP FRONT Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 09/04/1998

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received and are summarised as follows:-

1. There will be increased traffic if deliveries are to be at the rear of the shop. 2. Commercial vehicles cannot turn easily into Castle Street due to the narrowness of the road. Vehicle movement would be difficult. 3. Commercial vehicle could pose a danger to school children. 4. Building work will cause disruption to neighbours. 5. Parking and unloading will cause a disturbance to residents in terms of noise. 6. No adequate drainage in Castle Street. 7. The height of the proposals would reduce light and be overbearing to properties along Castle Street. 8. The original application was for storage. The current application is for display. 9. The applicant states that the additional space would require 3 additional full time and 8 part time members of staff. 10. Concern is expressed over the stability of the boundary wall to the rear of Castle Square. Who will be responsible if this collapses? 11. Why are there two garage doors and separate entrances? Are these for use as flats. 12. The additional development will reduce the amount of light received. 13. We are in a recession, if this is for more stock, is this business immune or is it a disguise for residential letting.

Mumbles Community Council – No objection but request neighbour concerns are taken into account.

Highways - This proposal includes small extensions to the premises following demolition of the rear stores and garages. The proposal includes replacement garage parking and storage facilities together with a parking area. There will be 2 spaces within the garages and a further 4 cars could park in front of the garages. This is indicated to be for staff parking.

The proposed extension is unlikely to result in any significant additional visitor/customer attraction and the on site parking facilities are being improved. No highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Tony Colburn in order for the Committee to consider whether the proposal gives rise to overbearing and highway problems. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1221

The application is submitted following the refusal of the previous application due to the impact of the proposed side extension (adjacent to Castle Street) on the occupiers of Castle Street and upon the character and appearance of the area. (2011/0279 refers).

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of one single storey side extension and one part single, part two storey rear extension and car parking at No.70 – 72 Newton Road, Mumbles. The property is a terraced commercial building located within the Mumbles district centre.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to the provisions of Policy EV1 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider.

With regard to visual amenity, given the amendments submitted as part of this application, namely the reduction in height of the two storey rear element through the use of a flat roof in place of a larger mono pitch, the part two storey, part single storey rear extension would not appear overly large and would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The single storey side extension given its location adjacent to a commercial property is not considered to have a detrimental visual impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

Turning to residential amenity, the proposed single storey extension adjacent to No. 68 Oystermouth Road, given its commercial nature is not considered to have a detrimental residential impact.

The part two storey, part single storey rear extension with its reduced flat roof is not considered to introduce a detrimental overshadowing and overbearing impact on the adjacent residential properties along Castle Square. The previous rear extension which included a mono pitch roof measured 7.7m in height to the maximum height of the roof. The proposed flat roof amendment which measures 5.7m in height is not considered to result in a detrimental overshadowing and overbearing impact on the properties along Castle Square. It must also be recognised that the existing buildings on site already have an impact on neighbours, and the proposal is not considered to exacerbate this.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties and accords with Policy EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

In terms of the objections raised in relation to vehicular traffic and disturbance, the head of transportation has not raised any concerns.

Turning to the objections relating to the disruption likely to be caused by building work, this is not considered to have any permanent impacts on the visual and residential amenities of the surrounding properties.

The reference made to the use of the proposal for storage is considered to be incorrect as the previous proposal also indicated the use of the extension as being for display purposes. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1221

The concerns that are expressed in relation to the additional staff members being required are not considered relevant in this instance.

The issues raised in terms of the likely future use of the extension and the associated garages would be addressed and considered should a change of use be applied for.

The other objections raised, these have been considered within the above report.

Conclusion

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which accords with the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan Policy EV1. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following condition:

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

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1.

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, lower ground floor plan, existing elevations, proposed elevations, existing ground floor plan, proposed ground floor plan received 12th September, 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1012 WARD: Penllergaer Area 2

Location: 11 Glanyrafon Close Penllergaer Swansea SA4 9AS Proposal: Increase in eaves and ridge height of existing side wing Applicant: Mr Alan Lloyd

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 25th October 2011 to assess the impact of the development upon the streetscene.

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Three neighbouring properties were consulted; no letters of objection has been received.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Wendy Fitzgerald in order to assess the impact on the streetscene.

Full planning permission is sought for an increase in eaves and ridge height of part of 11 Glanyrafon Close which is a dwelling located in the established residential estate in Penllergaer. The applicant was advised by officers to amend the proposals by extending a dormer in the front of the property and inserting a dormer into the rear of the property. Whilst the applicant made attempts at amending the proposals, these amendments were not considered to address officers concerns sufficiently and therefore the scheme is determined on the basis of the original submission.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1012

There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider.

In terms of visual amenity, the proposals are considered to be at odds with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The alterations are considered to unbalance the appearance of the property, with the increase in both the eaves and ridge height being viewed as incongruous additions. The majority of the properties within the immediate surrounding area share a similar appearance and as such the proposals if approved would be at odds with the established character of the area. Therefore, the development is not considered to comply with the relevant Policies in place, which in this instance are Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

It is acknowledged that a property nearby at 4 Penybryn Close has had planning permission in 1999 for a similar extension, however, the circumstances were different at the time of that application in that the proposals were significantly improving a badly extended dwelling. In addition, it is considered that this extension serve to reinforce how approving the current application would undermine the established character of the streetscene.

Turning to residential amenity, the proposals are not considered to give rise to any detrimental impacts in terms of overbearance or overshadowing given that they essentially only involve minimal increases over and above what is currently situated on site. In addition, given the sympathetic siting of the dwelling in relation to No.54 Swansea Road, it is not as such considered to give rise to any impacts. In terms of overlooking, there is considered to be no detrimental viewing given the sympathetic location of fenestration within the proposals, with no windows located in the rear of affected part of the property.

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent an unsatisfactory form of development which does not comply with current development plan Policies HC7 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development and has an unacceptable impact on the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and area in which it is situated. The proposals, however, has an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposed increase in eaves and ridge height by virtue of their inappropriate design would appear as discordant additions to the property to which they relate to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Design Guide for Householder Development.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (Policies EV1 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan) AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1012

PLANS

Site location & block plans, existing & proposed elevations with floor plans received 15th July 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192 WARD: Penclawdd Area 2

Location: Tircoch Isaf Farm Llanmorlais Swansea SA4 3UQ Proposal: Construction of an agricultural stock barn Applicant: Mr M Rees

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT to assess the agricultural need and impact of the development.

POLICIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

SITE HISTORY

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

98/0238 ALTERATION AND CONVERSION OF BARNS TO PROVIDE AGRICULTURAL WORKERS DWELLING AND 2 NO SELF CONTAINED HOLIDAY COTTAGES Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 07/04/1999

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and seven individual properties were consulted.

1. There is no one by the name of Mr M Rees according to the land Registry. 2. The Certificate is wrong as part of the land edged red belongs to my client. 3. The stock barn will be within 150ft of the holiday cottages and if it is necessary should be placed at the bottom end of the farm away from Tir Coch Isaf farmhouse which lies within 180 ft of the proposed stock barn. 4. The current agriculture building has been erected without planning permission. 5. The existing and proposed building would have the cumulative effect of creating a dense range of large buildings. 6. 32 tractors could be housed in the proposed building – the farm has one tractor. 7. The farm has an existing farm building partly used for the storage of animals and fencing materials. 8. The description has been changed and is misleading. Is it for livestock or storage? 9. The applicant runs a fencing business and it is hoped that there are no ulterior motives to use this building in connection with that business. 10. The justification for the building must be judged against the size of the building as the farm only has 40 grazing cattle. 11. The council must be satisfied that he building is necessary for the current agricultural business. 12. There is potential for nuisance from the building of adjoining residential properties. 13. The applicant has not considered the possible effects of the disposal of slurry and silage from the site. 14. It is clear that there are a number of overriding reasons why the proposed building does not meet local or national policy. 15. There is an existing building on site that has been erected without planning permission. 16. The building is fully enclosed there would be no ventilation for the livestock housed within. 17. I would expect the DAS to detail the existing farming business enterprises. 18. There is no indication as to how the existing buildings are used. 19. There is a belief that there is only 70 acres owned by the Rees family not 180. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

The Gower Society – comments as follows:

1. We note that there is a significant amount of land associated with this application. 2. In the AONB, such a building could be in a prominent position in the open countryside although we note that it is within the confines of an existing complex. 3. If allowed, there be a full appraisal of its size, impact and proven need.

The Gower Society further comments:

1. In our previous letter, we stated that there appeared to be a considerable amount of land associated with this proposal. This statement, we are advised, may be incorrect and requires a detailed checking. 2. We were under the impression, when making our inspection that the proposal was within an existing farm complex. However, the plan on the original application was misinterpreted by our searchers – part of this complex was inaccurately shown and we are told is not in the applicant’s ownership. 3. We are concerned about the close proximity of this structure to Tircoch Isaf Farmhouse. We ask that you take note of our paragraph 3 in our March letter where we stated that should be a full appraisal of its size, impact and proven need. 4. With regard to proven need, we are advised that there is already at least one large structure on this farm and that the application may not be proposing to use this shed in connection with Tir Coed Isaf, but in order to carry out an independent fencing contractor’s business. This should be thoroughly investigated. 5. It is clear to us that when we carried out the initial planning search in March of this year, we were not in possession of all the relevant information. 6. If there is a proven agricultural need for this structure to be on the land holding upon which it is situated, then we have no grounds for objection, but we remain most concerned re its impact on its neighbourhood and the AONB. 7. If the structure is proven to be legitimately needed, then it should be positioned well away from Tircoch Isaf Farmhouse.

Countryside Council for Wales – No objection.

Highway Observations – No objection

Pollution Control - Comments further as follows:

Given the information available and taking into account the nature of the location and current use of the land, the view remains that there are no significant grounds on which to object to the application. It is appreciated that the occupiers of the adjacent residential property may have concerns regarding the future use of the barn in the event that permission is eventually forthcoming but it is considered unreasonable to recommend refusal of an agricultural building, whatever its use, in an agricultural setting such as this. Obviously, if permission is granted, we will expect the use of the building to be properly controlled so that any unnecessary problems are avoided and will investigate any future complaints should they be received. Concerning drainage/effluent issues and as far as we are aware this should form part of the farm management plan and the Environment Agency will comment on this if they feel it to be necessary. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order to consider the agricultural justification for another barn at this location.

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of an agricultural stock barn at Tircoch-Isaf Farm, Llanmorlais. The building would measure 22.86m x 12.19m with an overall maximum height of 5.518m. It would be sited to the east of the existing detached agricultural building and would have a grey fibre cement roof and the elevations would be clad in green box profile sheeting.

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposed building upon the visual amenities of the area and the wider AONB as well as its impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties having regard to the relevant policies of the prevailing development plan.

Policies EV1, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13, EC14 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 are the most relevant to the consideration of this planning application. Policy EV1 refers to new developments according with objectives of good design and sensitively relate to existing development patterns and protect natural heritage. Policy EV22 refers to the countryside being protected for its own sake and Policy EV26 refers to the Gower AONB and the primary objective to conserve and enhance its natural beauty. Policy EV21 refers to non residential development in the open countryside and that it would only be permitted where it is beneficial for the rural economy or employment. Policy EC13 states that developments that would result in the loss of the best agricultural land will not normally be permitted. Policy EC14 specifically refers to agricultural development that require planning permission should be sensitively sited and designed and for those to accommodate livestock, will normally be permitted except where residential amenity or environmental quality would be affected or compromised.

Comments have been made that the proposed building is not for agricultural purposes but will be used in connection with the applicant’s fencing business. The application however, has been made for an agricultural building to “accommodate the immediate and future needs of the business to expand and grow the business”. The application has always acknowledged that the proposed building will be to house livestock and as such, the application must be taken at face value and there is no immediate evidence of a timber business being run from the site, irrespective of the comments made by the objector. If the building, if approved, is not used for agricultural purposes, it would be unlawful and enforced against. Comments have also been made that the applicant himself does not own the land but he resides on the farm in a caravan, which has been on site for many years. In addition, he is the son of Mr and Mrs Rees who live at Forest Cottage, and which is included within the blue line area of the site location plan.

The building would be sited approximately 50m from the rear boundary of the nearest property at Tircoch-Isaf Farm House but would be within 3m of the boundary with their field to the rear of the house, which does not form part of their residential curtilage. In addition, the neighbours have a large outbuilding within this field which will shield the development to some extent from their rear garden. It is considered that therefore that whilst some impact would be experienced by the occupiers of Tircoch-Isaf Farm House in terms of noise and disturbance, it would not be to an extent that would warrant a recommendation of refusal on this issue alone. Indeed, it would be something that would be expected when living next to a working farm. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

In addition, the Head of Environmental Management and Protection raises no objection to the building, its use or its siting and who also comments that it would be “unreasonable to recommend refusal of an agricultural building, whatever its use, in an agricultural setting such as this.”

In terms of drainage associated with the proposed building the DAS indicates that all surface water will be disposed of to soakaways, although no mention is made of foul water associated with slurry. In this respect it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring all such details to be agreed before development commences.

The proposed building would be sited in close proximity to an existing building on site and notwithstanding the fact that it is unauthorised, it would be grouped with other buildings to minimise any visual impact upon the landscape. It is considered that the siting, scale and design of the building would not appear unacceptably prominent or incongruous within the wider landscape, and would not therefore have an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenities of the AONB. It is recognised that the existing building on site is unauthorised but it did replace another building that was previously on the site in the same location. This matter is however, being investigated by the Enforcement Section.

In light of the comments made by the objectors, the applicant’s agent completed an Agricultural Questionnaire. Within this questionnaire, it is stated that the farm comprises of 180 acres with 60 acres conserved for hay and has a total of 180 head of beef cattle. It also states that between 60-80+ hours are worked on the farm and that 10-20 hours are spent on fencing. There are also holiday cottages on site which have been put into former barns. The justification for the building is “to increase beef yield by overwintering to provide slaughter animals rather than store”. It is considered therefore that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed building is necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

It is acknowledged that the main objector is adamant that the development would not be used for agricultural purposes and that the farm is not as active as the applicants contend that it is. However, the Local Planning Authority has to consider all applications on the information that is submitted to them and has taken reasonable care to assess the situation at the site. Therefore, unless it is proven otherwise and whilst the comments made are noted, it would be unreasonable for the scheme to be refused on these grounds.

In conclusion therefore, and having regard to all material considerations, on balance, the proposed agricultural building is an acceptable form of development at this location that complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13, EC14 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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 – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

2 The building hereby approved shall be used solely for agricultural purposes (as defined by Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) in association with the holding. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that no inappropriate use is introduced into this countryside location, and to protect the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

3 The developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority, in writing and within 7 days of the date on which the development was substantially completed. In the event that the use of the building for the purposes of agriculture within the unit permanently ceases within 4 years from the date that the development was substantially completed and planning permission has not been granted on an application or deemed to be granted under Part III of the Act, for development for purposes other than agriculture, within 3 years from the date on which the use of the building for the purposes of agriculture within the unit has permanently ceased, the following shall apply. Unless the Local Planning Authority has otherwise agreed in writing, the building shall be removed and the land shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be restored to its condition before the development took place, or such a condition as may have been agreed in writing between the Local Planning Authority and the developer. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the Gower AONB, and to prevent the sporadic proliferation of buildings in the countryside

4 Notwithstanding details of external finishes submitted with the application, samples of the materials used for the external surfaces of the development shall be in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity of the area and in the interests of protecting the sensitive landscape character of the Gower AONB.

5 Development shall not commence until details of foul, surface and land drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into beneficial use until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV21, EV22, EV26, EC13, EC14

2 It is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0192

2 You are advised that any clearance of trees, shrubs, scrub (including gorse and bramble) or empty buildings should not be undertaken during the bird nesting season, 1st March - 31st August and that such action may result in an offence being committed.

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

PLANS

1210/TI/02 site plan, proposed front, side & rear elevations with roof plan, proposed floor plan and east elevation received 11th February 2011. Amended plan 1210/TI/01A site location plan, received 7th April 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0982 WARD: Penyrheol Area 2

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area.

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

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

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

Gorseinon Town Council – No objection.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for a single storey side extension and a first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers at 27 Mydam Lane, Gorseinon a detached house. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0982

In this case the main issues to consider are the impact of the extended property on the character and visual amenities of the area and residential amenity having regards to Policy EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008) and the supplementary planning guidance Household Extensions – A Design Guide. There are in this instance considered to be no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

In terms of visual amenity, the proposed single storey side extension is of a modest size and scale and would not be considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling or on the area to which it relates.

The first floor side extension would essentially result in the extension being approximately 1.2m higher than the existing bungalow, therefore paying little regard to the character and appearance of the bungalow. It would appear as a poor and discordant addition to the property which would fail to embrace the objectives of good design. The proposal is therefore in visual terms considered to be unacceptable and fails to accord with Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008) and the Adopted Householder Design Guide.

With regards to the impact of the proposal on residential amenity, the first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers is located 13m from the rear boundary and 10m from the front boundary. This is considered to be sufficient in order to safeguard residential amenity. The proposed first floor side extension, despite the change in land levels to the rear, does not introduce a detrimental overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact on the properties to the front or rear of the site.

The proposed single storey side extension due to its single storey nature and the existence of boundary screening is considered to be an appropriate form of development that would not result in an overbearing, overlooking or overshadowing impact on the residential amenities of the surrounding properties.

In view of the above it is considered that the proposal fails to comply with Policies EV1 & HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008). Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The proposed first floor side extension incorporating front and rear dormers by virtue of its overly large size and inappropriate design is considered to fail to relate well to the host dwelling and would result in a detrimental visual impact on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area contrary to Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the adopted Household Extension Design Guide.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1 & HC7.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0982

PLANS

01 site location plan, block plan, 01 existing elevations and floor plans, 02 proposed elevations and floor plans received 19th July 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1091 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: 2 Malt Hall Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EN Proposal: Retention of single storey side/rear extension and detached garage Applicant: Mr Luke Davies

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 25th October 2011 to assess the scale, impact and to consider landownership views.

POLICIES

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 88/0488/03 RELOCATION OF EXISTING PREFABRICATED GARAGE AND CREATION OF NEW ACCESS FROM PUBLIC HIGHWAY. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 03/05/1988

A00/1798 ERECTION OF A DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE (OUTLINE) Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 20/02/2001

2010/0853 Replacement single storey side/rear extension and replacement detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/08/2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1091

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The neighbouring properties were consulted individually. ONE third party letter of OBJECTION has been received in respect of the proposed scheme. Its content is summarised below:

1. The detached building has the appearance of a bungalow with cavity wall and stairs. 2. A new path has been laid across the verge to the pedestrian gate. 3. A previous proposal for a separate detached dwelling was refused on the 20th February 2001 Ref: 88/0488/03

Llanrhidian Lower Community Council: OBJECTS for the following reasons: The scheme as constructed resembles a bungalow and not a double garage. A previous proposal for a separate detached dwelling was refused on the 20th February 2001 Ref: 88/0488/03

Highway Observations – At least three parking spaces can be accommodated within the site which is sufficient for the proposal. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order that the policy issues and visual impact may be properly assessed.

Full planning permission is sought for the retention of a replacement single storey rear/side extension and a replacement detached garage at No.2 Malt Hall, Llanrhidian. The application is made following a previous grant of consent that has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The garage as constructed is larger than the previous approval, has an internal staircase serving storage in the roof cavity and additional fenestration to the rear elevation. The scheme before the Local Planning Authority seeks to regularise the extant situation. The host property may be characterised as a detached dwelling occupying a plot at the junction of Malt Hall and Mill Lane. It has common boundaries with No.6 Malt Hall to the rear of the plot.

A previous application for a dwelling that would have seen the plot subdivided was refused consent at this location Ref A00/1798.

The replacement garage as built has a maximum height to the ridge of 4.73 metres approximately 0.08 metres higher than that granted under application Ref: 2010/0853. It has a footprint of approximately 31.85 square metres, which is approximately 4.35 square metres larger than that for which consent was granted. It continues to utilise the existing access point onto Malt Hall. The side/rear extension includes a porch with a canopy and no issues arise in respect of this part of the development. The rear elevation of the garage has been furnished with two windows a large picture window at ground floor level and a smaller high level window. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1091

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the development as constructed relative to the consent as granted having regard to Policies HC7, EV1 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

When considered in the context of the surrounding street scene the garage does not present as a visually incongruous addition and is broadly respectful of the consent as previously granted by the South West Area 2 Planning Committee on the 17th August 2010. The proposal is considered to be both respectful of and sympathetic to the character of the dwelling and the wider street scene to which it relates in design terms.

It is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed scheme is in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Materials match those of the host dwelling and as such it is considered that the development does not have an adverse visual impact upon host dwelling or the street scene to which it relates or the wider character of the AONB.

With regard to residential amenity, the distance and relationship of the existing surrounding properties is considered sufficient to safeguard residential amenity. Whilst it is acknowledged that the windows have an aspect to the north east from an elevated position toward the properties identified as Sea Breeze and Burry Lodge the windows do not serve habitable rooms and are separated from the aforementioned properties by virtue of a public highway. It is not considered therefore that the replacement garage would introduce any unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts upon the residential amenity of these or the neighbouring properties.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal.

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which complies with current development plan Policies HC7, EV1 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development and has an acceptable impact on the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and area in which it is situated (AONB) and the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1091

2 The garage indicated in the submitted plans shall be retained for the parking of vehicles and purposes incidental to that use and shall not be used as or converted to domestic living accommodation. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and general amenity.

INFORMATIVES

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

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, BBA474/01B existing and proposed plans received 8th August 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708 WARD: Bishopston Area 2

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application has been DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT to assess the impact of the development on neighbouring occupiers and to assess structural stability.

POLICIES

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL PROPOSALS

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

1. The proposals will incur a complete loss of light. 2. During the digging of foundations for the proposed extension, instability could develop and consequently be of great danger to all the properties in Douglas Court. Possible subsidence when digging foundations close to the quarry edge and weight of the building when constructed could also cause subsidence. If the quarry becomes unstable, this is an extremely dangerous situation resulting in injury or death. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

Re-assurance is required that the necessary surveys and subsequent conditions are implemented to ensure the development is safe. This would include an assessment of potential hazard of Radon gas to be assessed prior to the application decision. 3. Some of the neighbouring properties are located on a limestone bed, regularly fissures open up causing large holes to appear. The foundation work needed for this application could disturb this limestone bed. 4. Concerns regarding disruptive noise and dust as a result of the construction of the proposals. 5. Loss of privacy. 6. Visually obtrusive and overbearing to the neighbouring properties. 7. Overdevelopment of the property, especially taking into account the fact that the property is within the AONB. 8. The property is located on a dangerous bend, the traffic as a result of the construction work would only serve to significantly increase the level of danger and raise potential for further road traffic accidents. 9. Impact upon the value of the neighbouring property.

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

Bishopston Community Council – No objection

AMENDED PROPOSALS

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

1. Loss of light. 2. Impact of foundation work disturbing the limestone bed. 3. Construction traffic causing road traffic accidents. 4. Noise and dust associated with the construction work. 5. Possible subsidence when digging foundations close to the quarry edge. In the future the disturbance to the rock causing ingress of water turning to ice in winter through the expansion instability and rock fall. At present there are some rock falls probably through this condition. 6. Concern regarding the overbearing and overshadowing nature of the development which is essentially a two storey brick wall. 7. The extensions will be considered to have an impact on the property values of the neighbouring properties. 8. Comments are requested regarding who would be liable if there was subsidence – owner of No.178 Bishopston Road, Swansea City Council or would it fall to Douglas Court Residents property insurance. 9. The prevention of light reaching the neighbouring property was mentioned in the last letter; but now it has been suggested that the extension will doubly exclude this important aspect – less light reaching the neighbouring property. 10. As the property in question is within the Conservation Area (Gower), it is considered that by increasing the size of the building will produce more unnatural characteristics than improvements. 11. ‘Small scale development will only be allowed where it is in service of the economic and social well being of existing communities – etc’ Ref 97001485 Swansea plan March 90. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

Highway Observations – Amended plans, no further comments to make.

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

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

APPRAISAL

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

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

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual, residential amenities and the Gower AONB having regard to Policies HC7, EV26 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider.

In terms of visual amenity, the proposals are considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The front dormers given their sympathetic scale and design are not considered to have a negative impact on the character of this stretch of Bishopston Road. There are dormers located to the front of other properties along this stretch and therefore the introduction of dormers is not considered to have a major impact in this instance. The single storey front extension whilst relatively large in terms of its scale is not considered to have a detrimental impact given its sympathetic design, the extension’s roof tying in with the style of roofs of the proposed dormers and front gable feature. The two storey side extension is both set down from the main ridgeline and back from the front of the main property whilst incorporating a hipped roof which ensures the extension ties in with the hipped sides of the existing dwelling. The two storey/single storey rear elements and rear dormer given their sympathetic scale and design are not considered to give rise to any issues. Furthermore, as these elements are located to the rear of the property they are not considered to have a major impact on this stretch of Bishopston Road. The proposals are considered to be in keeping with the Gower AONB given the sympathetic scale and design of the extensions, as indicated above. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

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

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

In terms of concerns raised, the issues with regard to the visual impact, overbearance, overshadowing and overlooking are considered to be covered within the main context of the report. In terms of the issues regarding the structural considerations with regard to subsidence of the quarry to the side of the host dwelling as a result of the extension, these issues mainly relate to factors which would be addressed at the building control stage of the process which is subsequent to the planning application stage. However, advice has been sought from the Council’s Building Control Officer who has advised that building regulations will require adequate foundations to support any structure. If necessary to determine the suitability of the rock fact, Building Control Officers would ask for a Geo- Technical appraisal and investigation, although building regulations more often than not can provide safe designs for buildings. With regard to who is liable if any problems occur in relation to subsidence at the quarry, this is essentially a civil matter and not for consideration at this stage.

With regard to the issues in relation to the potential hazard of Radon gas, there is no evidence to show this gas is present at the site; however, it is likely if there was any issue with this form of hazard it would be covered under separate legislation and is not as such a material planning consideration in this instance. Concerns regarding the noise and dust implications as a result of the construction work are not essentially material planning considerations and therefore cannot be taken into account in this instance. With regard to the issues raised in relation to highway safety concerns, these would have been considered to be addressed by the Highways Officer. The issue regarding the impact on the value of neighbouring properties is not a material planning consideration and, therefore, cannot be taken into account in this instance. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

The amendments made to the scheme are considered to have lessened any impacts on neighbouring properties rather than exacerbate them, therefore, the concerns that the extension would result in a further loss of light over and above that of what the previous extension would have resulted in is not considered to be necessarily true in this instance. With regard to the proposals not being in keeping with Gower, the proposals as stated within the report are considered to both preserve and enhance the Gower AONB and are as such in keeping with the Policy for Gower (EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan). With regard to the comment that small scale development will only be allowed in service of the economic and social wellbeing of existing communities, this is not referred to in the current Policy for Gower and as such is not considered relevant in this instance. It should be noted that Bishopston Community Council have requested that their previous objections be taken into consideration, however, this is not possible as no objections were raised by the Community Council in relation to the previous proposals.

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

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which complies with current development plan Policies HC7, EV26 and EV1 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development and has an acceptable impact on the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and area in which it is situated and the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

2 The window serving the en-suite in the 'End Elevation', as indicated on Plan No: HG.10.72.P03 Rev C shall be obscure glazed, and unopenable except for a fan light and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/1708

INFORMATIVES

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

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

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

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

PLANS

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0957 WARD: Gower Area 2

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 25th October 2011 in order to assess the visual impact of the development on the surrounding area and Gower AONB.

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV14 The design of advisements should be appropriate to their surroundings, respect the architectural qualities of the building on which they are displayed, be appropriate to the location, and not harm road safety. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

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

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

The Gower Society – Has provided the following comment:

1. The illuminated signs are at severe odds with the ethos of the AONB as well as contributing to the urbanisation of the seafront. 2. A smaller sign could be acceptable in a non illuminated form. 3. The larger frontal sign could be brash and out of keeping even if it were not illuminated. One of our members stated that it would “be more appropriate in Margate” 4. The shop is within the Port Eynon Conservation Area. 5. No illuminated signs should be allowed – they are inappropriate in an AONB.

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

Highways & Transport – No Highways Objection AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0957

Applicant Statement: The agent for the scheme has provided the following statement in support of the proposal:

I have now spoken to my client following our conversation. She is not prepared to amend the scheme and wishes to have a determination of the application as submitted. I have now looked at the policy document relating to signs in Gower and note that it dates from 1980, and although it is described as an SPG in the Unitary Development Plan I understand that it has not been subjected to the sort of public consultation processes that more recent guidance documents are required to follow, and means that it carries only limited weight.

Policy EV14 requires advertisements to be appropriate to their surroundings in terms of scale, colour and materials and I would point out that the Seafarer is in a seafront/seaside location where this type of illuminated display may be expected. Visitors to the area as well as local residents (with one exception) have not sought to raise objection to the signs in the 18 months that they have been in place which would suggest that the signs do not cause offence to people. The policy also requires signs to be respectful of the architectural qualities of the building, but in this case it is a simple purpose-built single-storey structure of limited quality and the signs provide an element of character to a building that would otherwise have very little.

One final point. Mrs. Ellsmore has pointed out to me that the fish and chip shop in Penclawdd, which overlooks the estuary, retains signs which are of a very similar design to hers and which were erected no more than 3 years ago. Can you advise whether you consider that case to be any different to this one.

APPRAISAL

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

The application building lies within Gower AONB, Port Eynon Conservation Area and an area designated as a an Area of Special Control for Advertisements where proposals require a higher standard of design that conserve or enhance the character and appearance of these areas. The building forms part of the commercial shopping offer adjacent to the roundabout on Port Eynon frontage.

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

The principle fascia sign has the following dimensions:- Height - 0.9 metres, Width - 4.3 metres and Depth - 0.2 metres. It is a box design constructed in plastic with internal illumination. The projecting sign is also constructed in plastic of the following dimensions Height 0.6 metres, Width 0.6 metres and Depth 0.2 metres. Both signs have a black background and blue/white text. In addition to the signage indicated above the premises also benefit from two menu boards either side of the door and applied vinyls to the front facing windows. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0957

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

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

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

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

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

The design of advertisements should be:

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

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

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

With regard to impact upon visual amenity, the signage does not, it is considered, respect the design or proportions of the building on which they are located and gives rise to an unsympathetic form of development that, in terms of scale and design fails to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the building, the Conservation Area, or this part of the Gower AONB. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0957

Overall it is considered that the form and extent of the signage does not achieve the high standards of design required in either the Conservation Area or Gower AONB and the proposal gives rise to an inappropriate form of development that is incongruous and detrimental to the character of Port Eynon Conservation Area and Gower AONB.

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

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

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV14.

PLANS

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1276 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Entrance Gate to Field 0042 Oxwich, Swansea Proposal: Retention of directional sign Applicant: Mr and Mrs Mead

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 25th October 2011 to assess the need for the advertisement.

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV14 The design of advisements should be appropriate to their surroundings, respect the architectural qualities of the building on which they are displayed, be appropriate to the location, and not harm road safety. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised on site via a site notice. NO RESPONSE.

Highways Observations – No objection.

Gower Society –The Gower Society has inspected the above application and has the following observations make:

• The sign is not purely a direction sign as it carries advertising of caravans etc for sale. • It is overlarge in this sensitive area within the Oxwich Conservation Area. • A small direction (only) sign could be added to the two signs (similar in size) on the post very close to this gate. • Additional signage such as this example creates unnecessary clutter in the AONB. • Quoting from Advertisement Policy in Gower Tourist related signs within the AONB: 7.1 ….. the presumption should normally be against allowing such advertisements … the granting of consent for an advertisement should be the exception rather than the rule. Appendix: Touring caravan and camping sites will be eligible for the new style white on brown signs, providing they have a minimum of 20 pitches for casual overnight use and are licensed under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and/or the Public Health Act 1936. Normally, symbols without names will be used. • The Gower Society objects strongly to this sign remaining in situ. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1276

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis as it is considered that without directional signage members of the public would not know the location of the site.

The application site comprises of an entrance gate to Field 0042 which lies within Gower AONB and Oxwich Conservation Area.

The sign is attached to a field gate and directs vehicular traffic towards the main entrance of Greenways Leisure Park and also advertises the fact that static caravans and lodges are for sale and includes a contact telephone number. The sign is 1.6m x 0.7m and has a green background with white lettering. It is positioned 0.6m above ground.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual amenity and public safety having regard to Policy EV14 of the City and County of Swansea and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled 'Advertisement Policy in Gower’. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway/public safety issues to consider.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled 'Advertisement Policy in Gower’ provides advice on the requirements of tourist related signs within the AONB and serves to support Policy EV14 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Amongst other things, the Gower Advertisement Policy states that:-

‘The Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is an area of Special Advertisement Control where the presumption should normally be against allowing any advertisements. Taking into account this designation, there is a serious need to equate any display of advertisements with the need to preserve the quality of this rural area. For this reason the granting of consent for an advertisement should be the exception rather than the rule.’

There are very few suitable locations available to provide advance signs in the Gower AONB on its highways. For this reason advance signs need to be restricted to those that give notice of major tourist attractions that would not otherwise be readily apparent to the motorist.

The sign is located in a prominent position alongside the road and given its siting adjacent to two other highway directional signs, it is considered to give rise to a cluttered and disorderly appearance. The sign is not considered to be purely a directional sign as it serves to advertise the sale of caravans and lodges within the park. Whilst it is acknowledged that purely a directional sign would aid members of the public, it is considered that highways approved tourist signage with a brown background located under the adjacent existing highways signage would be more appropriate at this location.

In terms of the letter of objection received, the points raised are considered in the above report.

For the abovementioned reasons, it is recommended that consent is refused. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1276

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The sign, by virtue of its excessive scale, inappropriate design and prominent siting is considered to be detrimental to the visual amenities of the Oxwich Conservation Area and Gower AONB contrary to Policy EV14 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (November 2008).

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV14.

PLANS

Site plan, specification drawing, photographs GLP 1 and GLP 2, photograph GLP 3 received 12th September 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0330 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: The Laurels Priors Town Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU Proposal: Detached dwelling with attached garage Applicant: Mr & Mrs Ken Norbury

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

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

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

Policy EV34 Development proposals that may impact upon the water environment will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they would not pose a significant risk to the quality and or quantity of controlled waters. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0330

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2011/1356 Demolition of existing garage/store (application for Conservation Area Consent) Decision: Officer Consideration Decision Date: 22/11/2011

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a Development within the Llangennith Conservation Area and three individual properties were consulted. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received, which are summarised as follows:

1. I have concerns about the height of the pine end on my side, no boundary wall, access for maintenance, not a bungalow, loss of privacy. 2. Our clients would not object to a low impact small bungalow and there should be no uplift in the height of any building when the site was reprofiled which could result in intrusive development. 3. Our client’s property will overlook any property that is constructed and the additional massing would detract from the inter-spatial effect of the various properties which front onto the road. 4. It would detract from the character and appearance of the village.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – No objection

The Gower Society – Comments as follows:

1. The Society is generally against the demolition of vernacular buildings within the AONB but recognises that the garage in this case is not worth saving. 2. To build such a dwelling in such a confined space will not enhance the location. The “bungalow on top of a garage” solution seems to be rather a poor design. The garage seems likely to be converted at a later date to domestic use. Should a clause be applied to prevent this? 3. The height of the proposed structure needs careful analysis; its impact upon both the street scene and other property must be considered.

Highways Observations – This proposal is to demolish a garage and store and erect a dwelling in its place on land adjacent to The Laurels, Llangennith. Access is in existence and is to be utilised for the proposed dwelling. Adequate parking is proposed totalling 2 spaces whereas two are sufficient to comply with adopted guidelines. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0330

The site is not sufficiently large to accommodate a typical Gower Setback at the access as this would reduce the space available for turning within the site and I consider this to be more important to avoid having to reverse into or out from the site. The adjoining property does not have a Gower Set back either and therefore this is not an unusual situation at this location.

In order to improve safety for an emerging driver, I would recommend that the front boundary wall be reduced in height to 1m for a distance of at least 2m either side of the gate opening as this will allow visibility over the wall to see oncoming traffic and be seen when exiting the site directly onto the main carriageway.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the front boundary wall being reduced to a maximum height of 1 either side of the gateway in accordance with details to be submitted and approved prior to occupation of the dwelling.

Countryside Council for Wales – Objects to the proposal as there us not enough information to asses impact upon the Carmarthen bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet RAMSAR.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to conditions.

Environment Agency – We would object to any flows greater than Greenfield site flows being discharged to a watercourse. The applicant should investigate some form of SUDS and in a small development such as this, soakaways could be used.

AMENDED SCHEME (where the siting and design of the dwelling has been amended)

The application was advertised on site and three individual properties were again consulted. No response.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – No objection

The Gower Society – Comments - the alterations are noted and we consider that these plans are more sympathetic than the original ones submitted. However, our concern regarding demolition remains.

Highways Observations - No further comments to make, previous observations still stand.

APPRAISAL

The application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis in order to consider the impact on the surroundings.

Full planning permission is sought for a detached dwelling house with an attached garage on land at The Laurels, Priors Town, in Llangennith. The dwelling would be split level in that the front part of the house would appear as a two storey traditional style cottage with a single storey rear elevation due to the topography of the land. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0330

The dwelling would measure approximately 9.5m in width, 9m in depth, with an eaves height of 5m and an overall maximum height of 7m. The attached garage would measure 3.4m in width, 6.7m in depth, an eaves height of 2.5m and an overall height of 4.9m. Materials would include a natural slate roof, painted render walls and timber windows.

The main issues for consideration are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area and this part of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it’s impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, and on highway safety, having regard to the prevailing policies of the Development Plan, and recent national planning policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2011. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional material considerations in this case.

The principal relevant development plan policies are Policies EV1, 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 relationship to existing buildings and spaces. Policy EV16 lists similar criteria for new development within small Gower villages and Policy EV1 states that developments should accord with objectives of good design including being appropriate to its local context and sensitively relating to existing development patterns and seeking to protect natural heritage and the historic environment.

In addition, Policy EV1 requires that the design and layout of new development proposals should protect the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. As such proposals need to be carefully assimilated into the existing environment through the use of appropriate scale and detailing of buildings and use of good quality materials, and ensure that there is no unacceptable visual impact, loss of light or privacy, increased activity and traffic movements or car parking problems.

Within the Gower AONB the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area and this is covered by the requirements of Policy EV26. The Council wishes to foster high standards of design in all new development, and this is reinforced by Planning Policy Wales 2011, which states that within AONBs, the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area, and development control decisions affecting the AONB should respect this by considering the importance of traditional and local distinctiveness.

In visual terms the amended design to one of a more traditional design and proportions is considered to relate well to and also offer an overall enhancement to the character and appearance of the street scene and the Llangennith Conservation Area. The use of high quality materials would also dictate that the proposed dwelling would not unduly impact upon the visual qualities of Conservation Area. It is recognised that the new dwelling would result in the loss of a visual gap along this part of Llangennith, but due to its siting centrally within the plot, views will still be afforded between the dwellings either side and would not appear cramped or as a discordant feature. In addition, the dwelling would replace existing unsightly buildings and as such is considered as appropriate infill within a small village, thus complying with the requirements of Policy EV16.

The amended siting, scale and design of the dwelling would dictate that there would be no undue impact upon the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by virtue of overbearing physical impact or loss of privacy. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0330

Concern has been raised that the development would be intrusive but the ample space that would form the garden to the rear would not result in any direct overlooking or loss of privacy to the properties to the rear. In addition, as no windows are proposed in the side elevations of the new dwelling no direct overlooking would occur. However, some mutual overlooking may be caused into the garden of the host dwelling but this would not be to an extent that would warrant or sustain a recommendation of refusal on this issue alone. The common boundary with Brook Cottage to the west is well screened and as the existing vegetation is to remain, it is considered that no loss of privacy will be caused to the occupiers. In addition, the single storey nature of the proposal when viewed from the rear dictates that any impact upon properties to the rear would be negligible.

The site is located within the drainage catchment area that drains to the Loughor Estuary and Burry Inlet which forms part of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries European Marine Site (CBEEMS). The City and County of Swansea, as the competent authority, is required to carry out a Test of Likely Significant Effect (Habitat Regulation Assessment) of the proposal under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The TLSE is intended to assess the likely effect of the drainage proposals of this development on the integrity of the CBEEMS both alone and in combination with other developments in the same catchment area.

The TLSE has been undertaken and concludes that subject to the drainage conditions recommended, the development will not have a significant effect on its own or in combination with other developments in the catchment area for the reasons set out in the TLSE. These relate to the compensatory hydraulic capacity which has been created in the catchment area and which is recorded in the Register of approvals kept by the Council in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by the City and County of Swansea (CCS), County Council (CCC), Countryside Council for Wales (CCW), Environment Agency Wales (EAW), and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) on the 1st March, 2010. Also the phosphate stripping carried out at the Llannant WWTW which has created a capacity for 1000 new dwellings within that part of the catchment area in Swansea. A full Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations is not therefore necessary and the application can be approved subject to the drainage conditions indicated. This would satisfy the requirements of the Habitat Regulations.

Turning to the concerns raised by the objectors, they have been addressed above.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, the proposed new dwelling at this location is considered an acceptable form of development that complies with the requirements of the prevailing Development Plan Polices indicated above. 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 – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0330

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

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

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

5 Before the development hereby approved is occupied the means of enclosing the boundaries of the site, including details of the front boundary wall being no more than 1m in height, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and once approved shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before occupation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and highway safety.

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or amending that Order), Classes A, C and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of Article 3 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.

7 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0330

8 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, architectural details in relation to new doors, windows and openings, including cills and lintels, reveal depths to a scale of 1:5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the works are commenced. The details agreed shall be completed and maintained as such in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area.

9 Prior to the commencement of any work on site, a "Bat Licence" shall be obtained from the Welsh Assembly Government and a copy submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation measures proposed in the accompanying mitigation/method statement should form part of the "licence to disturb" application. The approved details shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the development complies with the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994, and to secure the protection of Listed European Protected Species on site.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV9, EV16, 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 The applicant is reminded that this planning permission does not give planning permission for the works required for the new access and car parking area at The Laurels which will need to be the subject of a separate planning application.

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

PLANS

Site location plan, photographs, design and access statement received 26th February 2010. Amended block plan, proposed floor plans, proposed elevations, proposed side elevation received 23rd August 2011, additional drainage block plan dated 27th September 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2011/1356 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: The Laurels Priors Town Llangennith Swansea SA3 1HU Proposal: Demolition of existing garage/store (application for Conservation Area Consent) Applicant: Mr & Mrs Ken Norbury

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2010/0330 Detached dwelling with attached garage Decision: Officer Consideration Decision Date: 25/10/2011

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS The application was advertised on site and in the press as Demolition of existing outbuildings in a Conservation Area and 4 individual properties were consulted. and neighbouring residents.

The Gower Society – Expresses concerns as follows:

1. The application appears to be only for Conservation Area Consent to demolish existing old barns and garage. 2. A previous application 2010/0330 included a new house design that we did not consider to be totally acceptable. 3. The design that accompanied this application is more in keeping – is it being applied for?

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – No objection

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision as the application to build a new dwelling on the site is being considered elsewhere on this agenda.

Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of existing outbuildings at The Laurels in Priors Town, Llangennith. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1356

The main issue for consideration, in this instance, is the impact of demolition upon the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area. This is having regard to the prevailing policies of the Development Plan, and recent National Planning Policy Guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002. There are considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

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

The current buildings are not listed and are not considered to be of any particular architectural merit or a building of character. The buildings are in a poor state of repair and it is considered that their demolition and the introduction of a development of substance would have a positive impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and as such demolition and redevelopment would enhance the character appearance of the protected area. Given that the buildings are of no architectural merit it is considered that the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy EV10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Planning application 2010/0330 is a detailed proposal for the redevelopment of the site with a detached dwelling which is also under consideration. This new dwelling would be constructed on the site of the demolished buildings and has been carefully designed to respect the character and form of the conservation area. The proposed redevelopment is considered acceptable at this location and would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

It is considered necessary, however, to impose a condition regarding the commencement of demolition in relation to redevelopment in order to ensure the character and appearance of the Conservation Area remains protected. In addition as bats may be using the site as indicated in the protected species survey that has been carried out, a condition is recommended to inform the applicant of his obligations under the Habitats Regulations to ensure a licence is obtained from the Welsh Assembly Government prior to any works commencing on site.

It is not considered that there are any issues in relation to residential amenity.

The comments from the Gower Society are noted but the redevelopment of the site is covered under planning application 2010/0330 which is being considered elsewhere on this agenda. The details for the house supplied as part of this Conservation Area Consent match those that are contained within the full planning permission application.

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

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/1356

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

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

3 Prior to the commencement of any work on site, a "Bat Licence" shall be obtained from the Welsh Assembly Government and a copy submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation measures proposed in the accompanying mitigation/method statement should form part of the "licence to disturb" application. The approved details shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the development complies with the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994, and to secure the protection of Listed European Protected Species on site.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV10

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, garage/store plans received 27th September 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

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

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

SITE HISTORY

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

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

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

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

Llwchwr Town Council – No objection AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

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

Countryside Council for Wales – Objects to the proposal, because there is not enough information for us to assess possible effects on the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA) and Burry Inlet Ramsar.

Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to conditions

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

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

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

AMENDED PLANS

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

Llwchwr Town Council – No objection.

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

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Christine Richards due to concerns over the visual and residential amenities of the area.

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

The originally submitted scheme was for a large dormer bungalow. It was considered that as the properties along this part of Culfor Road are two storey dwellings, a bungalow of the design proposed would appear as a discordant and incongruous feature that would not attract a favourable recommendation. Further negotiations took place on several designs with the final design being the one that the applicant would like to be put forward for final consideration. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

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

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

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

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

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

The current scheme for consideration comprises of a two storey dwelling with a single storey rear wing and a rear conservatory. The main body of the two storey dwelling would measure approximately 7.6m x 7.2m with an eaves height of 5m and an overall height of 7m. The single storey addition and conservatory to the rear of the property would measure an additional 9.8m in total depth with overall heights of 4.5m and 3.9m respectively.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the front elevation and the scale of the two storey element of the dwelling is akin to the neighbouring property at no.144 Culfor Road and is not unacceptable in itself per se, the excessive depth of the single storey rear additions, would not relate well to the scale of the main body of the house and due to its location would appear as a discordant and incongruous feature in the street scene. It is appreciated that the applicant wishes for the amount of accommodation at ground floor for personal reasons but notwithstanding this, it is considered that the unacceptable siting, scale and design of the dwelling at this location outweighs any considerations for the applicant’s personal circumstances.

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

Due to the on-going problems with the Burry Inlet, an Appropriate Assessment of the implication of the proposed development should be carried out and that issues of surface water drainage and foul water drainage/water quality be addressed. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

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

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

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

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

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The siting and excessive scale of the single storey rear projection of the proposed dwelling would appear as a prominent and incongruous feature which would relate poorly to the main form of the dwelling and have an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenities of the area, contrary to the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

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

INFORMATIVES

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

2 Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 requires the competent authority, in this case the City and County of Swansea to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of all projects which alone or in combination with other projects could have a significant effect on the features of a protected European Site, in this case the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Marine Site (CBEEMS), before granting planning permission for any such project. This application comprises development which drains into the catchment area of the CBEEMS and which may, in combination with other projects, have a significant effect on this European Site. However, the information required to enable an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken has not been sought as planning permission is not being granted by the Council in this case, and it is not considered necessary to do so in these circumstances. Should it be proposed to approve this application, an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

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

PLANS

Design & access statement, site location plan (1:1250) received 31st August 2010. Amended plans: block plan, front (street scene) elevation, elevations and floor plans received 26th July 2011

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0916 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land at Hill End Farm Reynoldston Gower Proposal: Construction of 3 no. agricultural buildings (application for Prior Notification of Agricultural Development) Applicant: Mr David Holmwood

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy 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)

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

The application was advertised on site and 1 LETTER OF OBJECTION from the Gower Society has been received making the following points:

1. Planning permissions sought for this location should be carefully scrutinised, as over the last few years there have been several seeking to convert barns on the site into holiday-let accommodation. 2. The latest one to be approved was 2010/1547; in August 2011 there was a further application for another barn conversion – 2011/0103. 3. The question must be asked; if bedding and feed storage was needed for sheep and pigs, then why were these existing buildings not utilised. 4. To allow conversion of existing farm buildings for accommodation, and then to seek additional buildings for agricultural use should not be allowed. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0916

5. To allow this application could set an unfortunate precedent for the AONB. 6. If the application were to be allowed, then it is suggested that a caveat is placed such that should the agricultural use no longer be needed, then the barns should be demolished.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis given the number of concerns raised in respect of the development.

This is an application for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority will be required for the siting, design and external appearance of three modest agricultural buildings at land at Hill End Farm, Reynoldston.

The Local Planning Authority gave the applicant notice that its prior approval of the above details was required on 13th September 2011.

The buildings comprise of a hay loft measuring 6m by 11m by a maximum of 4.25m high, a lambing shed measuring 24m by 7.2m by a maximum of 3m high and a feed store measuring 10m by 5m by a maximum of 3m high. The three buildings will be arranged around a central courtyard area, although no hardstand is proposed.

The application relates to a new farm holding formed by the applicant in the summer of 2010. The holding does not currently have any agricultural buildings associated with it as they were retained by the original owner upon sale of the land. The size of the agricultural unit currently farmed is in excess of 40 acres, all of which is of freehold tenure. Existing livestock kept on the unit comprises 6 breeding sows and 2 boars (pigs), 12 ewes and 1 ram (sheep) although 50 additional ewes have been sourced but are unable to be placed on the holding due to current circumstances. In terms of animals produced for sale the units comprise of 50 pigs (pork) and 60 sheep (lamb) per annum. Given the absence of any farm buildings on the unit, the aspirations of the applicant and the size of the holding it is considered that the three small buildings are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture.

The proposed buildings would be located within the south west corner of field no. 9616, which is more or less centrally positioned within the holding, where level access is gained from the nearby road to the south, utilising existing field access gates and informal field tracks. The site is screened on two sides by existing hedgerows and a bank of trees and given the very modest height of the buildings this would ensure that views of the buildings from public vantage points would be extremely limited and the impact upon the wider countryside and Gower AONB landscape would be acceptable. The applicant has indicated the use of green cladding/timber as external finishes for the buildings and given their minimal height and scale this would be appropriate

One letter of objection has been received from Gower Society which is largely concerned with the need for the buildings given that several barns at this location have been converted into holiday lets. However, as indicated above, this is a new holding with no buildings associated with it so past decisions should not influence the outcome of this application. All other barns that have been converted are located outside the application holding. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0916

In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and that the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority be given for the three buildings proposed.

RECOMMENDATION

PRIOR APPROVAL is given:

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

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: EV22, EV26, EC14

PLANS

Site location plan, proposed floor plans, A proposed elevations, B proposed elevations, C proposed elevations, D proposed elevations, 3D plan, 3D plan with hedging received 24th August 2011.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 14 APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: High Kiln Bank, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1NA Proposal: Detached two storey unit of holiday accommodation Applicant: Mr Steven Moss

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

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

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

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

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)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

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 2009/1295 Single storey side/rear extension and attached decked area Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/11/2009

2009/1755 Detached raised decked area and staircase Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 04/02/2010

2008/2262 Extension and alterations to existing balcony with addition of external staircase Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/03/2009

2010/0542 Use of garage as a separate unit of holiday accommodation, raised decked area, single storey extension to southern elevation and external alterations Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 27/09/2010

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the local press as a Departure from the Development Plan and three individual properties were consulted. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which are summarised as follows:

1. The applicants have cynically knocked down the garage and is now asking to build a new house in a very small village in the AONB. 2. The access is over land that is owned by Eastern Slade Farm where we keep the gate locked because we do not want cars to travel down onto this land. 3. We feel there would not ne enough parking for more than two vehicles because of the steep incline onto High Kiln Bank and would worry that our access route will be used as further parking for this development. 4. The building has never been class C3 accommodation. 5. Any thorough research by the architect would have identified insufficient headroom in the existing garage. 6. The woodworm could have been treated or removed. 7. This is a new build and should be treated as such. 8. This is not a Conservation Area but the southern boundary of the application site leads onto SSSI land which is all a part of an AONB. 9. It will not integrate with adjacent spaces and will have a detrimental visual impact. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

10. This will place an added burden on an already overloaded sewerage system. 11. An application at Rose Cottage next door was refused on detrimental visual grounds and following considerable negotiations with your department was approved with conditions.

The Gower Society – Objects as follows:

1. A previous application for the conversion of the garage structure resulted in the unexpected demolition of the original structure. Was this approved? If it were not approved, then we cannot think that this was a deliberate decision to circumvent planning regulations. Would a demolition and rebuild have been approved in the first place? 2. The footprint and height of the proposal should not exceed that of the original structure. We were unable to check this from the drawings. 3. We are far from happy with the design that is clearly at odds with the Draft Design Guide and certainly not in keeping with its location. 4. If you are minded to approve, we ask that a clause preventing future full-time occupation be applied. No replacement garage should be allowed to be constructed, nor should any build be allowed to be sold off as separate unit.

Penrice Community Council – No comment to make

Highway Observations - Consent has previously been granted for a conversion of the property however this application now proposes a rebuild. This site is accessed from the end of the adopted highway beyond Oxwich Green. There are a number oh holiday facilities in the vicinity and I do not consider that this proposal to rebuild the existing garage into a holiday let will generate high traffic volumes that would result in a danger on the approach roads. The site is sufficiently large to accommodate both private and holiday parking without resulting in any parking taking place within the approach lanes. Three parking spaces are available for the existing main dwelling and at least 2 spaces can be accommodated for the holiday unit.

On balance, I recommend that no highway objections are raised to this proposal.

Applicant’s Planning Consultant’s Supporting Statement

“Planning consent was granted in September 2010 for the conversion of a two storey building to provide holiday accommodation. This original application was clearly held to be in accordance with the particular UDP policy provisions relating to the conversion of rural buildings. Moreover, it can also be said to have been in accordance with other UDP policies relating to tourism, including Policy EC17 and Strategic Policy 4 in Part 1 of the UDP, as well as the Wales Spatial Plan and other policies relating to the development of tourism facilities. Indeed, the converted building had the potential to provide a modest but high quality holiday let, thereby helping to fill a much needed gap in the range of tourist accommodation available in Gower.

During the course of the conversion works in January 2011 decay was identified in the first floor joists of the building. The builder, and through him the applicant, were advised by the Council’s Building Inspector to remove the first floor of the building in order to replace these joists. The builder, having consulted with the applicant, then followed the advice of the relevant Council officer. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

At the above stage no mention was made by the Building Inspector of the potential planning consequences of his advice. Indeed, it was only after that advice had been followed that an officer of the Council’s planning section indicated that the original consent could no longer lawfully be implemented; apparently because part of the development would constitute new works despite the original ground floor of the building remaining intact.

Ironically, had the applicant been aware of the potential consequences of such action the defective joists could legitimately have been replaced on a “one by one” basis as such repairs would not have constituted development. Indeed, it is far from unknown for other redundant buildings to be repaired in this manner prior to the submission of an application. The fact that such an approach was not followed by the applicant in this case clearly demonstrates the absence of any desire on his part to circumvent planning controls and that, in facing the current dilemma, he has become an innocent victim of circumstance.

The current application has been submitted in order to resolve the dilemma that has arisen. Following discussion it is understood that the officer recommendation on the application is likely to be on one of refusal based upon the absence of any specific UDP policy provision to now justify the grant of consent.

By contrast, it is suggested that the current application, just as the original application, conforms to broader UDP and other polices relating to tourism and that these should likewise be taken into consideration.

More fundamentally, it is noted that the relevant statutory context is provided by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that the determination of any application “... must be made in accordance with the (development) plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. Even if broader polices are ignored therefore, and a very strict interpretation is made of the relevant policy context, there clearly remains a statutory provision for regard to be had to other material considerations.

It is suggested that, in the circumstances outlined, the advice offered by the Council’s Building Inspector and the action taken by the applicant in accordance with that advice, constitute material considerations that should now be taken into account in the determination of the application.

In terms of the implications of any consent, should the current application be approved, it is stressed that there would be no significant difference in the impact or appearance of the building from that previously approved. Indeed, the only such difference would be that the work would be completed to an improved standard of insulation, thereby reducing the environmental impact of the building in accordance with broader policy objectives. Moreover, the hopefully unique series of events that have led to the current anomaly would be unlikely to be repeated and would therefore mean that any approval could not be said to represent a precedent in connection with any other applications.

Given the history as outlined, the Local Planning Authority is respectfully requested to adopt a holistic view of the current application and to have regard both to the broader policy context and, more particularly, to the “other material considerations” provision in the 2004 Act and to now grant consent for a proposal whose use, appearance and impact would essentially be the same as that previously approved.” AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis to consider whether the use for holiday accommodation will create an urbanising impact on the area.

This application seeks full planning permission for the rebuilding of the previously sited detached garage at High Kiln Bank, Oxwich as a separate unit of holiday accommodation.

The building would measure between 4.1m and 5.6m in depth, have a width of 6.1m, with an eaves height of 4.5m and an overall height of 5.8m. The proposed decked area would measure a maximum of approximately 2.8m by a maximum depth of approximately 1.2m and would be sited along the southern elevation. It would be elevated above the ground by a maximum of approximately 3.1m to the top of the proposed balustrade. Materials proposed include a mixture of render and red cedar, natural slate roof and white UPVC windows.

The application site forms part of a small hamlet of detached dwellings accessed off a single track in an isolated coastal location within the Gower AONB. The application property known as ‘High Kiln Bank’ is located on the western side of an existing lane leading to the beach at Slade, near Oxwich. This dwelling is the southernmost property in the string of dwellings that run along either side of this steep sided valley and as such is in a visually prominent position within the immediate area, although the existing garage is sited in a less elevated location than the dwelling itself to the north of the site.

Members will recall that an application for the conversion of the exciting two storey garage building into holiday accommodation was approved in September 2010 – 2010/0542 refers. However, the existing building has been mostly demolished leaving only three walls in situ at ground floor level. Therefore the building cannot just be converted but has to be completely rebuilt and as such the previous planning permission cannot be implemented.

The main issues to be considered with regard to this application are the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling, the surrounding countryside and the Gower AONB, and the impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties having regard to Policies EV1, EV17, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan. As the proposal is now for a new build unit of holiday accommodation, which cannot comply with the criteria of Policy EC12 or Policy EC19 which refers to the conversion of buildings in the open countryside to holiday accommodation and their use as unserviced holiday accommodation, the scheme has to be considered under Policy EV20 which refers to new build residential accommodation in the open countryside. This Policy restricts new dwellings to those required for full time agricultural or forestry workers. It therefore allows exceptions to the restrictive Policy framework that restricts residential new build. Any application for new build residential therefore, including tourism development must be considered against this policy. There are in this case considered to be no additional overriding issues for consideration having regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

The Council does have separate objectives to improve and enhance the tourism portfolio in the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy EC17 specifically relates to rural tourism as part of a rural diversification scheme and only supports proposals which are (i) in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding and (ii) do not have significant adverse effects on landscape and nature conservation interests. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

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

In visual and residential amenity terms, the siting, scale and external appearance of the building is identical to that previously approved under planning permission 2010/0542 and as such its visual impact would not be over and above that previously considered and to this end would neither result in unacceptable impact in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing physical impact. It was considered previously that its visual prominence in the area would not be increased to an unacceptable level, complying with the requirements of Policy EV1. The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal.

However, as the building was demolished instead of converted and notwithstanding the fact that the building proposed would match the external appearance of that previously approved, the criteria for new build accommodation in the open countryside differs considerably from those Polices which support the re-use of buildings in the open countryside to holiday accommodation. The proposal therefore is considered to be tantamount to a new dwelling within the open countryside which as previously stated, restricts new build residential to those employed full time in agriculture or forestry. The applicant has not show a proven agricultural need for the property nor has provided any satisfactory rural justification. It is therefore considered that this proposal for new build tourist accommodation in the countryside is contrary to Policy EV20 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

The issues raised by the objectors have been addressed in the main body of the report. In addition, most of the comments raised in the applicant’s supporting statement have also been addressed above. It is acknowledged that the applicant may not have realised that the demolition would invalidate his planning permission, but this is not considered as strong enough justification for new build within the open countryside as he could have contacted the Local Planning Authority for advice prior to the demolition of the building.

In conclusion, the proposal for the construction of a new unit of holiday accommodation is tantamount to a new dwelling in the open countryside for which there is no satisfactory rural justification or need. It is considered therefore that the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Policies EV20, EC12, EC17 and EC19 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Furthermore, 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 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to the provisions of Policies EV22 and EV26.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reasons: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 22ND NOVEMBER 2011

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2011/0940

1 The proposal is tantamount to a new dwelling in the open countryside for which there is no satisfactory rural justification or need contrary to Policies EV1, EV20, EC12 and EC19 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

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 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV20, EV22, EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV20, EV22, EV26, EC12, EC17, EC19

PLANS

Site location plan, 192 05 block plan, 192 01 existing floor plans and section, 192 02 existing elevations, 192 04 proposed elevations, 192 06 proposed floor plans and section received 26th July 2011

Item No. 5

Electoral Division:

All in Area 2

Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning

Area 2 Planning Committee

Tuesday 22nd November 2011

Appeals Information Report

1. This report provides Members with information on Planning Appeals as they relate to wards within the Area 2 Planning Committee.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) Act, 1985.

None.

Contact Officer: Ian Davies Extension No: 5720 Date of Production: 18.08.11 Document Name: Appeal Progress Report – A2 City and County of Swansea Planning Services

Appeals Received Report 1st July – 30th September

2011/0692 A11/2161564 Area 2 Gorseinon 19 High Street, Gorseinon Detached outbuilding Swansea SA4 4BX

2011/0011 A11/2161558 Area 2 Killay North Land adjacent to 25 Cowper Incorporation of land into Close, Killay, Swansea residential curtilage and SA2 7DG retention and completion of boundary fencing

2010/1354 A11/2161312 Area 2 Bishopston Land adjacent to Long Elms Detached dwelling and 118 Bishopston Road detached garage Bishopston Swansea SA3 3EU

2010/1744 A11/2161102 Area 2 Gower The Old Rectory New front pedestrian & vehicular Port Eynon access Swansea SA3 1NL

2011/0594 A11/2160829 Area 2 Gower Upway Cottage First floor side extension and Port Eynon side dormer, front porch, two Swansea front balconies, side juliette SA3 1NL balcony and rear roof lantern

2011/1009 X11/515510 Area 2 Mayals 31 Llwynderw Drive, West To fell 1 sycamore tree and Cross, Swansea, SA3 5AP crown reduce 1 yew tree covered by TPO No. 529

2010/1897 A11/2159283 Area 2 Oystermouth 7 Devon Place Two storey side extension and Mumbles single storey rear extension with Swansea balcony above SA3 4DR

2011/0649 A11/2159863 Area 2 4 Bro Dirion Retention of rear terraced area Dunvant Swansea SA2 7QB

2011/0606 A11/2159314 Area 2 Dunvant Land at rear of 192 Dunvant Detached dwelling Road, Dunvant, Swansea, SA2 7SL

2011/0401 A11/2157875 Area 2 Penyrheol 33 Station Road Retention of detached dwelling and garage Swansea SA4 4GY

2007/1492 A11/2159140 Area 2 Gowerton Island Farm Pont Y Cob Conversion of former Road Gowerton Swansea stables/slaughter house into one SA4 3QB holiday cottage

2010/0962 A11/2158581 Area 2 Upper Loughor Land adjacent to 19 Waun Construction of one detached Road, Loughor, Swansea dwelling (outline)

2011/0576 A11/2157855 Area 2 Mayals 7 Brynau Drive Two storey rear extension with Mayals balcony, two storey part single Swansea storey front extension with two SA3 5EE side dormers and two storey side extension to both sides

City and County of Swansea Planning Services

Appeals Received Report

Appeals Received Between 01-Jul-2011 And 30-Sep-2011

Reference P.I. Ref Area Ward Location Development

2011/0065 A11/2158582 Area 2 Cockett Land to the rear of 1233 Detached bungalow Carmarthen Road Fforestfach Swansea SA5 4BN

ENF10/0036 C11/2149109 Area 2 Gower Land opposite 2 Frogmore The formation of a hard standing Cottage, Frogmore Lane, for the parking of vehicles and Knelston, Swansea the erection of a shed

2011/0418 A11/2156955 Area 2 Newton 40 Caswell Road Caswell Two storey rear extension, Swansea SA3 4SD single storey rear extension, first floor front extension and balustrade and single storey side extension.

2011/0167 A11/2156917 Area 2 Gower Brynymor, Cock Street, Single storey garage extension Llangennith, Swansea SA3 1JE

ENF11/0016 C11/2156406 Area 2 Newton 47 Southward Lane The unauthorised creation of a Langland means of access and Swansea associated engineering works SA3 4QD

2010/1322 A11/2156488 Area 2 Dunvant Land to the rear of 201 and Two detached bungalows 203 Dunvant Road, Dunvant, (outline) Swansea SA2 7SR

2010/1230 A11/2156380 Area 2 Gower Upway Cottage Port Eynon First floor side extension with Swansea SA3 1NL two dormers and addition of porch and two balconies to south elevation.

2011/0097 A11/2156218 Area 2 Cockett 1 Bridge Road Retention and completion of Waunarlwydd single storey rear extension Swansea SA5 4SP

ENF11/0015 F11/2156392 Area 2 Newton 49 Southward Lane The unauthorised demolition of Langland Swansea SA3 the entire front boundary wall 4QD

ENF11/0013 C11/2155657 Area 2 Gower Windmill Farm, Oldwalls, The unauthorised erection of a Llanrhidian, Swansea marquee and associated works

Total Received : 23

3 15/11/2011 08:20:52 Page 2 of 2 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED 1ST APRIL 2011 – 30TH JUNE 2011

1.

REFERENCE : ENF10/0062 WARD : Pennard

LOCATION : The Garden, Phillips Field, Sandy Lane, Pennard

DEVELOPMENT :

Erection of detached outbuilding

DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

LPA DECISION: Enforcement Action to secure removal of the outbuilding

APPEAL DECISION: Withdrawn

------2.

REFERENCE : ENF10/0050 WARD : Fairwood

LOCATION : Land at Werganrows Farm, Fairwood

DEVELOPMENT : Siting of caravans for residential use

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated

LPA DECISION : Enforcement Action to cease use and remove caravans

APPEAL DECISION : WIthdrawn

------3.

REFERENCE : ENF10/0036 WARD : Gower

LOCATION : Land opposite 2 Frogmore Cottage, Frogmore Lane, Knelston

DEVELOPMENT :

Hard standing for the parking of vehicles & the erection of a shed

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated

LPA DECISION : Enforcement Action to remove hardstanding and shed

APPEAL DECISION : No further acion ------

4

4.

REFERENCE : 2011/0421 WARD : Pennard

LOCATION : Land between 22/24 Eastcliff, Pennard

DEVELOPMENT : Detached dwelling

DECISION LEVEL: Delegated RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

LPA DECISION: Refuse APPEAL DECISION: Allowed

------5.

REFERENCE : 2011/0418 WARD : Newton

LOCATION : 40 Caswell Road, Caswell

DEVELOPMENT : Two storey front extension, single storey rear extension, first floor front extension & balustrade and single storey side extension

DECISION LEVEL : Committee RECOMMENDATION : Approve

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Withdrawn

------6.

REFERENCE : 2011/0167 WARD : Gower

LOCATION : Brynymor, Cock Street, Llangennith

DEVELOPMENT : Single storey garage extension

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed ------

5 7.

REFERENCE : 2011/0166 WARD : Mayals

LOCATION : Land adjacent to 7 Brynau Drive, Mayals

DEVELOPMENT : Detached dwelling (Outline)

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------8.

REFERENCE : 2011/0141 WARD : Sketty

LOCATION : 1 Hendrefoilan Avenue, Sketty

DEVELOPMENT : Single storey side extension with accommodation in roof space and front dormer

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Allowed ------9.

REFERENCE : 2011/0112 WARD : Gower

LOCATION : Land adjacent to Long Meadow, Kennexstone, Llangennith

DEVELOPMENT : Retention of use of land as residential, detached outbuilding and patio

DECISION LEVEL : Committee RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed ------

6 10.

REFERENCE : 2011/0109 WARD : Penllergaer

LOCATION : 93 Elm Crescent, Penllergaer

DEVELOPMENT : Two storey side extension and rear conservatory

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse

APPEAL DECISION : Extension Dismissed, Conservatory allowed ------11.

REFERENCE : 2011/0097 WARD : Cockett

LOCATION : 1 Bridge Road, Waunarlwydd

DEVELOPMENT : Retention and completion of rear single storey extension

DECISION LEVEL : Committee RECOMMENDATION : Approve

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed ------12.

REFERENCE : 2011/0061 WARD : Cockett

LOCATION : 12 Martell Street, Fforestfach

DEVELOPMENT : Rear conservatory

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Allowed ------13..

REFERENCE : 2011/0060 WARD : Oystermouth

LOCATION : Clifton House, 101a Newton Road, Mumbles

DEVELOPMENT : Retention of one non illuminated high level sign

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

7 14.

REFERENCE : 2010/1785 WARD : Oystermouth

LOCATION : 48 Newton Road, Mumbles

DEVELOPMENT : Change of use of ground floor from sandwich bar to office/professional services

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed ------15.

REFERENCE : 2010/1722 WARD : Pennard

LOCATION : The Garden, Phillips, Filed, Sandy Lane, Pennard

DEVELOPMENT : Detached outbuilding

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Withdrawn

------

16.

REFERENCE : 2010/1675 WARD : Kingsbridge

LOCATION : 20 William Dennis Avenue, Gorseinon

DEVELOPMENT : First Floor side extension

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------

8 17.

REFERENCE : 2010/1109 WARD : Mayals

LOCATION : Land adjacent to 7 Brynau Drive (plot A), Mayals

DEVELOPMENT : Detached dwelling (Outline)

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------18.

REFERENCE : 2010/0958 WARD : Newton

LOCATION : 1 Langland Court Road, Langland

DEVELOPMENT : First Floor balcony on west elevation, second floor balcony on south elevation

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse

APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed for second floor balcony allowed for first floor balcony

------19.

REFERENCE : 2010/0149 WARD : Penclawdd

LOCATION : Land at Y Berllan, New Road, Llanmorlais

DEVELOPMENT : Detached dormer bungalow with detached garage

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------

9 20.

REFERENCE : 2010/1322 WARD : Dunvant

LOCATION : Land to the rear of 201 & 203 Dunvant Road, Dunvant

DEVELOPMENT : Two detached bungalows (Outline)

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------21.

REFERENCE : 2010/1255 WARD : Gower

LOCATION : Maranatha, Port Eynon

DEVELOPMENT : Variation of condition to allow for retention of UPVC windows & doors

DECISION LEVEL : Committee RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Allowed

------22.

REFERENCE : 2010/1230 WARD : Gower

LOCATION : Upway Cottage, Port Eynon

DEVELOPMENT : First Floor side extension with two dormers and addition of porch and two balconies to south elevation

DECISION LEVEL : Committee RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------

10 23.

REFERENCE : 2009/0432 WARD : Penyrheol

LOCATION : Bryn-Yr-Arad Farm, Grovesend

DEVELOPMENT : Retention and completion of Land Restoration and reprofiling by increasing land level by a maximum of 1.5m

DECISION LEVEL : Delegated RECOMMENDATION : Refuse

LPA DECISION : Refuse APPEAL DECISION : Dismissed

------

11 Item No. 6

Electoral Division:

All in Area 2

Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration & Planning

Area 2 Planning Committee

Tuesday 22nd November 2011

Enforcement Progress Report

1. This report provides Members with information on the number of complaints received and resolved by the Planning Enforcement Team, together with information on Enforcement Notices served, Enforcement Appeals received and Enforcement Notices complied with as it relates to the Area 2 Planning Committee

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) Act, 1985.

None.

Contact Officer: Ian Davies Extension No: 5720 Date of Production: 8.11.11 Document Name: Enf Progress Report – A2

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED AND RESOLVED 1st July– 30th September 2011

Total number of complaints received all Areas = 186

Number of complaints received in Area 2 = 102

Number of complaints resolved in Area 2 = 155

Summary of Complaints received and resolved 1st June 2011 to 30th September 2011

WARD COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS COMPLAINTS OUTSTANDING RECEIVED RESOLVED OUTSTANDING 30TH 30TH JUNE 2011 SEPTEMBER 2011 Bishopston 19 3 10 12 Cockett 25 10 10 25 Dunvant 12 3 6 9 Fairwood 7 5 6 6 Gorseinon 6 1 2 5 Gower 90 16 33 73 Gowerton 11 3 5 9 Killay North 1 0 0 1 Killay South 3 5 2 6 Kingsbridge 0 0 0 0 Lower Loughor 0 3 0 3 Mayals 4 3 5 2 Newton 21 8 19 10 Oystermouth 29 12 19 22 Penclawdd 22 2 4 20 Penllergaer 6 1 2 5 Pennard 28 11 11 28 Penyrheol 4 0 0 4 Sketty 18 7 9 16 Upper Loughor 6 2 4 4 West Cross 16 7 8 15

TOTAL 328 102 155 275

2 ENFORCEMENT NOTICES SERVED IN QUARTER

Enf Ref. Ward Location Nature Of Breach Requirements Current Status ENF11/0018 Dunvant 30 Priors Way, Non compliance with Install obscure Not complied Dunvant condition requiring obscure glazing with. glazing of windows Discussions with applicant over timescale for action

3

ENFORCEMENT APPEALS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO NOTICES SERVED BEFORE 1ST APRIL 2011

Enf Ref. Ward Location Nature Of Breach Requirements Current Status ENF09/0022 Gower (Land at Fields Change of use of the land Cease the use Notices 2038 and 2839 & from agriculture to land used of the land for appealed. 1229 and 0726 for agriculture and camping. camping Appeal held in Nicholaston Farm, abeyance to Nicholaston allow consideration of planning applications. ENF10/0069 Gower Field 3876, Port Erection of an agricultural Demolish the Public Inquiry Eynon, building building scheduled for 31.01.12 ENF11/0011 Cockett 44 New Road, Erection of decking in front Remove the Site visit Cockett garden decking and all 21.11.11. resulting Decision materials from awaited site ENF11/0013 Gower Windmill Farm, Erection of marquee Remove the Hearing to be Oldwalls, marquee and held 17.01.12 Llanrhidian all associated material from site ENF11/0015 Newton 49 Southward Demolition of front boundary Re-instate the Waiting for Lane, Newton wall without conservation area wall decision consent

4 ENFORCEMENT NOTICES RESOLVED

Enf Ref. Ward Location Nature Of Breach Requirements Current Status ENF11/008 West Cross Beaufort Arms, 1 Erection of marquee Remove the Marquee Castle Road, marquee removed. No Mumbles further action 08.11.11. ENF10/0068 Gower Dunraven Farm, Siting of caravan for Cease the use Application Burry Green residential purposes and remove the 2011/0056 caravan approved for temporary period. Notice superseded.

5 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (37)

Councillors

Swansea Administration Councillors: A Mike Day Paul M Meara E Wendy Fitzgerald W Keith Morgan Nicola A Holley John Newbury Jeff W Jones Cheryl L Philpott Mary H Jones Darren Price Susan M Jones T Huw Rees James B Kelleher R June Stanton Richard D Lewis Nick J Tregoning Keith E Marsh Vice Chair D Paul Tucker Chair

Labour Councillors: Nicholas S Bradley Robert J ( Bob) Lloyd June E Burtonshaw Penny M Matthews Mark C Child Byron G Owen William Evans Grenville Phillips Labour Vacancy J Christine Richards David I E Jones Ceinwen Thomas Erika T Kirchner Des W W Thomas

Conservative Councillors: Anthony C S Colburn C Miles R W D Thomas Margaret Smith

Communities of Swansea Councillor: Mair E Gibbs Glyn Seabourne

Copies Needed - 95