CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are invited to attend a meeting of the
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE SITE VISITS
On: Tuesday 23rd March 2010
Time: 9.30 am. from Civic Centre, Swansea
AGENDA
Would Members of the Committee please note that they are invited to attend the under mentioned site visit. (A coach will leave Civic Centre, Swansea at 9.30 am)
Site Visit Approx Planning Application No. 2009/1731 - The Laurels, 34A 9.40 am West Cross Lane, West Cross, Swansea, SA3 5LS - Increase in ridge height to provide first floor accommodation with front and side dormers and retention of alterations to parking and access.
Approx Planning Application No. 2009/0175 - Land adjacent to 10.10 am Long Elms, 118 Bishopston Road, Bishopston, Swansea, SA3 3EU - Detached dwelling and detached garage.
Approx Planning Application No. 2009/1599 - Land at Oxwich 10.45 am Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS - Extend the period of temporary permitted use for marquee and associated overspill car park to include the period commencing 1st November 2009 and ceasing on 31st March 2011.
Approx Planning Application No. 2010/0092 - Plot 1, Plenty Farm 11.25am Llangennith Swansea - Detached dwelling with integral garage.
This planning application will be considered at the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee scheduled to be held in the Council Chamber , Civic Centre, on Tuesday 13th April 2010 at 2.00 pm.
D. Daycock Head of Legal & Democratic Services 17th March 2010 Contact: Suzanne Collins 01792 637291
Site visits are:
• Fact finding exercises; • Not part of the formal consideration of the application and therefore public rights of attendance do not apply; • To enable officers to point out relevant features; • To enable questions to be asked on site for clarification. However, discussion on the application will only take place at the subsequent Committee or Council as all relevant parties may not be in attendance on site.
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 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731 WARD: West Cross Area 2
Location: The Laurels, 34A West Cross Lane, West Cross, Swansea, SA3 5LS Proposal: Increase in ridge height to provide first floor accommodation with front and side dormers and retention of alterations to parking and access Applicant: Mr Paul Davison
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy HC7 Proposals for extensions and alterations to existing residential dwellings will be assess in terms of; relationship to the existing dwelling, impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, effect on neighbouring properties, and impact on car parking. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2009/0359 Increase in ridge height and addition of first floor to create two storey dwelling Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25/06/2009
85/0007/10 SECTION 60 APPLICATION TO RAISE CROWNS OF 2 YEWS COVERED BY TPO 134. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 28/02/1985
86/0040/03 ERECTION OF A BUNGALOW. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 24/04/1986
85/0863/10 SECTION 60 APPLICATION TO FELL CEDAR COVERED BY TPO 134. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985
85/0525/01 ONE LUXURY DETACHED HOUSE OR BUNGALOW. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/06/1985
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The neighbouring properties were consulted THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received in respect of the original proposal and a PETITION numbering FIFTY SIX signatories. The content of the correspondence is summarised below:
1. We will lose all privacy as three bedroom windows (proposed) will be overlooking two of our bedrooms, kitchen, lounge and garden, the bungalow was built very close to our boundary.
2. The present bungalow foundations are already about 6-7ft above our garden, this would make the proposed house about 30-35ft high overlooking our house and garden.
3. The proposed increase in ridge height will have a detrimental visual impact on the area
4. The height would also affect the amount of light entering our house and garden, we would be in deep shadow of the proposed modifications as we are already in the shadow of the bungalow.
5. The plans submitted do not blend well with neighbouring houses which were built around 1930.
6. The increase by a complete storey is unacceptable it would raise the roof well above the general roof line of the houses downhill from No34a
7. The bedroom windows will overlook our garden and main habitable rooms.
8. The rear wall of the proposed development is 1.0 metres away from our common boundary
9. The proposed house is totally out of character with neighbouring 1930’s properties.
10. The existing bungalow is well screened.
11. You have granted outline planning permission for infill development on the land behind us
12. The council awarded itself planning permission for a school that is not in keeping with the overall character of the area.
13. The retaining works between the application site and No.1 Grange Road are cracking and in need of repair.
14. The proposal will reduce light levels to my hall and side living room window.
The signatories to the petition signed in respect of the following statement. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731
“We the under signed wish to object to the proposal on the grounds on its adverse visual impact on the area, loss of privacy to surrounding properties and requires the removal of mature trees and shrubs.”
Further to the receipt of amended plans a re-consultation exercise was undertaken and the following comments were received from previous objectors:
1. Our observations remain the same and the petition still stands. 2. The only material change is that the ridge height is slightly lower and the dormer windows are now skylights. 3. The proposed development would have a detrimental visual impact on the area. 4. We notified you that the developer was removing a hedge and trees in spite of a planning Condition. We are extremely disappointed by your department’s failure to act or check the facts. 5. The elevation facing my garden would be a large rectangle of artificial slate and skylights for 45% of my boundary. 6. My previous objections stand in respect of the proposed scheme. 7. The development of the house from my back garden will be unacceptably overbearing and will still result in a loss of privacy. 8. My property will be in ever increasing shadow. 9. The modest alterations to the proposal do not alter the fact that the new property will still be significantly visible from West Cross Lane. 10. It was previously determined that the residential impact would be significant and unacceptably overbearing and have an overshadowing impact on neighbours. The amendments do not remove these objections and the changes are not radical enough. 11. Any increase in ridge height will have a seriously detrimental effect on the quality of life for me and my family.
Mumbles Community Council: OBJECTS on the following grounds
• Out of keeping with existing houses and visual aspect.
Highways & Transportation – This proposed extension will add additional bedrooms to the property. Access is to be relocated from the western end to the eastern end of the site leading to a new drive and turning area together with a garage facility. There is room for at least 3 cars on the drive and a 4th car in the garage, therefore more than adequate parking will be available.
No highway objection subject to:
1. The construction of a vehicular crossing to Highway Authority Specification. 2. The removal of the old access and reinstatement of the footway.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Mark Child. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731
Full planning permission is sought for an increase in the ridge height to provide first floor accommodation with front and side dormers at 34a The Laurels, West Cross with retention of alterations to the parking and access. The application property is a detached bungalow set in a relatively well screened and elevated plot close to the junction of West Cross Avenue and Grange Road. The streetscene is characterised by properties with a varied design and character however the more dominant property type may be described as substantial detached properties set in large plots.
Outline planning permission was granted under application Ref: 85/0525/01 for the construction of a “Luxury house or bungalow” at this location on the 27th June 1985. A subsequent reserved matters application Ref: 86/0040/03 was granted on 24th April 1986 allowing the erection of a bungalow. The two bedroom bungalow subsequently erected was constructed on an ‘L’ shaped footprint with the east facing elevation adjacent to the common boundary with No.34 measuring approximately 18.0 metres in length. The overall footprint of the bungalow as existing is approximately 234.8 square metres with a maximum height to the eaves of 2.4 metres and to the ridge of 4.8 metres. This permission was subject to a range of conditions one of which related to the retention of the hedge and trees that served to form the boundary treatment of the site at that time.
The scheme currently being considered will not result in an increase in eaves height which will remain at approximately 2.4 metres. The proposal will see an increase in ridge height from 4.8 metres to approximately 6.7 metres. The wing currently incorporating a garage will see an increase in ridge height from 4.5 metres to approximately 6.7 metres.
The alterations to the access and parking arrangements that have been undertaken on site give rise to a breach of condition in respect of the original application Ref: 86/0040/03. However, it is considered expedient to consider the merits of this application and determine it accordingly prior to instigating any enforcement proceedings.
Discussions have taken place between Officers for the Local Planning Authority and the applicant with a view to reducing the scale of the scheme and amended plans seeking to address the concerns raised have been forthcoming.
In respect of visual amenity looking west from the junction of Grange Road and West Cross Lane towards the application site the bungalow is largely hidden from view and does not detract from the character of the surrounding area. The increase in height proposed under this scheme is approximately 1.8 metres lower at the ridge than that previously refused under application Ref: 2009/0359 and the proposed alterations to the garage wing running east to west will see the eaves height remaining as is and the alterations to the roof forming a full hip. This element of the proposal will see the ridge height increased to 6.7 metres, approximately 1.2 metres less than the previous proposal.
It is considered that given the change in levels, the boundary treatment and the alterations proposed that the scheme would be sensitive to the character and appearance of the street scene as viewed from West Cross Lane. The retention of the existing eaves height would ensure that the resultant development would be sufficiently low lying as not to present the same visual impact as that originally proposed under application Ref: 2009/0359. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731
The original vehicular access located in the south east corner of the site has been blocked and a new access has been created to the south west corner of the site. Whilst concerns have been raised in respect of the Tree Preservation Order relating to the Strawberry Tree at this location the Councils Tree Officer has confirmed by way of a site visit that the tree would be unaffected by the works. In addition to this the plants and shrubs removed from the south west boundary of the site were transplanted to the previous opening and replanted at this location providing a range of mature vegetation to the boundary. Visually the works to the boundary are considered acceptable subject to the block work wall enclosing the original opening being clad in stone to match the adjoining wall sections at this location.
Turning to the impact upon residential amenity, it was considered under the previous proposal that given the location of the existing property approximately 1.0 Metres off the common boundary with No.34 West Cross Lane, approximately 2.0 metres off the common boundary with No.18 West Cross Lane at its closest point and approximately 2.0 metres off the common boundary with No.1 Grange Road that the increase in height of the property in question, would give rise to a harmful overbearing impact upon these properties. The present scheme has, however, been amended in such a way as to overcome these concerns.
In terms of the impact upon No. 18 West Cross Lane whilst the ridge height of the dwelling adjacent to this dwelling will increase, the effect of this would be offsett by the hipping of the roof at this point so that the existing gable facing this property would be removed. As such it is not considered that the proposal will give rise to any significant increase in overbearing or overshadowing impacts upon this property. No additional fenestration is proposed to this elevation of the scheme and as such there are no additional overlooking impacts to consider in respect of this aspect of the proposal. The three dormer additions on the east facing roof plane, orientated towards the side amenity area of No.18 West Cross Lane, will not it is considered, given the nature of use of this area, the steep change in levels and the separation distance of approximately 16.0 metres to the boundary and approximately 21.0 meters to the side elevation of No.18, give rise to any additional unacceptable overlooking impacts.
In respect of No.34 West Cross Lane, whilst the separation distance is limited it is not considered that any significant residential impacts will arise. The extant footprint of the bungalow would remain as is and the principle issue for consideration is whether the proposed increase in ridge height introduces significant additional overbearing or overshadowing impacts such that a recommendation of refusal may be warranted. Given the more elevated position of No.34 West Cross Lane relative to the application site and the path of the sun it is not considered that any significant overshadowing or overbearing impacts will arise.
The roof lights on the western roof plane would serve a bathroom and two bedrooms. However, they would be positioned high in the roof to ensure no overlooking and subject to the imposition of a condition requiring them to be positioned a minimum of 1.8 metres above internal floor levels no harmful overlooking would occur. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731
In terms of No.1 Grange Road, whilst the proposed scheme would be visible from the plot associated with this dwelling, particularly an elevated area of rear amenity space, it is considered that the topography of the site, separation distance and orientation of the dwelling would be sufficient to ensure that no significant impacts would be experienced that would prove detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of this dwelling by virtue of overshadowing or overbearing effects. Similarly there are no additional windows that could overlook this property.
There are not considered to be any residential impacts arising from the alterations of the access and parking arrangements and the Head of Transportation and Engineering offers no objections subject to the construction of a vehicular crossing to Highway Authority Specification and the removal of the old access and reinstatement of the footway.
In respect of the third party concerns raised those issues that are material to the determination of the application have been considered in the main body of the report above. Issues relating to the condition of retaining walls forming the boundary are covered by different legislation and an informative is recommended advising of responsibilities under the Party Wall Act.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above considerations the proposal is considered to be acceptable in respect of its impact upon the character and appearance of the existing property and will not, it is considered detract from the visual amenities of the streetscene to which it relates. The scheme will not, on balance, have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and the proposed development will therefore, it is considered comply with the requirements of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any further material planning considerations, 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 Within 3 months of the date of this permission the boundary wall fronting West Cross Lane shall be finished with stone to match the adjoining sections of wall. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731
3 Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved the rooflight windows in the west facing elevation orientated toward No.34 West Cross Lane shall be set a minimum of 1.8 metres above the internal floor level of the proposed accommodation in the roof space. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and privacy protection
INFORMATIVES
1 The Developer must contact the Team Leader - Highways Management, City and County of Swansea (Highways), Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea. SA6 5BJ (Tel 01792 841601) before carrying out any work..
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, HC7
3 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994. This legislation implements the EC Habitats & Species Directive in the UK making it an offence to capture, kill or disturb a European Protected Species or to damage or destroy the breeding site or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to recklessly / intentionally to disturb such an animal. If evidence of bats is encountered during site clearance, work should cease immediately and the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales sought before continuing with any work (01792 634960).
4 Birds may be present in the roof of this building please note it is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally (intentionally or recklessly for Schedule 1 birds) to: - Kill, injure or take any wild bird - Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest in use or being built - Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird Care should be taken when working on buildings particularly during the bird nesting season March-August.
5 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
6 PARTY WALL ETC ACT 1996 The developer is advised that the provisions of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 may be applicable to the proposal and is advised to seek appropriate advice prior to any work commencing on site.
PLANS
34aWX/01 existing floor plans and elevations received 23rd November 2009. Amended plans 34aWX/03 Rev A block plan and proposed elevations received 8th February 2010
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175 WARD: Bishopston Area 2
Location: Land adjacent to Long Elms, 118 Bishopston Road, Bishopston, Swansea, SA3 3EU Proposal: Detached dwelling and detached garage Applicant: Mr John Bollom
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee meeting on the 23rd June 2009 to allow for the submission of further detail. My report has been updated to include addition letters of objection and a petition. In addition to this the report has been updated to include further supporting information in relation to the impact upon the protected trees and as such my recommendation has changed to APPROVAL.
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV12 The character of lanes and public paths that contribute to the amenity, natural and historical qualities of an area will be protected. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV40 Development proposals will not be permitted that would cause or result in significant harm to health, local amenity, natural heritage, the historic environment or landscape character because of significant levels of air, noise or light pollution. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV3 Proposals for new development and alterations to and change of use of existing buildings will be required to meet defined standards of access. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV17 Within the boundaries of the large villages as identified on the Proposals Map, development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and, in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off, subject to the other defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
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 EV30 Protection and improved management of woodlands, trees and hedgerows which are important for their visual amenity, historic environment, natural heritage, and/or recreation value will be encouraged. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV33 Planning permission will normally only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer or, where this system is inadequate, satisfactory improvements can be provided prior to the development becoming operational. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
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 2002/1921 To fell 2 Ash trees, 1 Cedar tree and 1 Cypress tree, and lop 2 Beech tree covered by TPO no 352 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 25/03/2003
2002/2222 Single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, single front/rear extension and construction of a two storey detached building comprising of residential accommodation on the first floor with garages/ storage area/car port on ground floor Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/03/2003
2002/2227 Single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, single front/rear extension and construction of a two storey detached building comprising of residential accommodation on the first floor with garages/storage area/car port on ground floor (Application for Listed Building Consent) Decision: Grant Listed Build Consent (C) Decision Date: 16/06/2003 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
2003/0803 Repositioning of two storey detached building comprising residential accommodation on the first floor with garages/storage area/car port on ground floor (amendment to planning permission 2002/2222 granted on 17th March 2003) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 03/07/2003
2003/0997 To fell 10 Sitka Spruce trees and 2 Cypress trees covered by TPO No. 352 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 10/07/2003
2003/2555 Construction of replacement dwelling to match the external appearance of the former timber framed dwelling Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 16/11/2004
2006/1738 Demolition of dwelling and retention of replacement dwelling to match the external appearance of the former timber framed dwelling (application for Listed Building Consent) Decision: Grant Listed Building Consent Unconditional (UC) Decision Date: 08/08/2008
2006/1737 Retention of replacement dwelling to match the external appearance of the former timber framed dwelling Decision: Grant Permission Unconditional Decision Date: 05/06/2008
2004/0535 Retention of land within residential curtilage (application for a Certificate of Lawfulness) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 10/03/2005
93/1081 ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING HOUSE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 14/12/1993
93/1293 THE CLEARANCE OF SELECTED AREAS OF MAINLY CYPRESS TREES, THE CUTTING BACK AND COPPICING OF UNDERSTOREY AND REPLANTING IN WOODLAND SHOWN AS W1 ON THE PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO 352. Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 18/01/1994
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
94/0886 ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING HOUSE (AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS PLANNING PERMISSION 93/1081 DATED 14.12.93) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 23/08/1994
95/0029 TO FELL 4 AND LOP 2 TREES COVERED BY TPO 352 Decision: GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 28/02/1995
95/0485 FELLING OF CONIFERS COVERED BY TPO 352 Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 09/06/1995
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The application was advertised on site and in the press as development which might materially affect the setting of a listed building. Neighbouring occupiers were also individually consulted. As a result 60 letters of objection have been received and a PETITION of 126 objectors. All letters are available for inspection on the planning application file. A summary of the main points is provided below:
Character & appearance of the area 1. The proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the AONB, Bishopston Valley and wider character of the area. The site is also visible from a Public Footpath and much further a field. 2. The existing property is already overdeveloped. The site is too small and will create a cramped and overintensive form of development. 3. There is concern about the threat to several TPO trees on the site, particularly as a result of the access alterations. The development would be contrary to Policy EV30 of the UDP. Several TPO trees have already been felled. 4. The development would have an adverse impact on the adjacent Grade II listed building. 5. The development by virtue of its scale and massing is out of keeping with the low density and semi-rural character of the surroundings and represents an overdevelopment and urbanizing of the site. 6. The development is of a poor quality design. 7. The proposal will result in the loss of an important green space under Policy EV24 of the UDP. 8. The development would encroach into the countryside. Residential amenity 9. There is concern about noise and disturbance during the construction stage. 10. There is concern about noise, dust and petrol fumes nuisance as a result of a further gravel drive. 11. There is concern about additional light pollution. The removal of several trees has already made the situation worse. 12. The development is inappropriate and unacceptable backland development which would have a significant adverse overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties contrary to Policy EV2 of the UDP. 13. To grant permission for the development would be in breach of the Human Rights Act as it would affect the right to the natural enjoyment of neighbouring properties. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
14. If permission is granted permitted development rights should be removed for new windows in the flank walls in order to preserve privacy. 15. Additional use of the existing lane would be harmful to the amenities of adjoining residents by virtue of noise and disturbance. 16. The detached garage would give rise to overlooking, a loss of sunlight and introduce additional noise and light pollution. 17. The buildings would be too close to the boundaries giving rise to loss of light and overshadowing and overbearing impact with little scope for additional planting. 18. There is a safety risk to adjoining residents as a result of the close proximity of the access to the adjoining dwelling’s flank wall. Highway safety 19. The proposed development would have an adverse impact upon highway and pedestrian safety as a result of additional traffic generation and poor visibility at the junction with Bishopston Road. 20. The assertion by the Head of Transportation that the additional traffic movements anticipated due to the occupation of the new dwelling is one traffic movement during peak periods is frankly unrealistic and for a house of this size the expectation must be that more than one vehicle would be in the control of the new household and movement would be far in excess of a single movement at peak periods. 21. The visual splays at the junction of the access lane with Bishopston Road do not approach the figures claimed by the applicant of 60m at 2m and 2.4m and are lower than the 25m claimed in the report on the right hand side and as such present a hazard for drivers leaving the lane and using the main road at this junction. Drainage 22. The septic tanks are too close to the existing and proposed dwellings. The development and existing dwelling should connect to the mains sewer as required by Policy EV33 of the UDP and WO Circular 10/99. 23. The development would have an unacceptable impact on current drainage infrastructure. 24. Question the reasoning why the proposal cannot link to mains drainage. 25. Even if available falls did not permit a gravity drainage system a small domestic pumped system (eg Flygt Micro 7) could be installed at modest cost. Other concerns 26. The proposed access alterations would have an adverse impact on the stability of the existing retaining walls. The proposed retaining wall is also unsatisfactory. 27. The development would set a precedent for further development which would be detrimental to the area. 28. The development would have an adverse impact upon the wildlife of the area. There has already been a degrading of wildlife habitat by previous actions of the applicant. 29. There is a history of planning refusals in the area for similar developments. 30. There is concern about the unlawful use of the existing annex as a business premises and permanent living accommodation. It is not being use as ancillary accommodation. 31. The development would result in a loss of view for adjoining residents and a loss of property value. 32. The site is subject to a restrictive covenant limiting the site to a single dwelling. 33. There is no shortage of large houses for sale in the area therefore this is just a profit making venture. 34. There is concern about the accuracy of the plans i.e. the access road and the manner in which No.116 Bishopston Road is depicted. 35. The lane boundary ownership is unclear and no notice has been served by the applicant. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
36. There is concern about the ‘tactic’ used by the applicant in seeking approval for this development then applying subsequently for a larger development. 37. Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV12, EV17, EV26, EV30, EV33, EV40 of the UDP are relevant to this application. 38. The Beech Tree is not located within the applicants control. 39. I advise that the ground levels of the site of the tree have been raised per the formation of the hedge bank. Hedgebank was constructed by me from a mixture of top and subsoil derived from the construction of my property (no 120). Originally the ground levels on access driveway and our property were roughly equal with the driveway dipping down at its very end to the road. This would mean that the root system of the subject tree would have been spread laterally beneath the driveway and would therefore inevitably be adversely affected by the retaining wall construction. It is not planted in the hedgebank with roots system inclined to vertical. 40. Concern over the content and credibility of the submitted Powell Dobson Report and Tree Care Wales Report. 41. The removal of the wall and infill as proposed will re-expose the roots and put the health of the tree at risk again. 42. The proposals for protecting the integrity of the banks and stability of the trees are inadequate. 43. The validity of the Powell Dobson Report dated 7th July has been brought into question and the following comments have been summarised below: • Assumptions of the report with regard the dating of the south hedgebank are wholly incorrect and poorly researched. • The extant trees No1 and No3 did not develop from the beech hedge. • The southern earth bank was constructed by ourselves prior to the construction of No 120. • It was also a condition of sale of the land to us (and possibly planning consent) that the beech hedge was planted to mitigate loss of vegetation per the development of our property. • What is unquestionable is that the beech tree No1 pre-existed the construction of the earth bank which was formed from soil excavated from the development of 120 circa 1995/6. • Messrs P&D are incorrect in their assumptions regarding the history of the site and their report must therefore be regarded as flawed and unreliable. • The roof plate of trees No’s 1 and 2 will have extended radially from its trunk and will have penetrated beneath the driveway to 118. It is absurd to assume that this will not have happened as suggested in the specialist tree report. • Tree No 2 may have been planted on the bank but it is my recollection as a former resident of 116 that the root system was never so exposed as is evident today. • The use of Tensartech green slope system as proposed is wholly inappropriate for the retention of the excavated/widened hedge bank. • Messrs P&D have completely misunderstood the functionality and purpose of this system. It is disturbing that a company of that reputation could be so careless in the promotion of it as a satisfactory detail to the concerns previously expressed by us. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
• It is (refer to appended literature) a reinforced or engineered earth system that relies on geotextile grids embedded within the embankment to retain a steeply sloping earth surface. A geotextile matting connected to embedded grids serve to retain vegetation on the steeply sloping surface. Its use will necessitate the excavation of the earth bank beyond the limits of our boundary to install the horizontal reinforcing grids, with even more risk to the trees and established hedge than for the masonry wall hitherto proposed. We will resist by any necessary means, any attempt to construct this method of bank retention should it encroach within our boundary or have adverse affect on the stability of the boundary construction. • It can be seen from the attached literature that its use has been incorrectly promoted by P&D. • They have clearly suggested its use without having understood the principles of its construction. The surface matting simply serves to retain cosmetic vegetation on the slope surface. It does not afford any retaining facility to the cut back earth bank. It has to be tied back into the reinforcing grid system for its positional stability. Without such a grid system in place it would fall away from the steeply sloping face leaving the exposed face vulnerable to erosion and collapse. • I make the foregoing comments as a Chartered Engineer familiar with the design and construction of reinforced earth systems for earth retaining purposes. • The historic sketches included in the report are inaccurate and the author of these is misinformed – the southern hedge bank did not exist at any time before 1996. The land to the south of the drive was delineated from the drive by a post and wire fence and sporadic hedging Lonicera. • The driveway was originally very much narrower than it is now, the boundary line having moved 1.2m to the south per arrangement of sale. • The revised arrangement as shown on sketch No 6 indicates widening of the drive for significant distances to facilitate construction of vehicle passing bays. This will prejudice the integrity of the hedgerows and protected trees (e.g Norway Maple) adjacent to the driveway. No embankment retaining measures appear to be proposed to mitigate this action for most of the affected distance. • Policy EV2 serves to protect the integrity of trees and hedgerows and this development proposal is in contradiction with that policy.
The validity of the Tree Report has also been questioned and again is summarised below:
• The report seems to assume that there will be a masonry wall constructed to retain the widened driveway and appears to be in conflict with the Architects report which promotes the Tensar system. • Whether the beech trees are native species is irrelevant – they are subject to a protection order and should not be adversely influenced by these proposals. • It is not understood why the root system of trees planted adjacent to the drive would not penetrate beneath the drive. The surfacing of the domestic drive is a thin crust overlying subsoil. There is ample evidence of roadside trees with root systems penetrating beneath hard surfaced ground within the County of Swansea e.g. around the periphery of the Guildhall. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
Trees such as this rely on a radial root growth pattern of resistance to wind forces. If there were only roots beneath the garden of 120 with no root spread beneath the driveway the tree would have little resistance to northerly winds. The 50year + life of the trees suggests otherwise. The report does recognise that it is not possible to tell if there would be root damage caused by a new wall construction. • Again the author is misinformed about the history of the south hedge embankment and the contents of his report must therefore also be considered to be unreliable. • Should the proposals be given approval then consent would be simultaneously given the destruction of these trees in that their root systems would inevitably be affected. • The report does recognise that the roots of tree no 3 may be have been affected by soil compaction and might also be affected by driveway widening. • Why this applies only to tree No 3 and not the others is not understood. 44. The boundary line with my property is inaccurate. The registered boundary line is a straight line and has no deviation at all. 45. The impermeable slabs will inhibit soil aeration and will cause localised desiccation of the soil in which they are situated. 46. Proposal will result in the loss of protected trees under TPO 352 described as G1. 47. We would not want the removal of any of the 16 treed under G1. 48. Request that 5 further trees are added to TPO 352. 49. Why haven’t TPO trees which have been felled not been replaced? 50. Concern has been raised regarding the engineering and widening of the road.
Bishopston Community Council – Original plans – The proposed development is within the AONB and constitutes over development of the site with a very substantive property and garage. The access way to this site is too narrow to allow vehicles to pass so that reversing on to the principle road would be necessitated and constitute considerable danger to other traffic and also to pedestrians on the footway at the access way entrance. Amended Plan1 – We object. The Council reiterates its previous set of objections to this proposed development with additional observations that the sight lines proposed demonstrate no control over the height of the wall. Amended plans2 – We object. The Council reiterates its previous objection to the proposed entrance way and queries how the new entrance way proposed will be constructed within land ownership and furthermore questions whether this proposed amendment constitutes tandem development. Amended plans 3 – No objection but a specialist be consulted to ensure that the proposed revised entrance changes of increased weight of concrete and reduction of water penetration does not have an adverse impact on the tree roots Also that the Highways Section agree with or accept any increase in discharge of water onto the public highway as a consequence of the proposed changes.
The Gower Society – Original plans – The Gower Society has inspected the above application, visited the site and has the following observations to make: 1. This site lies within the AONB and on the edge of the open countryside. 2. We are concerned about the closeness and impact on/to the adjacent property (built on the site of the previous listed building). The large development will compromise this house as well as the other neighbouring properties. 3. The development is much too large for its location and plot. 4. The access is unsuitable for such development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
5. The history of this site makes disturbing reading, and must be taken into account. 6. We are advised that a lot of tree clearance has been carried out in recent months. Was this legal? 7. If allowed, this development would set a dangerous precedent for the area. The Gower Society has strong reservations about this application; it asks that you take all of the above points into consideration when making your decision or recommendation to the Planning Committee. Amended plans – we wish our comments contained in the letter of 25th February 2009 to remain. There is nothing in this new application to change our view of this proposal. Amended plans – we note the additional information submitted but wishes its comments in its letters of 26th May and 25th February 2009 to remain on file.
Environment Agency – Original comments - We note that the applicant intends to utilize a septic tank for the disposal of foul water from the site. However, from information available to us, it appears that the site is located in a publicly sewered area (Bishopston STW). On the drainage proposals plan submitted, it is stated that “the levels do not enable a gravity foul drain to be constructed to serve the existing and new properties”. It also appears that the new property is to connect to an existing septic tank and that a new septic tank will be provided for the existing property. We would highlight that the installation of private sewage treatment facilities within publicly sewered areas is not normally considered environmentally acceptable, due to the greater risk of failures leading to pollution of the water environment compared to public sewerage systems. This stance is supported by government guidance on non-mains drainage in WO Circular 10/99 (paragraphs 3 and 4), which stresses that the first presumption must be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer. Only where having taken into account the cost and/or practicability it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, should non-mains foul sewage disposal solutions be considered. In this instance the justification provided by the applicant for non-connection to the mains sewerage system is currently not considered to be acceptable. Prior to determination, it must be shown that the applicant has approached Dwr Cymru Welsh Water and sought connection to the main system. Furthermore, WO Circular 10/99 advises that a full and detailed consideration be given to the environmental criteria listed in Annex A of the circular in order to justify the use of non- mains drainage facilities. In this instance, no such information has been submitted. We would therefore ask that determination of the application be deferred until information has been provided by the applicant which confirms that connection has been sought with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water; addresses the issues as set out in Annex A of WO Circular 10/99; demonstrates that disposal of foul effluent to ground from the proposed septic tank would be effective at this location. Please note that the site is underlain by a major aquifer. Prior to determination of the application, your Authority must be satisfied that the sewerage arrangements in place are suitable. If your Authority is minded to go against this advice, we would ask to be informed of all matters that influence this decision, prior to granting consent, allowing sufficient time for further representations to be made. Amended comments – I am writing following an email from the agent, Powell Dobson Ltd. Attached with the email is a site location plan, upon which Powell Dobson have marked out the length of the driveway, which is stated to be in excess of 50 metres. It is also stated that they are investigating connection to the main sewerage system, but have been informed that ‘due to the length and gradients involved, a pumped system would be the solution’. Due to the cost of installation and yearly maintenance, Powell Dobson have asked that we re-evaluate our response. Having walked the site, which appears to be fairly level, we are surprised that a pumped system would be required. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
Furthermore, the installation and on-going maintenance costs of a septic tank or package treatment plant can be considerable. Private sewerage systems depend on proper operation and regular maintenance to function effectively. If this does not happen, the plants are prone to failure, causing pollution of land and/or watercourses, as well as potential nuisance and risk to human health. Many householders unaware of the potential impacts until the system fails or are unwilling to spend potentially significant sums of money on maintaining or replacing the plant when necessary. Connection to public sewer significantly reduces the risk of pollution from a householder’s sewerage system. As connection is being investigated, we would ask to see a copy of Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s response, prior to determination. However, I have spoken to Welsh Water’s Network Development Consultant’s who have confirmed that the distance to the nearest sewer from property No.118, which the proposed site lies adjacent to, is around 81 metres. As this distance is in excess of 30m, if your Authority are satisfied that the risk to controlled waters is manageable, then in this instance we would offer no further objection to the use of a non-mains drainage system within the sewered area. It should be noted that the siting of a septic tank will require the approval of your Authority’s Building Control Department; there must be no connection to a watercourse or land drainage system; no part of the system to be located within 10 metres of any ditch or watercourse; no siting of the septic tank within 50 metres or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply. Soakaways are an acceptable method of surface water drainage, should ground conditions prove suitable. Please note that this method of drainage will require the approval of your Authority’s Building Control Department. The applicant should also be encouraged to investigate additional sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), for example permeable paving, grey-water harvesting systems, green roofs etc, as advocated by TAN15 (July 2004). Further information on SUDS is available. All appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase to ensure that the integrity of controlled waters (surface and groundwaters) is assured. Pollution prevention guidance is available from our website. If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the developer must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorized facility. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movement of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. Applicants should also be made aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on the site (for example as infill) then they will need to obtain the appropriate authorization from us. If the applicant wishes more specific advice on waste matters, they will need to contact the Swansea Environment Management Team at our Llandarcy office on 01792 325526 or look at the available guidance on our website
Amended Comments: Mr Baxter has asked whether we believe the risk to controlled waters is manageable should a non-mains drainage system be implemented.
As advised in our response of 6th April 2009, as Dwr Cymru Welsh Water have confirmed the distance to the nearest sewer is around 81m, we would offer no objection in this instance to the use of a non-mains drainage system such as a septic tank.
We also confirm that the guidance bullet points detailed in this previous response could be included as part of a condition on any planning permission approved.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to standard conditions and advice. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
Martin Caton MP – At our recent surgery Edwina Hart AM and I received representation from a number of residents of Bishopston, strongly opposing the above application on a variety of grounds. I undertook to raise their objections with you on behalf of both the AM and myself:- 1. Road Safety We were told that the site is accessed by a long, single track with no passing places. This already serves two dwellings and is used regularly by a considerable number of vehicles. There have already been dangerous incidents at the junction of this track with this busy section of Bishopston Road. Apparently, the visibility splay is less than satisfactory, even when vehicles come onto the main highway in a forward direction. However, because the track is single lane without passing or turning places, vehicles that have turned into the track and meet another vehicle coming out onto Bishopston Road end up reversing onto the highway. School children use the pavement at this location on their way to and from school. The construction of another very large dwelling, as well as workspace using this track, it is argued, will inevitably further undermine highway safety. 2. Loss of Flora and Fauna Residents informed us that a substantial hedgerow and some high quality trees, including some covered by Tree Preservation Orders, have been removed in recent years without being required to be replaced. This has reduced biodiversity in this part of Gower and further removals will increase that damage. 3. Loss of Visual Amenity for Nearby Footpath The loss of trees and hedges described above, we were told, has already reduced the visual quality for walkers using the nearby footpath in the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The construction of the proposed buildings would increase this negative impact. 4. Impact on the Residential Amenity of Neighbouring Properties Our constituents who live closest to the proposed development site were particularly concerned about the consequences of approving this application for their enjoyment of their own properties, including gardens. They reported that they already experience problems with light pollution and gravel noise from use of the existing buildings at 118 Bishopston Road. The close proximity of new, large buildings would further undermine their residential amenity. They regard the proposal as backland infill and argue that it should be resisted. We ask you to take all these issues into consideration in determining this application.
Highways observations – This proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling within the grounds of 118 Bishopston Road. Presently the site accommodates the main dwelling and an annexe building, therefore the access is considered to serve one residential unit. This proposal therefore will result in a separate unit of accommodation requiring the access to be improved for shared use.
The applicant has submitted details of an access improvement which will widen the drive to 4.5m wide at its junction with Bishopston Road. This accords with guidelines on shared private drive widths. In some circumstances a wider drive is recommended however in this instance I consider that 4.5m to be adequate. The improved width is indicated to allow one car to pass another at the junction, the drive then reverts to single width before opening out to access the existing and proposed properties. Passing facilities therefore are intervisible and this aspect accords with guidelines. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
Visibility at the junction with Bishopston Road is indicated to be 2m x 60m to the left and 2.4m x 60m to the right for an emerging driver. The right hand splay is over an adjacent wall and therefore its retention cannot be guaranteed, it is acceptable to allow a minimum splay set back of 2m and with this dimension, the adjacent wall is not affected. The distance for which visibility is required is governed by the speed of vehicles on the main road and in this instance as traffic calming is present, guidelines suggest that 25m is sufficient, the distance of 60m indicated by the applicant (being the former requirement prior to new guidelines) is therefore more than sufficient for safety purposes.
Local concern has been raised regarding the safety of pedestrians when passing the access as visibility for them is restricted due to adjacent walls. This is the situation with the current access requirements and is often the case with many private accesses. The level of risk presented is considered acceptable due to the limited number of traffic movements generated, which in this case is expected to be one additional movement during the peak period, therefore in these circumstances there is not considered to be sufficient grounds for refusal for highway safety reasons.
I recommend no highway objection subject to no work commencing on site until the access has been improved to provide a minimum width of 4.5m for a distance of at least 6m from the edge of the Bishopston Road carriageway.
Edwina Hart (AM): Following observations:
• The access to the site is by way of a very narrow lane of little more than 3 metres in width. In order to widen this to the normally required 4.5 m and provide splays to enable adequate vision it will be necessary to remove a number of mature trees which I understand are subject to TPOs. Currently soil has been removed by the developer from the roots of two trees which, it is felt by residents, is designed to bring about the death of the trees in order to ease approval of the development. Meanwhile the trees represent a hazard in the event of strong winds. The access, in the event of a development of this size, would only be barely adequate when widened. There would be likely to be a number of cars associated with such a large dwelling which would involve 3 households on the site. It also seems to be the case that a business involving attendance of clients at the site is being conducted from the existing "garage/workshop". • There is concern that, if permitted, this development would lead to pressure for development on the other side of no 118, an area of mature trees and a haven for local wildlife. • The proposed development is of such a size as to be overbearing and intrusive. I accept that there are a number of very large properties in the area but these are all contained within large plots of land which reduces the crowding effect. This development is closer to its neighbours than the generality of large dwellings in the area and will have a negative effect on the area. • It is understood to be proposed that sewage from the property be disposed of by way of a septic tank. There is considerable concern that the existing property is connected to a septic tank and that constucting another dwelling with this method of disposal would be contrary to best practice and could lead to problems. At the same time it has to be noted that there are already problems concerning the adequacy of the sewers in the area in the event of a new property being connected to the main sewer system. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
Bridges and Structures: I reviewed the calculations and they are ok.
Just to recap the previous concerns which have been addressed:
1. Ko coefficient has been used in the design of the stem base. 2. Bearing pressures have been checked and are low i.e. 8KN/m2. 3. The consultant is of the opinion that frost heave is unlikely whilst assuming the founding strata is susceptible to frost heave.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Keith Marsh.
Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached dwelling and detached garage at land adjacent to Long Elms, 118 Bishopston Road. Long Elms itself is a Grade II listed building and Members will recall that Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent was granted in 2008 for the retrospective demolition of the original dwelling and the retention of the replacement dwelling. There is also a detached annex building within the curtilage of the dwelling the use of which is ‘tied’ to the dwelling by a specific condition.
The applicant has in recent years acquired additional land to the north of the annex building and this is the land upon which planning permission is being sought. The irregular shaped site is relatively flat and is currently laid to lawn with some perimeter trees. Existing boundaries comprise a mixture of fencing, walls, hedgerows and trees. To the west of the site are open fields (countryside), to the north is the curtilage of No.104 Bishopston Road and to the east are the individual gardens of several properties fronting Bishopston Road.
The proposed dwelling would be orientated in a north-east to south-west manner. The two storey dwelling would have a ridge height of approximately 8 metres and although the footprint of the building would be a maximum of 21 metres deep and 21 metres wide the main form of the dwelling would be approximately 16.5 metres wide and 10 metres deep (including roof overhang). Essentially the overall footprint is made up of a series of projections from the main form and significantly, at is closet point to the boundary with No.104 Bishopston Road, it drops down to single storey i.e. 4 metres high to ridge and 2.3 metres high to eaves. The single storey element itself would have a depth of approximately 18.4 metres (including roof overhang). The accommodation for the dwelling would comprise a living room, dining room, kitchen/breakfast room, utility room, bedroom with disabled facilities and toilet at ground floor level and five bedrooms (3 with en-suites) and a bathroom at first floor level.
The detached garage would have a ridge height of approximately 5.1 metres, a width of approximately 13.7 metres and depth of approximately 7.5 metres (including roof overhang). The building would have space to park two cars and an office/workshop with toilet.
Access to the dwelling would be via the existing driveway, which is proposed to be widened to 4.5 metres at the junction with Bishopston Road and external building materials would comprise of render and oak cladding for the walls with a stone plinth and red clay tiles for the roof. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
The main issues for consideration with this application are the principal of development, the impact upon the character and appearance of the area including Gower AONB, the amenities of neighbouring residents, highway safety and drainage having regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan. There are not considered to be any overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
The Principal 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 boundary for Bishopston on the UDP Proposals Map for the area. Policy EV17 of the UDP requires that within the boundaries of the large villages (which Bishopston is one of) development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off. The site is essentially a small infill plot within the village and subject to conformity to other policies of the plan the principal of residential development on the site is acceptable.
Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the area
The application site is located within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty whereby Policy EV26 of the UDP requires that the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. There are also several trees on the site and adjoining the site that are subject to Tree Preservation Order’s (TPO). Policy EV30 of the UDP encourages the protection of such features where they are important for their visual amenity.
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.
The proposed siting of the dwelling is immediately to the north of the detached annex building where it would not be readily visible from Long Elms. As such it is not considered that it would adversely affect the setting of the listed building. The site is also sufficiently far away from the Bishopston Conservation Area so as not to impact upon its character or appearance.
In terms of street scene impact the proposed dwelling would not be readily visible from Bishopston Road and would not therefore be harmful to its character. The site is located just within the Gower AONB boundary and glimpses of the site are possible from a public footpath at some distance to the north. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
However, from the footpath the proposed dwelling would be seen against a background of the existing dwelling and annex and given the limited opportunity for elevated views to the site it is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly harmful impact upon the wider AONB such that a recommendation of refusal could be justified.
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 50 metres and width ranging from 14 metres at its narrowest to 45 metres at its widest, the site is large enough to be more than capable of accommodating the dwelling and garage without appearing over intensive for the site or the area.
The design of the dwelling and garage is fairly simple and through the use of hipped roofs and materials that would be in keeping with the existing annex building it is considered to be sympathetic to its immediate surroundings. The ridge height of the dwelling at 8 metres is also considered modest.
A significant amount of concern has been conveyed about the impact of the development upon existing trees that are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. No protected trees in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling or garage would need to be felled to facilitate the development and any works needed to them could be adequately controlled by the imposition of conditions.
Members will recall that previously this application was reported to Committee with a recommendation of refusal, as concern was raised by the Councils Tree Preservation Officer that by widening the access on the left to avoid damage to the Beech on the right the problem would be transferred to the Beech tree in the garden of No.120 as well as the double stemmed Beech on the left where the roots would need to be cut back. Essentially it would not be possible to widen the access without cutting into the root system of the Beech tree at No.120 thereby rendering the tree as a potential danger to road users. This would ultimately lead to a requirement to fell this very attractive and dominant Beech tree, which it was considered would be significantly detrimental to the visual amenities of the area contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.
The application was subsequently deferred at the Area 2 Development Control Meeting on the 23rd June 2009 in order to allow the applicant to submit further information. Additional information was submitted which included a Tree Report, revised access details and engineering calculations. Following further consultation between the Head of Transportation and Engineering and Bridges and Structures the proposed alterations are considered acceptable.
In terms of the Tree Report, in further consideration with our Tree Preservation Officer it is considered that subject to certain measures being undertaken during the road construction the damage to the trees would be minimal and should not affect their stability or long term health. The bank to be excavated should be done by hand, thus avoiding damage to the bark covering the roots and any exposed roots covered in dry clean Hessian sacking to prevent desiccation and to protect from rapid temperature changes. Roots smaller than 25mm may be pruned back to a side branch, however anything larger should only be severed following consultation with the Local Planning Authority. Prior to backfilling the Hessian should be removed and roots surrounded with sharp sand before backfilling with soil. All work should be conditioned to be in accordance with BS 5837:2005 (para 11.3 Principles for avoiding tree root damage during construction). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
The removal of the existing tarmac may or may not reveal surface roots underneath. However provided that no further excavations are carried out and new in situ concrete slab is put down on top of the cleared surface then little or no damage to the roots would occur. Even if there are major roots directly beneath the tarmac, these could be covered with granular material and the area levelled off before putting on the new surface. In any event the developer will be required to contact the Local Planning Authority once the old tarmac is removed so that a further inspection can be made by the Tree Preservation Officer. In addition to this, a condition will be recommended on any approval requiring the new road surface to incorporate falls and openings in order to provide water and air to enter the soil. This would be achieved by making 50mm diameter holes in the slab at spacings between 300 to 600mm and the holes subsequently filled with fine gravel or aggregate. Therefore subject to the above recommendations being carried out, the proposal should have an acceptable impact upon the protected Trees in compliance with Policies EV1 and EV30 of the Swansea UDP.
Third party concern has been raised relating to the loss of TPO’s on the site, however having consulted the Councils Tree Preservation Officer it has been confirmed that the removal of a number of the TPO trees were permitted as a result of applications made in 2002 and 2003. Also a number of other trees collapsed and others were felled as a result of being in a dangerous condition. Following significant Site Visits over the past few years the TPO Officer is satisfied that for the majority of the trees removed was as a result of the trees having died or become dangerous, and those removed following planning consent, have been replaced. These are obviously still immature trees and will take a while to become established and contribute to the amenities of the area.
Furthermore it has been clarified that group G1 of the order covers only 2 trees, (1 Ash and 1 Sycamore), not the mixed group of 16 deciduous trees you referred by the third party. The only trees given a blanket cover and referred to as 'mixed deciduous and evergreen trees are those in woodland W1 to the south of the driveway. There is a group of trees in the area which has been referred to but these are for the most part self seeded trees of poor quality and the landscaping scheme does show some of these to be removed with some new planting along that boundary.
With regard the pruning of the hedge referred to in the application 2009/0175 this would be a civil issue between the relevant parties and is not a material planning consideration.
Impact upon Residential Amenity
Policy EV1 and HC2 of the UDP require new development to not result in a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy and disturbance. Policy EV40 adds to these criteria by requiring regard to be given to noise and light pollution.
The proposed dwelling would be orientated so that its frontage would be facing towards the rear boundaries of several properties fronting Bishopston Road and its rear facing towards the open fields. At a distance in excess of 20 metres to the boundary with those properties on Bishopston Road, which themselves have rear gardens in excess of 25 metres deep, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling could be regarded as being harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of these properties by virtue of any overlooking, overbearing or overshadowing impact. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
Similarly the proposed garage building would have a limited ridge height of approximately 5.1 metres, eaves height of approximately 2.5 metres and be over 3 metres from the boundary so that its impact upon these neighbouring residents would, it is considered, also be negligible. The garage building would have rooflights close to the boundary although none of these rooflights would afford views out of the building other than towards the sky.
No.104 Bishopston Road, with its annexes, adjoins the northern boundary of the application site. In terms of overbearing and overshadowing impacts the garden of this property is most likely to be affected by the development given that the proposed dwelling comes to within 1 metre of this boundary. However, at its closest point the building drops to single storey and whilst the main form of the dwelling would be 8 metres high it is the gable of the dwelling that would present itself to the boundary. Although this may cast a small amount of shadow over the garden of No.104 the harm generated is unlikely to be so significant as to warrant a reason for refusal. Neither is the dwelling likely to be significantly overbearing towards this property, particularly given the extensive size of this property’s garden. In terms of the visual impact the proposed dwelling would be seen against the background of the existing annex building. Similar to the impacts upon the properties fronting Bishopston Road the limited height of the detached garage and its hipped roof form ensure that it would not be significantly overbearing or give rise to harmful overshadowing of this property.
In terms of overlooking impact to this property and properties further north there are no first floor side windows proposed in the dwelling therefore there would be no direct loss of privacy. Only very oblique views would be available towards the garden from front and rear facing windows, none of which would be significantly harmful. There are some rooflights proposed at ground level, but similar to the garage building, these windows would only afford views to the sky. If mindful to approve permission a condition could be imposed preventing the insertion of any new first floor side windows in the dwelling.
There are some first floor windows in the existing annex to No.118 Bishopston Road that would overlook the garden of the proposed dwelling. However, if mindful to grant permission a condition could be imposed to obscure glaze these windows given that they are secondary windows to the rooms that they serve.
Concern has been expressed about additional light pollution from the proposed dwelling. Given the precise nature of these concerns if the Authority was mindful to approve permission it would be reasonable to impose a condition requiring details of all external lighting to be agreed prior to installation. Noise, dust and petrol fumes as a result of the proposed gravel track are not considered to be matters of overriding concern. Similarly, disturbance during the construction stage is an inevitable consequence of development and only a temporary inconvenience that could not warrant refusal.
Third parties have expressed that the development is tantamount to ‘tandem’ development and should be refused. However, it is not considered that it is typical tandem development given the size of the site and the presence of the existing access drive. Nevertheless, even if it was it doesn’t automatically follow that planning permission should be refused given that there is still a requirement to demonstrate harm to occupiers of existing and proposed properties through access difficulties, disturbance and lack of privacy. Access issues are discussed below and privacy impacts already addressed above. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
In terms of disturbance, concerns have been conveyed about the intensified use of the access drive so close to the gardens and living accommodation of adjoining properties. However, given the separation between the access drive and the sides of the dwellings themselves, the existing boundary screening and the fact that the drive is already in use it is not considered that the activity and vehicle movements associated with one additional dwelling would be so great as to be significantly harmful to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers through noise and disturbance. Other existing properties in the area are likely to be affected to a lesser extent as a result of these factors.
Highway Safety
Policy EV1 and HC2 of the UDP require new development to not result in significant harm to highway safety.
The existing driveway currently serves one dwelling. Whilst there is a detached annex building adjacent to the dwelling the planning permission for this building restricts its use as an integral part of the existing dwelling and shall not be sold, let or otherwise occupied, as a separate unit of accommodation. In planning terms the proposal would essentially result in two dwellings being served by the existing access.
The proposal incorporates alterations to the existing driveway access where it adjoins Bishopston Road by widening it to 4.5 metres in order to enable two vehicles to pass one another. Although the alterations would have the aforementioned impact on the protected trees the Head of Transportation and Engineering considers that they are acceptable and sufficient visibility is also provided.
Local concern has been raised regarding the safety of pedestrians when passing the access as visibility for them is restricted due to adjacent walls. This is the situation with the current access requirements and is often the case with many private accesses. The level of risk presented is considered acceptable to the Head of Transportation and Engineering due to the limited number of traffic movements generated, which in this case is expected to be one additional movement during the peak period. Overall, therefore, he raises no highway safety objections to the development subject to the alterations to widen the access being carried out prior to the commencement of the remainder of the development.
Drainage
The application proposes the use of a septic tank to dispose of foul sewage. Policy EV33 of the UDP suggests that planning permission will only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer, however, in exceptional circumstances where this is not feasible consideration will be given to the use of private drainage systems provided that the criteria set out in Welsh Office Circular 10/99 are met. The Circular states that if, by taking into account the cost and/or practicability, it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, a package treatment plant incorporating a combination of treatment processes should be considered. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
Consultation has taken place with the Environment Agency (EA) who originally objected to the proposal on this matter. However, following an exchange of information between the applicant and the EA the latter has confirmed that, as the distance to the nearest mains sewer is in excess of 30 metres away from the site, they would offer no further objection to the use of a non-mains drainage system, provided that the local planning authority are satisfied that the risk to controlled waters is manageable. In this respect, if mindful to recommend approval of planning permission, an appropriately worded condition could be imposed dealing with the more technical details of the proposed septic tank. This has been confirmed as acceptable by the Environment Agency.
Other issues
In terms of ecological and wildlife impacts the Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that subject to the retention of trees on the site there would no adverse impact upon the ecology of the area.
The use of the existing annex has been called into question and as a result this matter will be passed to the Enforcement Section for investigation. However, there is a restrictive condition attached to the planning permission for this building which provides adequate control over its use.
Loss of views and property value are not material planning considerations. Similarly any restrictive covenant on the land is a separate matter that is covered by other legislation. The accuracy of the plans has been questioned, in particular the manner in which neighbouring properties is illustrated. A site visit has been undertaken to establish this and whilst there may be some anomalies outside of the site boundary a planning judgement on the merits of the development is still able to made based upon the site visit.
Concern has been raised by the adjoining neighbour that not all of the land outlined in red is within the control of the applicant. The Local Planning Authority has raised this with the applicant and they have confirmed in writing that all the land outlined in red is within their control and as such the LPA is satisfied that they have fulfilled their statutory obligation and furthermore any further issues arising from this are a Civil Matter between the relative parties and not a material planning consideration.
The setting of a precedent and other similar history in the vicinity of the site are not considered to give rise to overriding concerns given that it is incumbent that the application is considered on its own merits.
In terms of the stability of any proposed retaining walls at the access the additional information as been assessed by our Bridges and Structures Team who are satisfied with the works.
Concern has been raised with regard the accuracy of the additional information provided by the applicant, however following further consideration with the Councils Tree Preservation Officer, Highways and Bridges and Structures, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the level of information submitted by the Applicant is sufficient in order to determine the application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
Conclusion
In light of the above appraisal it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its impact upon visual and residential amenity. Furthermore the submission of the additional information has demonstrated that subject to conditions the proposed highway improvements can be carried out without causing an unacceptable impact upon the protected trees and as such the proposal is considered to comply with Policies HC2, EV1, EV12, EV2, EV3, EV17, EV26, EV33 and EV30 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and a recommendation of approval is justified.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1 The development shall be commenced not later than the expiration of 5 years from the date of this planning permission and shall be completed in accordance with the said application plans and conditions prior to any part thereof being brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the City and County of Swansea, and so avoid any detriment to amenity or public safety by works remaining uncompleted.
2 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
3 No further windows, doors or openings shall be inserted in the 1st floor flank elevations of the dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
4 No development in relation to the construction of the new dwelling and garage shall be commenced until such time as the existing access has been widened in accordance with the approved plans SW1006L(5)102 G dated 22nd January 2010. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
5 No external lighting shall be installed at the site unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual and residential amenity.
6 The garage hereby permitted shall be used for the parking of vehicles and as an office/workshop and shall not be converted to living accommodation. The building shall also be used wholly in conjunction with the existing dwelling and shall not be let, sublet or otherwise disposed of as a separate unit of accommodation at any time. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
7 No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of a scheme for the landscaping of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out within 12 months from the completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, become seriously diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
8 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.
9 No development for the excavation or widening of the existing carriageway shall be commenced until such time as a method statement detailing the excavation and construction methodology for the works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall demonstrate that adequate protection will be afforded to the existing protected trees growing on and adjacent to the site during the works and thereafter and in particular shall include the following:
a) The bank shall be excavated by hand avoiding damage to the bark covering larger roots and any exposed roots covered in dry clean Hessian sacking to prevent desiccation and to protect from rapid temperature changes. Roots smaller than 25mm may be pruned back to a side branch. Anything larger than that should only be severed following consultation with the Council's Tree Officer, Martin Appleby. b) Prior to backfilling the Hessian should be removed and roots surrounded with sharp sand (not builders sand or sand with high salt contents) before backfilling with soil. All work should be in accordance with BS5837:2005 (para. 11.3 principles for avoiding tree root damage during construction). c) The in-situ concrete road shall incorporate falls and openings to enable water and air to enter the soil. This should be achieved by making 50mm diameter holes in the slab at spacing's between 300 to 600mm and filling the holes with no fines gravel or aggregate.
The works shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: In the interest of protecting trees growing on and adjacent to the site.
10 Upon excavation of the existing access drive the applicant must contact the Council's Tree Officer, Martin Appleby, to arrange a meeting on site to inspect any tree roots. Reason: In the interest of protecting trees growing on and adjacent to the site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
11 Before development commences a scheme shall be submitted to show the obscure glazing, or alternative, of the existing first floor side windows in the existing annexe building facing towards the new dwelling. The works shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the beneficial occupation of the new dwelling. Reason: In the interest of privacy protection.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV3, EV12 EV17, EV26, EV30, EV33, EV40 and HC2.
2 This consent is issued without prejudice to any other consents or easements that may be required in connection with the proposed development.
3 Soakaways are an acceptable method of surface water drainage, should ground conditions prove suitable. Please note that this method of drainage will require the approval of your Authority's Building Control Department. The applicant should also consider additional sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), for example permeable paving, grey-water harvesting systems, green roofs etc, as advocated by TAN15 (July 2004). Further information on SUDS is available from www.ciria.org.uk and www.sudswales.com
4 All appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase to ensure that the integrity of controlled waters (surface and groundwaters) is assured. Pollution prevention guidance is available at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ppg
5 If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the developer must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.
6 Applicants should be aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on this site (for example as infill) then they will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from the Environment Agency.
7 If you require more specific advice on waste matters then you will need to contact the Swansea Environment Management Team at our Llandarcy Office on 01792 325526 or look at the available guidance on our website at www.environment- agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175
8 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system. No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment. If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.
9 Birds may be present on site 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
Drawing Number SW1006(5)001- existing site plan, SW1006AL(5)003 Rev B- proposed ground floor plan, SW1006AL(5)004 Rev B- proposed first floor plan, SW1006AL(5)005 Rev B- proposed elevations East & North, SW1006AL(5)006 Rev B- proposed elevations West & South, SW1006AL(5)07- General Arrangement House Section A-A, SW1006AL(5)08- General Arrangement House Section B-B, SW1006AL(5)09- General Arrangement House Section C-C, SW1006AL(5)10- General Arrangement House Section D-D, SW1006(5)101 Rev D- option two -proposed site plan & ground floor to garage, SW1006AL(5)120 Rev E option two- proposed garage floor plan, SW1006AL(5)122 Rev C option two- proposed garage elevations West & North, Sw1006AL(5)123 Rev C-proposed garage elevations East & South, SW1006AL(5)129- site location plan, SW1006AL(5)130- existing site features & landscape, SW1006AL(5)131-proposed site features and landscape, SW1006AL(5)132- proposed foul & surface water drainage received 5th February 2009. Additional proposed improvements details received 8th July 2009, Additional information basis of civil/structural design report received 30th September 2009 and SW1006L(5)102 Rev G and SW1006L(5)100 Rev A dated 22nd January 2010.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599 WARD: Gower Area 2
Location: Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS Proposal: Extend the period of temporary permitted use for marquee and associated overspill car park to include the period commencing 1st November 2009 and ceasing on 31st March 2011 Applicant: Mr I Williams
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 EV11 Development will not be permitted that would harm the character or setting of a registered Historic Park or Garden or the character of an Historic Landscape. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy 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)
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
Policy EV25 Development, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, which is likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European protected site (SAC, Marine SAC, SPA and Ramsar Sites) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV26 Within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area's natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV27 Development that significantly adversely affects the special interests of sites designated as SSSI's and NNR's will not be permitted unless the need for the development is of such significance that it outweighs the national importance of the designation. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV31 Along the undeveloped coastline development proposals for the provision of visitor and recreation facilities and services to complement existing facilities will be permitted at specified coastal locations. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EV40 Development proposals will not be permitted that would cause or result in significant harm to health, local amenity, natural heritage, the historic environment or landscape character because of significant levels of air, noise or light pollution. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
Policy EC17 Proposals for tourism and recreation developments of an appropriate scale in locations which relate acceptably to the existing pattern of development and/or their surroundings in terms of the nature of the proposal concerned will be permitted provided they comply with a specified list of criteria including standard of design, effect on landscape and nature conservation, effect of visitor pressure on sensitive locations, provide acceptable and safe access, would not cause a loss of best agricultural land. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2008/2185 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1 February 2009 to 31 October 2009 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/01/2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
98/0565 ENGINEERING OPERATIONS TO REPROFILE OPEN MEADOW TO FORM A PLATEAU FOR THE TEMPORARY SITING OF A MARQUEE WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS WAY AND LAND DRAINAGE WORKS Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 14/07/1998
98/1207 RETENTION OF LAND DRAINAGE WORKS, ALTERATIONS TO FIELD ACCESS AND REPROFILING OF PLATEAU AREA Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/03/1999
2004/1741 Siting of temporary marquee April to September inclusive and December, and associated overspill car park Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 11/08/2005
2005/2635 Submission of details for conditions 3 and 5 of planning permission 2004/1741 granted on 11th April 2005 to show new hedge and background lighting for the marquee and overspill car park Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 28/03/2008
2006/2781 Temporary siting of marquee from April to September 2007 and December 2007, associated overspill car park and landscaping. Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2007
2008/0064 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from April to September 2008 and December 2008 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 04/03/2008
81/0794/01 ERECTION OF A HOTEL Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 30/07/1981
77/0087/03 ERECTION OF A LOUNGE BAR AMD LOUNGE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 31/03/1977
84/1288/03 ADDITION OF NEW ENTRANCE PORCHES,BAY WINDOWS,EXTRA TOILET ACCOMMODATION AND GENERAL ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/11/1984
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
84/1600/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION (B) ON PREVIOUS APPROVAL 82/1383/11 REFERRING TO NO COACHES OR CHARABANCS BEING ALLOWED TO ENTER SITE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 31/01/1985
79/0923/01 ERECTION OF A DETACHED BUNGALOW AND EXTENSION OF CARAVAN SITE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 30/08/1979
74/0476/03 CHANGE OF USE FROM BAR TO RESTAURANT AND ERECTION OF TOILETS Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/09/1974
74/0500/01 ERECTION OF A CLUBHOUSE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 26/09/1974
85/0812/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'C' ON PREVIOUS CONSENT RELATING TO USE FOR MUSIC DANCING AND OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985
86/0082/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'E' ON CONSENT FOR MUSIC AND DANCING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS, (2/1/85/0812/12). Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 18/03/1986
86/0359/03 USE OF BUILDING (HOTEL) FOR MUSIC AND DANCING IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE FUNCTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/06/1986
86/1566/03 EXTENSION TO EXISTING KITCHENS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/01/1987
75/1329/03 ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING BAR AND CONSTRUCTION OF BEER CELLAR. ADDITION OF RECEPTION AREA AND NEW DRAINAGE SYSTEM Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/03/1976
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
89/1470/03 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO HOTEL PREMISES. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 15/12/1989
90/0500/03 SITING OF PORTAKABIN AND FLOODLIGHTS Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 25/03/1996
90/1260/03 ERECTION OF GARAGE, CAR PORT + SCREENING TO SERVICE AREA, HUT AND BARRIER TO EXISTING CAR PARK, HEIGHTENING OF ROOF STORE + PROVISION OF ACCESS. Decision: DEFERRAL AT AREA PLANNING CMTE Decision Date: 13/11/1990
91/0088/03 ERECTION OF WALL Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/04/1991
91/1506 ERECTION OF STORM PORCH WITH FIRST FLOOR CONSERVATORY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/02/1992
96/0906 FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION INCORPORATING NEW BALCONY, SINGLE STOREY CONSERVATORY EXTENSION AND NEW PORCH AND BALCONY ON FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION, ALTERATIONS TO ELEVATIONS, EXTENSION TO ROOF AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 13/01/1998
94/1316 EXTENSION OF EXISTING PORCH, ERECTION OF NEW STAIRWELL AND FORMATION OF RAISED GARDEN Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/02/1995
96/0724 ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS AND FORMATION OF NEW CAR PARKING AREA Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 21/01/1998
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The application was advertised on site and in the press as a Departure from the Development Plan and a development within a Conservation Area and four neighbouring properties were individually consulted. NO RESPONSE. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
The Gower Society: We object to this application as it stands.
We refer to the above application that we have examined, and also visited the site. We now have the following comments to make:
1. This latest application is very late in its submission; we note planning application 2008/2185 which expressly gave permission for the siting of the marquee from 1 April – 31 October until 2011. The date of the approval letter was 15th January 2009. 2. We accept that the Hotel is a popular venue and that the marquee adds to the local economy. However, it is extremely conspicuous addition in the landscape. 3. The facility has been allowed on a more or less 6 monthly basis since about 2001; the application if allowed, would put this structure in danger of becoming a fixed and permanent addition to the hotel. 4. We strongly suspect that as the main wedding season is not during the winter period, that this application may be angled at reduction the cost of removal and re-erection when complying with the existing planning permission. 5. The use of such a facility over the winter months poses many questions – in particular, the ones of sustainability relating to winter heating. 6. We have repeatedly commented on the conspicuous nature of this marquee and we note the applicant’s statements regarding a more suitable colour for a prominent feature in an AONB. 7. We reiterate these views – any extension of the existing permission adds to the visual impact on the AONB, where it can be seen from Cefn Bryn, Penmaen and Pennard. 8. We fully appreciate the contribution that the Hotel makes to tourism and the local economy, but these factors should not overrule planning legislation meant to protect the AONB. The owners could consider, for instance, relocating the marquee to the rear of the hotel (or further toward the village) where its visual impact would be greatly reduced.
Environment Agency – No objection to the proposed development. Standard informatives should be taken into consideration.
Highways Observations - The application is for the extension of temporary consent to site a marquee and associated overspill car parking.
There have been no reported issues as a result of the temporary permission and the temporary overspill parking area is considered to be beneficial when events are being held at the site. This ensures that no extraneous parking takes place within the village.
I recommend no highway objections be raised.
LANDMAP APPRAISAL
LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales, March 2002 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2002). LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
An analysis of the Visual and Sensory data for South Gower concludes that the application site falls within an area with the following ‘landscape receptors’: a gently rolling landscape where there is an overall high scenic quality (picturesque views of coast), with attractive views both in and out(views of coast/cliffs from some viewpoints) and high character (strong sense of place), where the open landscape and field/hedge character should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be changed. This is reinforced by the cultural landscape data for Oxwich Bay/Oxwich area, which recognises the national importance of Oxwich Bay as a “honey pot” destination for holiday makers throughout the UK and overseas. It describes the aspect area as ‘a three-mile crescent of gently-sloping white sand that culminates in the east with Great Tor. Within that area are two spectacular headlands and several castles. The village and the area is dominated by the leisure industry, though its history is still evident…the Oxwich Bay Hotel, a former 18th century rectory now utterly spoiled by modern additions’. The recommendations include the immediate improvement of the appearance of beach buildings and caravan parks.
The landscape, geological and historical layers of LANDMAP add to the above baseline data. The landscape data confirms that apart from being with the Gower AONB, the application site is close to sites of international importance and adjacent to a high value area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland ‘Woods at Oxwich Point’ which is regarded as high priority habitat supporting high levels of biodiversity within SSSI.
In conclusion, this baseline data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic quality and character, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.
Supporting Statement from applicant Mr Ian Williams, Proprietor, Oxwich Bay Hotel
In support of our planning application that is due to be placed before the planning committee I would like to bring you up to date with the present operating position.
The Marquee Venue as well as the supporting services reflect a considerable investment. This has been made out of our finances and borrowed fund, with there being no introduction of grant monies from any source either local or national.
This investment will lead to increasing number of patrons that could easily approach ten thousand people visiting the facilities from all over the world in the next twelve months. At the same time in the region of forty eight staff will be required to provide the attendant services as well as make a substantial contribution approaching £1m (one million) being injected into the local economy.
The additional generation of business is leading to up grading and modernisation of facilities in the main area of the hotel, This also has been funded without grant aid and secures twenty six jobs, creates six new jobs and three specialist posts.
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
Current economic pressures are making trade difficult. Evidence would suggest that it has never been easy with some twenty hotels having ceased to operate in the South Gower / Mumbles area in the past twenty five years. As a family we have made the positive decision to invest in providing greater value for money, through enhanced services. This will hopefully keep the public “ spend “ in the locality as against the money going outside Swansea / Gower area, even South Wales, completely.
APPRAISAL
This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
The application site is situated on land at Oxwich Bay Hotel. This field site (Field No. 2821) is located to the south east of the hotel at the southern end of Oxwich Bay. The site is located on the beach side of the prominent headland at Oxwich Point, both within the Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and close to the listed church of St Illtyds, and adjacent to the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation.
Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention of the existing marquee and associated overspill car park throughout the winter periods for a continuous period until 31st October, 2011.
Planning permission was previously granted on the 15th January, 2009, for the temporary siting of this marquee at this site (Ref: 2008/2185), subject to conditions including Condition 01, as follows:-
“Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, this permission is for a limited period expiring on 31st October 2011. During this period the marquee hereby approved shall only be used between the 1st April and 31st October (inclusive) in any year, and shall be removed in its entirety from the planning unit between the 1st November and 31st March in any year”.
Members are advised that notwithstanding the above conditional requirement, the marquee has not been removed and is still erected on site. In response to discussions with the case officer, the applicant has recently submitted a supporting written statement, copied in full above, to justify not removing the marquee.
In terms of its overall size and siting the marquee appears to be in line with the details submitted for temporary planning permission under the above planning application 2008/2185 with three main sections extending to approximately 54m in length, a maximum of 12m in width and a maximum of 6m in height. However, further investigation on site has revealed that the structure has a degree of permanency that was not clarified or considered during the determination of the previous approval, including hardstandings and associated paths constructed to the front entrance to the marquee and around the sides and rear of marquee, as well as fixed connections to power supplies. The marquee has an integral kitchen and toilets and as such could be considered a stand alone development that need not rely on the existing hotel for services or facilities. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
Related Planning History
Prior to the above approval last year, the application site had been used for approximately ten years to site a temporary marquee (albeit smaller than the current proposal) during the summer months. Originally in the late 1990s, planning permission was not required for the marquee because the tent was not erected for more than 28 days in any year, and as such was permitted development for the purposes of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. However, retrospective planning permission was granted in March 1999 (application ref. 98/1207) for the associated engineering and re-profiling works that had been carried out unlawfully to this former wildflower meadow.
In 2005, planning permission was granted for the retention of a temporary marquee that had been erected at that time (application ref. 2004/1741). This marquee was smaller than the current proposal but was granted temporary planning permission for the months of April to September and the month of December, and was removed in the intervening periods with the field restored to its original state. A similar application was also approved under 2006/2781 for the 2007 season.
Prior to last year, therefore, the marquee was substantially smaller than the current structure in overall size and height, and the land was restored to a green field site during the winter. Moreover, the former site was well screened by a hedgerow on the beach side along the north eastern facing boundary of the site, which helped screen this smaller structure especially during the summer months.
Policy Considerations
The main issues to be considered are whether the retention and continuous use of the current marquee throughout the winter months until 31st October 2011 (as well as the authorised summer months) would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and rural landscape of the designated Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby listed Church of St. Illtyds, having regard to the prevailing policies of the Unitary Development Plan and National planning guidance. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.
Recent Central Government policy guidance, provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 and its supporting Technical Advice Notes set out the overarching critical principles and objectives in respect of sustainability, biodiversity, design and tourism, which are applied to reinforce the policies of the Unitary Development Plan. Within AONBs the primary objective of this designation is the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the area. In addition, the effect of development proposals on the wildlife or landscape of any area can be a material consideration. The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the AONB purposes and protect the landscape and scenic quality (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000).
In rural areas, PPW 2002 states that tourism is an essential element in providing for a healthy, diverse, local economy, but the scale and nature of such development must be sensitive to the local environment. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
The above National Planning Policy Guidance recognises that the Countryside Council for Wales LANDMAP provides nationally consistent data on landscape assessment in Wales. In conclusion, this baseline data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic quality and character, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.
The Unitary Development Plan for Swansea was adopted on the 10th November, 2008, and in line with the above national planning policy guidance, the relevant objectives and policies seek to protect the countryside and sensitive areas of high landscape quality in Gower AONB from development that would cause material harm, particularly where the undeveloped coastline or other areas of high landscape quality are concerned. The Local Planning Authority seeks to protect the environment and landscape of Gower AONB and Oxwich Village Conservation Area through the application of Strategic Part 1 Policies SP1, SP2, and SP3 and Part 2 Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV31, EV40 are relevant to this application. In addition, Policy EC17 regarding rural tourism has also been considered in respect of this application.
In this particular case, because the application site is located in a particularly sensitive coastal location with the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, careful consideration has to be given to the need to cater for increased visitor and tourism needs against the need to safeguard the visual character and appearance and environmental capital of the Gower landscape, so that it is preserved for the benefit of future generations. The Gower Peninsula is recognised internationally as a most important visitor attraction, however if development is not carefully controlled there is a risk of destroying the very qualities which constitute its attraction.
Visual Impact
Although the application site lies within the grounds of Oxwich Bay Hotel, it is separated from the main hotel complex by a distance of approximately 76m, and is seen in the context of the surrounding countryside setting, including the wide sweep of Oxwich beach and bay to the north, and the backcloth of the Gower Ash Woods SAC to the south. In addition the marquee has to be considered in the context of the setting of the neighbouring CADW listed St Illtyds Church situated approximately 90m to the south east of the application site.
The application field site is naturally an integral part of the surrounding highly valued landscape and an intrinsic part of the character of this edge of woodland and beach location. Whilst it is acknowledged that the current marquee facility provides an improved facility for the hotel in providing a separate venue for weddings, it must also be assessed against the need to conserve the special landscape qualities of the Gower AONB.
As referred to above, LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales, March 2002 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2002). LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
An analysis of the relevant Visual and Sensory data for South Gower concludes that the application site falls within an area where there is an overall high scenic quality (picturesque views of coast), with attractive views both in and out(views of coast/cliffs from some viewpoints) and high character (strong sense of place), where the open landscape and field/hedge character should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be changed. This is reinforced by other layers of data including cultural landscape, geological and historical layers of LANDMAP that add to the above baseline data. In conclusion, this data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic quality and character, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.
The current marquee has an overall footprint of approx. 576m², and maximum height of approximately 6m, and is significantly larger and more visually prominent in the surrounding landscape than any of the previous marquees. The case officer’s site visit has confirmed that the current marquee can be viewed easily because of its significant height above the neighbouring hedge, and the visual impact is exacerbated by the external materials finish in a brilliant white canvas. The application site is clearly visible from numerous public vantage points in the immediate and wider surrounding area, for example the existing structure can be viewed easily from all the beaches surrounding within Oxwich Bay and is also visible long distance from Pennard Cliffs and Cefn Bryn.
It has been noted that the marquee is clearly visible in the summer months, and this is further exacerbated during the winter months, when the white marquee stands out sharply against the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods as a prominent white structure. In this context, the marquee appears as an alien and incongruous feature in relation to its surroundings with significant harm to the landscape, which is characterised by the green quality of the agricultural fields, woodland backdrop and coastal views across Oxwich Bay. This contrasts particularly with the subdued impact of the protected church that nestles discretely nearby against the backcloth of trees.
Moreover, it is not considered that screening through additional planting can help screen this structure, given its siting on a lowland coastal site which is prominently visible from higher ground in the surrounding AONB area. It is noted that the Planning Inspector appointed to determine the Appeal last year at a nearby Appeal site at Greenways Caravan Park (APP/B6855/C/08/2076849) concluded that, “The countryside should be protected for its inherent natural beauty, landscape, ecological and agricultural qualities, as well as for the view that can be obtained from within the site or from its surroundings.” Moreover he stated that screening “from public view by planting is not in itself a sound reason for allowing otherwise harmful development to proceed, because the same principle could be applied to many similar types of development in the area, thus causing great cumulative harm to the protected countryside of Gower”.
To allow the marquee to remain on the application site for a continuous period until 31st March 2011 would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
In conclusion, therefore the current marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape and its retention during the winter months is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. In addition, due to its size, siting, and appearance, the marquee is considered to have a dominant and obtrusive impact on the immediate setting of the protected listed church and detracts from the character and appearance of Oxwich Village Conservation Area. As such the development is contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV22, and EV26.
The overspill car park is associated with the use of the marquee and again is more exposed during the winter months. The use of the overspill car park during the winter months would not be supported.
Tourism/Business Issues
The applicant has submitted additional information (copied above) in support of his application to retain the marquee during the winter months. In particular he maintains that the investment that he has made in this venture will support the local economy and provide enhanced services to the community through the injection of private funds and continued investment at this hotel location. He has not confirmed how much the marquee has actually been marketed or used during the 2009/2010 winter period. However, it has been noted that the marquee has been in used in recent weeks for functions.
The advice in National Planning Policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 and its associated TANs is that in the interests of achieving sustainable development it is important to manage change in the tourism sector in ways which respect the integrity of the natural, built and cultural environment. Technical Advice Note (Wales) 13, October 1997:Tourism advises that such development should be compatible with neighbouring uses, and seek to protect the setting of historic buildings. In addition, the guidance emphasises that, ‘The fact that a development is intended to meet tourism needs does not mean that statutory or non statutory designations should not apply or that they should be applied less rigorously’ (para. 2.9 TAN 13).
In accordance with Policy EV26, in the AONB the main objective is the conservation and protection of the area’s natural beauty, whilst acknowledging the need to achieve a balance between the social and economic well-being of the area. UDP policy EC17 supports rural tourism, however this is subject to the development meeting specific criteria including criteria (ii) that they do not have significant adverse effects on the landscape or nature conservation interests.
Note has also been taken of the LANDMAP cultural landscape data for the Oxwich Bay/Oxwich area, which recognises the national importance of Oxwich Bay as a “honey pot” destination for holiday makers throughout the UK and overseas, and describes the aspect area as ‘a three-mile crescent of gently-sloping white sand that culminates in the east with Great Tor, with two spectacular headlands and several castles’. However the data also notes some detractors. Notably it highlights that ‘The Oxwich Bay Hotel, a former 18th century rectory now utterly spoiled by modern additions’. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
In this respect it is considered that the current marquee may provide an improved tourist/business facility at this location and help aid the socio economic well being of the area, but this has to be considered against the primary objective to protect the AONB, and substantial weight must therefore be given in favour of conserving the character of the Gower AONB from any inappropriate development. The marquee, by it’s very appearance and nature is not considered appropriate for a more permanent function facility, particularly in an area designated for its natural beauty and recognised internationally as being part of a coastal area of high scenic quality and value.
In conclusion, it is not considered that it has been demonstrated that there are sufficient grounds to allow the retention of the temporary marquee in the winter months and the development should be removed during the period 1st November to 31st March in any year as previously approved under application no. 2008/2185, in order to protect the intrinsic qualities of this high quality AONB landscape in line with national and local planning policy objectives.
Moreover, it is considered that approving this application would set a dangerous precedent for the consideration of other applications, the cumulative impact of which would erode the very qualities of the environment and natural beauty of the AONB that the Council seeks to protect.
Incremental intensification and urbanisation of this site with this more permanent structures will further undermine the objectives of national planning and local planning policy guidance which seek to protect this sensitive coastal location and ensure that the very environment that attracts tourism to this popular area is not destroyed by inappropriate development.
Highway Safety Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering, there have been no reported issues as a result of the temporary permission and the overspill car park is considered beneficial when events are being held at the site. No highway objection is raised.
Other Material Considerations
In response to public consultation, the Gower Society has objected raising concerns regarding the visual intrusiveness of the development and the impact upon the wider landscape, and concerns that the marquee could become a permanent at the site. These issues have been addressed above in the main body of the report.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, it is considered that to allow the marquee to remain continuously on site until 31st October 2011 would result in a prominent, alien and incongruous feature within the landscape during the winter months, which would cause significant harm to the landscape and natural beauty of the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, and the setting of the neighbouring listed church of St. Illtyds, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Refusal is recommended. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE for the following reason:
1 The proposed retention of the existing temporary marquee until 31st October, 2011, by virtue of its sting, size, design and appearance, represents an inappropriate form of development at this countryside location that results in significant harm to the rural character of the landscape and high scenic quality of this coastal area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB landscape, and the character and setting of the Oxwich Village Conservation Area and listed church of St. Illtyds, contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV22, and EV26.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV27, EV31, EV40, EC17.
PLANS
Site location plan x 2, 1A proposed car park plans, 4D proposed marquee site plan, design and access statement received 23rd November 2009
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092 WARD: Gower Area 2
Location: Plot 1, Plenty Farm Llangennith Swansea Proposal: Detached dwelling with integral garage Applicant: Mr Gareth Howells
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
POLICIES
Policy Policy Description Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008).
Policy EV26 Within the Gower AONB, the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area's natural beauty. Development that would have a material adverse effect on the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the AONB will not be permitted. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
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 EV9 Development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area will only be permitted if it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or its setting. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)
SITE HISTORY
App No. Proposal 2007/0331 Detached dwelling with detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 24/04/2007
2004/0119 Erection of two dwellings Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/09/2004
2005/0529 Detached dwelling with detached garage (amendment to planning permission 2004/0119 granted on 14th August 2004) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 28/06/2005
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
The application was advertised on site and in the press as a development within the Llangennith Conservation Area and which may affect the setting of a Listed Building. No response.
The Gower Society – Comments as follows:
1. This application shows a design which appears to be inappropriate for its location. 2. Plenty Farm has suffered from over-development of its site. 3. The original design was preferable to this latest design.
The Society still retains its grave concerns regarding this development and wishes its comments to be taken into account when a decision is reached.
Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – The Community Council objects on the grounds that the proposed dwelling is too large for the size of plot and the design is out of keeping with the surrounding area (especially the listed part of Plenty Farm).
Highways Observations - The amended plot layout and revised access position is acceptable. I recommend no highway objections.
APPRAISAL
The application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis.
Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling with an integral garage on plot 1, on land adjoining Plenty Farm, Llangennith within the Llangennith Conservation Area. Outline planning permission was previously granted for two single dwellings with a detached garage on Plots 1 and 2 under application ref. 2004/0119. Details of siting, design, and external appearance for the dwellings were previously considered and granted planning permission at this outline stage. Members will recall that Plot 2 has already been approved and built under planning permission 2007/0331 granted in April 2007, albeit amended from that originally considered.
As outline permission has been granted for a house on this land, although now lapsed, it is considered that the principle of development has been established.
The main issues for consideration are the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Grade II Listed “Plenty Farm”, the impact 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 2002. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional material considerations in this case. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092
Plot 1 currently comprises an area of rough land located between Plenty Farm and the dwelling to the east known as Rosedene. As previously considered the site has a highway frontage of approximately 35 metres and has a maximum depth of approximately 40m along the eastern boundary whilst having a maximum depth of approximately 18m along its western boundary with Plenty Farm.
The proposed dwelling would be set into the north western corner of the site, set back between 17-20m from the front boundary, approximately 2m from the western boundary with Rosedene, 1m from the common boundary with the new dwelling on Plot 2 and approximately 18m from the boundary with Plenty Farm. The two storey design comprises of a series of distinct components resulting in an irregular angular footprint. External features include a front dormer window to the southern elevation and a first floor balcony to the eastern elevation. The integral garage would be located within the southern elevation. The maximum width and depth of the dwelling would be approximately 12m, with varied eaves height and a maximum overall height of 7.4m. The proposed materials would comprise of rendered walls, slate roof and timber effect or white Upvc windows and doors.
The proposed access into the site would be inserted alongside the common boundary with Rosedene, essentially handed from that previously approved, and to this the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection.
The original design comprised a traditionally designed double fronted cottage sited centrally within the plot with a detached garage to the west of the front elevation. This design was akin to that proposed on the adjacent Plot 2 and together these designs were considered to be acceptable and not adversely impact upon the Llangennith Conservation Area or the setting of the Listed Building at Plenty Farm.
Within the Gower AONB the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area. The Council wishes to foster high standards of design in all new development, and this is reinforced by Planning Policy Wales 2002, 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.
The principal relevant development plan policies are Policies EV1 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 seeks to preserve the setting of Listed Buildings.
In addition, Policy EV1 require that the design and layout of new development proposals should respect and be sympathetic to the character and amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings, and protect the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. As 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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092
In terms of residential amenity, the siting of the dwelling in close proximity to the boundary with Plot 2 would result in some overshadowing of their rear amenity space, albeit to the western most section. However, the plot in question is elevated above plot 2 and it is considered that as it’s siting within 1m of the common boundary, it would appear unacceptably overbearing when viewed from Plot 2. With regards to direct overlooking, a first floor bedroom window would directly look into the rear garden area of Plot 2, but this could be obscure glazed to protect their privacy. The balcony on the south-eastern elevation, which would also cause unacceptable loss of privacy, could also have a screen inserted along its northern boundary to prevent direct overlooking to these occupiers.
The distance to the boundary with Plenty Farm would be approximately 18m and as such it is not considered that the proposed balcony would result in unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupiers. There are two first floor windows that would directly overlook the amenity space of Rosedene, but as one would serve an en-suite bathroom and one would be a secondary bedroom window, these again could be obscure glazed to prevent loss of privacy. It is considered also the height of the dwelling and its siting in relation to Rosedene would dictate that it would not give rise to unacceptable physical overbearance.
The revised design and layout of the proposed dwelling would not increase the overall footprint significantly of that previously approved due to its eclectic design and the removal of the detached garage, but whilst the original two storey house was considered acceptable in the context of the neighbouring cottage and listed farmhouse, the current application proposes an unacceptable design which will introduce a large suburban style house that dominates the site, and will seriously detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding more modest buildings. This design and layout is considered alien in the immediate context of this site, and would seriously depart from the established character, form, and density of development in this sensitive setting to the detriment of the character of the Llangennith Conservation area. It is not considered that this scheme has been sensitively designed to take account of the prominent location of this site and the resultant visual impact on the immediate environs and the surrounding context of the Llangennith Conservation Area. In addition, the dwelling would be elevated above the highway by approximately 1.75m and as a result, the new development would be a visually prominent building in this landscape, unsympathetic to the character and appearance of this part of the Llangennith Conservation Area, which is to a large extent typified by more modest cottage style properties.
On this basis, the proposed development of this land at Plot 1 would result in a visually dominant and obtrusive form of infill development, which would not positively enhance the character and appearance of Llangennith Conservation Area, thus detracting from the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26.
The comments made by the objectors have been addressed above in the main body of the report.
In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposed amendments to the previously approved house at Plot 2 are not acceptable, and would result in a visually obtrusive and insensitive ‘suburban style’ of house development that has not been designed carefully to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area, and the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB, and would result in unacceptable harm to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010
ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092
As such the proposal is not considered a satisfactory form of infill development in this Gower Village, and is therefore contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and refusal is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE, for the following reasons:
1 The proposed dwellinghouse, by virtue of its prominent siting and inappropriate design would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.
2 The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale and siting so close to the boundary with Plot 2 would result in a harmful physical overbearing impact that would be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of this property contrary to Policies EV1 and EV16 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, EV9, EV16, EV26
PLANS
Design and access statement, site location plan, DWG No DD.00- site layout plan as approved, DD.01- site layout plan (as proposed), DD.02- ground floor plan and first floor plan 1:100, DD.03- proposed north & north east elevation and west elevation, DD.04- east & north east elevation and, DD.05- proposed ground floor plan 1:50, DD.06- proposed first floor plan 1:50 received 20th January 2010
AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (37)
Councillors:
Swansea Administration Councillors: V A Bates-Hughes P M Meara A M Day W K Morgan E W Fitzgerald J Newbury N A Holley (Non Voting) C L Philpott J W Jones D Price Mary H Jones T H Rees S M Jones R J Stanton J B Kelleher N J Tregoning R D Lewis (Chair) D P Tucker (Vice Chair) K E Marsh S M Waller Thomas
Labour Councillors: J E Burtonshaw E T Kirchner M C Child P M Matthews W Evans J T Miles R Francis-Davies J C Richards D H James D W W Thomas W (Billy) E A Jones P B Smith D I E Jones
Conservative Councillors: A (Tony) C S Colburn R H Kinzett (Non Voting) P R Hood-Williams (Non Voting) M Smith
Communities of Swansea Councillors: M E Gibbs R L Smith G Seabourne