CITY and COUNTY of SWANSEA 2.00P.M. AGENDA

Home , Llanrhidian Lower, Oxwich, Penrice (community)

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are invited to attend a Meeting of the

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

At: Council Chamber, CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA

On: Tuesday 13th April 2010

Time: 2.00p.m.

Members are asked to contact John Lock (Applications Manager) on 635731 or Phil Baxter (Area Team Leader) on 635733 should they wish to have submitted plans and other images of any of the applications on this agenda to be available for display at the Committee meeting.

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence.

2. Declaration of Interest

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

3. Minutes of the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 16th March 2010 and site visits held on 23rd March 2010.

FOR DECISION

4. Proposed Modification of Footpath No.6, Community of Llanrhidian Lower.

5. Alleged Public Footpath from Eversley Road, Sketty to Gower Road, Community of Sketty.

6. Town and Country Planning - Planning Applications. (a) Items for deferral/withdrawal. (b) Requests for site visits. (c) Determination of Planning Applications.

Rod Jones Acting Head of Legal & Democratic Services 7th April 2010 Contact: Jane Tinker 01792 636820

ACCESS TO INFORMATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (SECTION 100) (AS AMENDED) (NOTE: The documents and files used in the preparation of this Schedule of Planning Applications are identified in the ‘Background Information’ Section of each report. The Application files will be available in the committee room for half an hour before the start of the meeting, to enable Members to inspect the contents). Item No. 2

Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON TUESDAY 16TH MARCH, 2010 AT 2.00 P.M.

PRESENT: Councillor R D Lewis (Chairman) presided

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

V A Bates-Hughes J W Jones G Seabourne A C S Colburn S M Jones R J Stanton W Evans J B Kelleher M Smith E W Fitzgerald K E Marsh R L Smith R Francis-Davies P M Meara N J Tregoning D H James C L Philpott D W W Thomas W E A Jones T H Rees D P Tucker D I E Jones J C Richards

221. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J E Burtonshaw, M C Child, A M Day, P R Hood-Williams, M H Jones, E T Kirchner, P M Matthews, J Newbury, D Price and P B Smith

222. DECLARATION OF INTEREST

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

Councillor A C S Colburn - Planning Application No. 2010/0053 (Item 3) - Personal - Member of Licensing Sub Committee held on 5th March, 2010.

Councillor R D Lewis - Planning Application No. 2009/1599 (Item 11) - Personal and Planning Application 2010/0183 (Item 14) - Personal and Prejudicial and vacated chair and left during discussion.

Councillor K E Marsh - Planning Application No. 2010/0053 (Item 3) - Personal - Chair of Licensing Sub-Committee held on 5th March, 2010.

Councillor C L Philpott - Planning Application No. 2010/0053 (Item 3) - Personal and Prejudicial - Member of Licensing Sub-Committee held on 5th March 2010 and left during discussion.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (16.03.10) Cont’d

223. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 23rd February, 2010 and the site visits on 2nd March, 2010 be agreed as a correct record subject to the name of Councillor A C S Colbourne being added to the list of members present at meeting held on the 23rd February, 2010.

224. ALLEGED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN CAEGYNYDD ROAD AND SWANSEA ROAD, WAUNARLWYDD

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services presented a report which outlined the application to consider whether a public right of way exists via the route shown in the report.

The background history of the application as detailed as well as the evidence submitted and the list of those people consulted on the matter.

RESOLVED that Cabinet be recommended to refuse the application to make a Modification Order to add the route to the Definitive Map and Statement.

225. ALLEGED PUBLIC FOOTPATH FROM RHYD-Y-FENNI TO SALTHOUSE POINT, CROFTY

The Head of Legal and Democratic presented a report which outlined the application a path from Rhyd-y-Fenni to Salthouse Point, Crofty should be added to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement as a public footpath.

The background history of the application as detailed as well as the evidence submitted and the list of those people consulted on the matter.

AGREED that Cabinet be recommended that a creation order be made to add the public footpath from Rhyd y Fenni to Salthouse Point, Crofty to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement.

226. ALLEGED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FROM BRYN TERRACE TO FOOTPATH 10, MUMBLES

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services reported that the local Member had requested a deferral of the matter pending further discussion.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (16.03.10) Cont’d

RESOLVED that the application be deferred.

227. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL

None.

228. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS

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

(Item 1) Application No. 2009/0175

Detached dwelling and detached garage at land adjacent to Long Elms, 118 Bishopton Road, Bishopston, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area given its Gower AONB setting.

(Item 2) Application No. 2009/1731

Increase in ridge height to provide first floor accommodation with front and side dormers and retention of alterations to parking and access at The Laurels, 34A West Cross Lane, West Cross, Swansea.

Reason

To assess the impact of the development on the surrounding street scene and to consider whether there has been a contravention of planning conditions.

(Item 11) Application No. 2009/1599

Extend the period of temporary permitted use for marquee and associated overspill car park to include the period commencing 1st November, 2009 and ceasing on 31st March, 2011.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (16.03.10) Cont’d

Reason

To assess the impact of the development given that the structure is already in situ.

(Item 13) Application No. 2010/0092

Detached dwelling with integral garage at Plot 1, Plenty Farm, Llangennith, Swansea

Reason

To consider the impact of the development on the character of the area.

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

The Head of Planning Services submitted a schedule of outline applications, reserved matters and planning applications. Amendments to this schedule were reported and are indicated below by (#).

RESOLVED that:

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

# (Item 6) Application No. 2009/0643

Two detached split level dwellings with basement garages at 54 Brynaeron Dunvant, Swansea.

Amended Condition

04. Prior to the commencement of work on site, the drive width shall be increased to 4.5. m for its shared length in accordance with the details indicated on Drawing No. 1158-16C received 25th January, 2010 and in accordance with a land stability report to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All access works shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and report prior to the beneficial occupation of the development.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (16.03.10) Cont’d

# (Item 7) Application No. 2009/1009

Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 2007/1487 granted on 21st August, 2007 to extend the period of time for submission of reserved matters to 18th September, 2011 at land off Fairwood Road, Dunvant, Swansea.

(NOTE: Approved subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.)

(Item 8) Application No. 2009/1137

Part replacement and part erection of 1.2. metre high side boundary fence at Brynhyfryd, Robins Lane, Reynoldston, Swansea.

(Item 9) Application No. 2009/1376

Single storey front extension, single storey rear extension, rear porch, rear balcony, two dormers on east side elevation and one dormer on west side elevation at Glenbryn Parkmill, Swansea.

(Item 10) Application No. 2009/1410

Three replacement chicken sheds and one packaging shed at Kittle Hill Poultry Farm Kittle, Swansea.

(Item 12) Application No. 2009/1813

Detached dwelling and conversion of existing dwelling to residential annexe ancillary to proposed dwelling at 15 The Glebe, Bishopston, Swansea.

(2) the undermentioned planning application BE REFUSED for the the reasons indicated in the report and/or indicated below:

# (Item 3) Application No. 2010/0053

Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission 2005/1901 granted on 25th January, 2006 to extend the opening hours to 3.00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 2.00 a.m. Monday to Thursday at 69 High Street, Gorseinon, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (16.03.10) Cont’d

(NOTE: Late correspondence and late letters of support & petition of support submitted by applicant.)

(Item 4) Application No. 2009/1271

Change of use from coffee shop (Class A3) and first floor holiday (Class C3) to one detached dwelling (Class C3), front canopy, porch and two new accesses at Compass Coffee Shop, Reynoldston, Swansea

(NOTE: Late supporting statement from applicant reported.)

(NOTE: Councillor D P Tucker (Vice-Chairman) presided for the above item.)

(Item 5) Application No. 2010/0096

Increase in ridge height and rear roof extension with Juliette balconies to provide living accommodation in roof space at 17A Wellfield, Bishopston, Swansea.

(Item 14) Application No. 2010/0183

Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 50 units from 20th July, to 10th August, 2010 (inclusive) at Field 0005, Bank Farm, Horton, Swansea.

(NOTE: Councillor D P Tucker (Vice-Chairman) presided for the above item.)

The meeting ended at 3.10 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

S: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 16 March 2010 (GB/GDL) 12 March.

Item No.3b

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE SITE VISITS

HELD ON SITE ON TUESDAY 23rd MARCH 2010 AT 9.30AM

PRESENT: Councillor R D Lewis (Chairman) presided

Councillor(s): Councillor(s): A C S Colburn K Marsh W Evans D W W Thomas a) only

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors E W Fitzgerald, D H James, S M Jones, E T Kirchner, P Matthews, C L Philpott, J C Richards, P B Smith, R L Smith and D P Tucker.

2. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SITE VISITS

Following deferment for a site visit at the meeting of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on Tuesday 16th March 2010, Members visited the undermentioned site prior to it’s determination at the Committee scheduled for Tuesday 13th April 2010.

a) Planning Application No. 2009/1731 - The Laurels, 34A 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.

b) Planning Application No 2009/0175 - Land adjacent to Long Elms, 118 Bishopston Road, Bishopston, Swansea, SA3 3EU - Detached dwelling and detached garage.

c) Planning Application No 2009/1599 - Land at Oxwich 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. d) Planning Application No. 2010/0092 - Plot 1, Plenty Farm Llangennith, Swansea - Detached dwelling with integral garage.

The meeting ended at 12.20 pm.

CHAIRMAN Item No. 4

Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services

Area 2 Development Control Committee – 13th April 2010

PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF FOOTPATH NO.6 COMMUNITY OF LLANRHIDIAN LOWER

Summary

PURPOSE: To consider whether to make a Modification Order to amend the route of Footpath No. 6 shown in the Definitive Map to correspond with the Definitive Statement

POLICY FRAMEWORK: Paragraphs 4.17 and 4.20 of the Countryside Access Plan 2007-2017 – and policy DM2 REASON FOR This Authority has a duty under s.53 of the Wildlife and DECISION: Countryside Act 1981, to keep the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review

CONSULTEES: The following persons and bodies have been consulted as statutory consultees:

Countryside Council for Wales Local member Ramblers Association British Horse Society Llanrhidian Lower Community Council The Open Spaces Society The Byways and Bridleways Trust The Green, Openspaces and Heritage Alliance Mrs L M Lock (local rep. for Ramblers) Mrs H Sawyer (local rep. for British Horse Society) The Gower Commoners Association All land owners and neighbouring land owners to the path RECOMMENDATION: 1. That a recommendation be made to Cabinet to make a Modification Order to amend Footpath No 6 on the Definitive Map to reflect the Definitive Statement.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 While dealing with a possible Creation Agreement to link footpaths 6a and the Highway Mill Lane, it has come to the Council’s attention that there is an anomaly on Public Footpath No.6 (shown A-C on the attached plan).

1.2 The anomaly results from a discrepancy between the Definitive Map and the Definitive Statement, with the description of the path in the Definitive Statement not matching the depiction of the path in the Definitive Map.

1.3 Under Section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 this Council is legally obligated to keep the Definitive Map under continuous review and must make amendments to the Map and Statement when evidence of any errors comes to light. This is explained further in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

EVIDENCE OF ANOMALY

2.1 The current Definitive Statement describes the path thus: “Commences on the County road in Llanrhidian, south of the “Welcome to Town” (P.H) and proceeds due west through churchyard, via stiles, and terminates on the County Road near St Rhidian’s Church”. This is shown as A-F on the attached plan, whereas the current Definitive Map depicts footpath 6 as the line shown A-C.

2.2 The error appears to have arisen in the “Draft Definitive Map” (see appendix 3), as its accompanying Statement describes the path in the same way as the current Statement. However, all editions of the Definitive Map show the route terminating short of the county road, as well as plotting it below the churchyard. This is the first evidence of the anomaly appearing.

2.3 There is no evidence of the route changing as a result of the subsequent reviews and at the hearings (Appendix 3) set up after the publishing of the Draft Definitive Map, nor have there been any subsequent Public Path Orders to alter the route on the Definitive Map and Statement. It appears the error is likely to be an administrative one, possibly due to the scale of the Draft Definitive Map, which was 1:25,000.

2.4 The error was not identified before the current Definitive Map and Statement were published.

2.5 The Parish Map (the relevance of which is explained in Appendix 4), depicts the route clearly passing through the churchyard and meeting the adopted highway at point F, where it continues as a footpath,which is currently No.6a due to the anomaly. This would suggest the route shown A-F is the correct alignment of the footpath LL 6.

2.6 The Parish Card, which accompanied the Parish Map as a description of the route, clearly states “F.P from main road in village through churchyard which one enters and leaves by a stile. The path continues for approximately 100 yards and then connects with a highway”. There are ancient stone stiles at either end of the churchyard (points D and E) which correspond with the description.

2.7 Both the 1907 and 1919 Ordnance Survey Maps show a route passing through St Rhidian’s Church (as shown A-F). The only other path shown in the vicinity starts south of the property Cross House, and runs parallel to the route A-F. This however does not appear on either the Definitive Map or Statement.

2.8 No Ordnance Survey maps depict the route shown A-C, as it appeared to be a wooded area on all editions of the Ordnance Survey maps (until the publication of the Draft Definitive Map), separating the church and the land now belonging to Cross House.

2.9 The Ordnance Survey Map is not conclusive of the correct route for footpath 6 but, taken with the Parish Map and Card, and the physical features in existence, on the balance of probability, the Definitive Statement depicts the correct alignment for footpath No.6.

CONSULTATIONS

3.1 All the usual organisations and individuals were consulted on 27th November 2009 concerning this proposed Modification Order. All the known land owners affected by the proposal were also consulted, as well as the owners/occupiers of any neighbouring land. The Sections A-D and E-F are unregistered with the Land Registry, and the owners were not known at the time of consultations. Notices were placed on site, both to inform local people of the proposals, and to ascertain any information on the possible owners of the unregistered land.

3.2 Only the Countryside Council for Wales responded to consultations, on 1st December 2009, highlighting the wildlife in the area but stipulating that they did not object to the proposals.

3.3 A consultation letter was also sent to The Penrice Estate, as it was listed as the previous owner of the land to the south west of St Rhidian’s Church on the Commons Register.

3.4 On 6th January 2010, an e-mail was received from Mr T Methuen- Campbell, representing The Penrice Estate, stating that they are the owners of the land marked A-D and E-F. Mr Methuen-Campbell also confirmed that the Estate has no objection to the proposed alteration.

3.5 There have been no objections received to the proposed modification of footpath 6 on the Definitive Map.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There are no financial implications for this Authority.

CONCLUSION

5.1 Under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, this Council is obliged to keep the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review.

5.2 The discovery of an anomaly with footpath 6 has resulted in the investigation of the correct alignment of the footpath, which suggests the route depicted by the Definitive Statement is proving to be the correct alignment.

5.3 All statutory consultees, landowners and adjoining landowners were consulted on the proposals, with no objections being received.

5.4 It is expedient that the Definitive Map be modified to reflect the Definitive Statement for footpath LL 6.

RECOMMENDATION

That a recommendation be made to Cabinet to make a Modification Order to amend Footpath No 6 on the Definitive Map to reflect the Definitive Statement.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Documents file contained within file ROW-169

Contact Officer Greg Hopkins Ext: 6170 File reference: ROW-169

APPENDIX 1

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

- Under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 53(2), this Council is obliged to keep the Council’s record of public rights of way, known as the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review (Appendix 2).

− The Council is also obliged to make amendments to the Map and Statement where it discovers other evidence that shows a public path exists.

- The manner by which the Definitive Map and Statement can be changed is by making a Modification Order, which modifies that Map and Statement. That Order will be subject to objections and representations but can only be confirmed by this Council if it is unopposed. If it is opposed the Order has to be referred to the National Assembly for Wales for determination.

- In addition, the Council may discover other evidence which suggests a public path exists. Under the provision in Section 53(3)(c)(i) to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, a Council is obliged to make a Modification even if it is only reasonable to allege such a way exists (Appendix 2). Such evidence could include user evidence and/or documentary evidence.

APPENDIX 2

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT, 1981

Section 53 Duty to keep the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review.

(2) As regards every definitive map and statement, the surveying authority shall keep the map and statement under continuous review and as soon as possible after the occurrence of any of [events specified in sub section (3)] by order make such modifications to the map and statement as appear to them to be requisite in consequence of the occurrence of that event.

(3) The events referred to in sub section (2) are as follows:-

(b) the expiration, in relation to anyway in the area to which the map relates of any period such that the enjoyment by the public of the way during that period raises a presumption that the way has been dedicated as a public path or restricted byway;

(c) the discovery by the Authority of evidence which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows:

(i) that a right of way which is not shown on the map and statement subsists or is reasonably alleged to subsist over land in the area to which the map relates, being a right of way such that the land over which the right subsists is a public path, a restricted byway or, subject to section 54A a byway open to all traffic;

(ii) that a highway shown in the map and statement as a highway of a particular description ought to be there shown as a highway of a different description. (iii) That there is no public right of way over land shown in the map and statement as a highway of any description ,or any other particulars contained in the map and statement require modification.

APPENDIX 3

HISTORY OF THE COMPILATION OF THE DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT

− The National Parks and Countryside Act of 1949 placed an obligation on all Councils to produce a Definitive Map and Statement. Parish Councils were given the task of surveying all routes they considered may have legal status and in the case of the Parish of Llanrhidian Lower that was undertaken in approximately 1951 by the production of what has come to be known as the Parish Map (at the scale of 6 “ to one mile) and the all too often rather brief description of the path contained on small cards also known as the Parish Card. Some of the descriptions on these cards were more comprehensive than others but in combination with the paths depiction in the “Parish Map “ provide a useful record of what routes were considered to have public path status by 1954.

− The information was passed to the former Glamorgan County Council who collated the information and produced the first Draft Definitive Map which in their opinion reflected routes considered to be public rights of way on 14th September 1954 which became the relevant date of the first Definitive Map published in 1970.

− The legislation required that the information gathered should be the subject of a series of reviews which would allow the public and landowners to make representations or objections to the inclusion or absence of routes in the various editions of these earlier Draft and Definitive Maps and Statements as and when they were published. The result was the production of the initial Draft Map and Statement published in 1955, a Provisional Map and Statement published in 1964, the first Definitive Map and Statement published in 1970, the Draft Special Review of 1971 and the current Definitive Map and Statement published in 1986. APPENDIX 4

THE BASIS ON WHICH A MODIFICATION ORDER CAN BE MADE TO MODIFY OR DELETE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY

− This Council must be satisfied that the existing entry in the Definitive Map and Statement is incorrect. This means that the evidence should show a mistake was made at the relevant date of the First Definitive Map, which in this case is 14th September 1954.

− The provisions of Section 32(4)(b) to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 required the Authority to produce a Definitive Map and Statement. Section 56(1)(b) and (d) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides that, “the Definitive Map and Statement shall be conclusive evidence as to the particulars contained therein to the following extent, where the map shows a footpath the map should be conclusive evidence that there was at the relevant date a highway as shown on the map…”. So if a challenge is being made to an entry to the Map and Statement the evidence must show a mistake was made at the earliest relevant date which is the first date the path was recognised as having legal status.

− The question therefore is what is considered sufficient evidence to show that such a mistake had been made. The 1981 Act permits a correction to be made when evidence is discovered and considered with all other relevant evidence and so a decision has to be made on the balance of probabilities that an error had been made.

− The real difficulty lies when the evidence upon which the entries were made into the Definitive Map have been lost or that record is incomplete. This is a common predicament that this and other Authorities face, as once the procedure for finally showing a public right of way has been completed the conclusivity of the Map and Statement would have led many Authorities to be less concerned on retaining the reasons for its final inclusion. Nonetheless as a result of previous case concerning R -v- S for Environment ex parte Simms and Burrows (1990), such deletions, or downgradings and other amendments are deemed possible.

− The issue therefore is what weight is to be given to the entry into the original map especially when the evidence which led to its inclusion is absent. It was a document prepared pursuant to an Act of Parliament and which was to be an authoritative record, it required various stages leading up to its preparation to be satisfied and gave landowners several opportunities to challenge any proposed entry. It should also be borne in mind that the map was prepared at a time when one could find local people whose memories went back very much further than today’s residents.

− This issue was addressed at the Court of Appeal concerning the case of Trevelyan -v- Secretary of State for the Environment (2000). It concluded there must be an initial presumption in favour of the existence of that public right of way and unless there is evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed the proper procedures were followed and that evidence did exist which made it seriously arguable that the right subsisted at the relevant date, even if no trace of that evidence survives.

i l l b r o o k CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA Community of Llanrhidian Lower Cartref LowerStILES Mill Footpath LL6 Cottage Proposed Modification1 Order, 2010 Sea View Morar 49.3m Cottage

Copperwood

The M IL Mill L Y Login L The A N Hollies Pond E Ty Morfa Big House Well 5 FB Appletree Swn-y-nant Cottage

Baytree House

R M

i v i l

e l

C r

s k FB o i d c e t i t e g k October Cottage a w e a c g r i t g t e e w a 16.9m o r t B t Hill House e C o B C

y ll o The Croft Quoits Green H n i Three a r Ways Mill Lane D ) H P LL 6a ( nn I in St Rhidian's h n lp i o a Riverside Church D Welcome To Town Inn F r e D Garden h T Homeside (PH)

D res Anta Sunny Dale erlands Cottage B A M Penmount High C LL 6 Croft Cross House TCB Llanrhidian Limekiln LB (disused) Ty Clyd

O1 ld Hall Po 2 st Of Mount fice Pleasant Quarry Mount 36.5m (disused) Pleasant Oak Tree Cott Farm

Kimberley Broad The Knoll View Rock House Crabapple Cottage Definitive Statement p Ashtree Route o h s Cottage Quarry k r Hill CrestReproduced from the Digital Ordnance Survey Definitive(disused) Map 14 o Mayaro The Moorings W Map with the permission of HMSO. Crown d Route l Copyright. City and County of Swansea. O SCALE 1:1500 o e Licence No 100023509w ts- 2010 h T o T Sea o Existing 12 Breeze H Footpaths MA LT 9 H 2 A 7 LL 3 2 3 1 21 6 3 19 17 Burry 15 Lodge Willow Cottage Item No. 5

Report of the Head of Legal & Democratic Services

th Area 2 Development Control Committee – 13 April 2010

ALLEGED PUBLIC FOOTPATH FROM EVERSLEY ROAD TO GOWER ROAD

COMMUNITY OF SKETTY

Summary

Purpose: To consider the evidence and whether to recognise the path as a public right of way.

Policy Framework: Paragraph 4.12 Countryside Access Plan.

Reason for Decision: The Council is under a statutory obligation to determine the application.

Consultations: All the usual organisations have been consulted including all the owners and occupiers of the land, the Byways and Bridleways Trust, The Ramblers Association, the British Horse Society, the Commons Open Spaces and Footpath Preservation Society; The Countryside Council for Wales; G Bligh (equestrian rides interests); L. Locke (local representative of the Ramblers Association and Gower Society), Councillors M. Day, Prof. P. Meara, C. Philpott, H. T. Rees, J. Stanton. Recommendation(s): It is recommended that: The Area 1 Development Control Committee recommend to Cabinet that no Modification Order be made.

1. Background

1.1 This concerns an application made under the provisions of Schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It has been made to this Council to recognise and consequently register the path as a public footpath via the route shown on the attached plan from points A-E.

1.2 The claim was submitted on the 20th June, 2000 and was supported by seventeen information sheets providing a total of eighteen people in support, their average length of use being 42.5 years with sixteen people who had each used the path in excess of twenty years. Seven people were interviewed. However, fifteen people do not wish to pursue the claim.

1.3 The claim is therefore based on the premise that because the claimants have been able to enjoy a minimum period of twenty years uninterrupted use, it is sufficient to raise the presumption the path has been dedicated as a public footpath. (Explained more fully in Appendix IV).

1.4 The path commences at its northern end on Eversley Road, passing alongside the rear of property numbers 86, 84 and 82 Gower Road, thereafter via the garage forecourt to Gower Road. (Points A to E on the attached plan). A site visit undertaken on the 18th May 2009 revealed a gate at point A which is open, a padlocked gate at point D, a van and a small skip in front of this gate with an automated car wash still adjacent to the gate. To exit the path at point D, it would be necessary to cross the forecourt used as a vehicle exit route from the car wash at point D to point E on the plan, then, walk around the raised brick planter/bed in front of the vertical Shell sign, terminating at Gower Road.

2. Consultations

2.1 All the usual organisations have been consulted and the Local Members have also been consulted. The three known landowners have been consulted. These persons include the owners of 86, Gower Road and the lane between points A and B, the owner of Sketty Post Office who owns 84, Gower Road and the lane between points B and C, and Telegraph Service Station Limited who own the lane between points D and E. The lane between points C and D is unregistered.

2.2 The application has been made on the basis the path has been subject to a presumed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 i.e that the public have enjoyed a minimum period of twenty years uninterrupted use of the path.

3. Calling into Question

3.1 In order to ascertain whether a minimum period of twenty years has been established, it is necessary to determine when the public’s use of the way was first challenged. In this case there is evidence to suggest that there are two relevant periods. There is doubt as to the actual relevant period owing to some of the evidence available being contradictory. In 1992 a blue gate was erected at point A on the plan (still in place today), however, there is uncertainty as to whether or not this gate was kept locked or closed but unlocked. In February 2000 when the owners of Nener’s Locksmiths at 80, Gower Road erected a galvanised gate at the bottom of the lane at point D, this resulted in the application being made. Consequently, there are two possible relevant periods, 1972 to 1992 and 1980 to 2000.

4. Issues

4.1 There are several issues to consider in making a decision as to whether the claim has been established. The issues are as follows:

(a) the barriers shown at points A and D on the plan.

(b) the notice shown at point X on the plan, the pole erected shown at point E on the plan and garage forecourt safety implications.

The evidence obtained regarding these issues is set out in Appendix V.

4.2 On consideration of the evidence, It would appear reasonable to conclude that there were occasions since 1992 when the gates at point A were locked. Therefore, there was no uninterrupted use of the path between 1980 and 2000.

4.3 The evidence also suggests that, even before the gate was placed across the path at point D, in 2000, at sometime during the mid 1970’s another gate, fence or door was placed across the path at the same point, obstructing access for the majority of the public. Therefore, it would appear that at point D, some form of obstruction was in place to prevent uninterrupted use of the path between 1972 and 1992.

4.4 Another question to consider is whether a garage forecourt could be subject to a presumed dedication of a public footpath. As there is no defined path, pedestrians would have to give way to customers of the garage who would drive in and out of the forecourt.

5. Conclusion

5.1 According to their claim, the claimants consider that their alleged right to use the way was challenged when access to the lane was closed in 2000. Nonetheless, there is also evidence that the public’s use was challenged, in 1992.

5.2 If the alleged public footpath was called into question in 2000, the relevant twenty year period should be calculated retrospectively from that date. No uninterrupted period of twenty years can be found from 1980-2000 because the path was obstructed at various points throughout this period. The alleged public footpath was also called into question in 1992 which requires consideration of another relevant period, being 1972-1992. However, there is evidence which shows the path was blocked in the mid 1970’s at point D. Whichever date of calling into question is considered, no single twenty year period of uninterrupted use can be found.

5.3 There is no defined route across part of the claimed path between points D and E.

5.4 The required legal tests are not met on the facts.

Financial Implication - None.

Recommended – That the Area 2 Development Control Committee recommend to Cabinet that no Modification Order be made.

Background papers - Document File: ROW 36

Contact Officer: M. Ward 01792 636696

APPENDIX I

HIGHWAYS ACT 1980

Section 31. Dedication of way as a highway presumed after public use for 20 years.

Where a public way over land, other than a way of such a character that use of it by the public could not give rise at common law to any presumption of dedication, has actually been enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption of a full period of 20 years, the way is deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during this period to dedicate it.

For Section 31(1) Highways Act, 1981 to operate and give rise to a presumption of dedication the following criteria must be satisfied:

- the physical nature of the path must be such as is capable of being a public right of way - the use must be ‘bought into question’, i.e. challenged or disputed in some way - use must have taken place without interruption over the period of twenty years before the date on which the right is brought into question - use must be as of right i.e. without force, without stealth or without permission and in the belief that the route was public - there must be insufficient evidence that the landowner did not intend to dedicate a right of type being claimed - use must be by the public at large

APPENDIX II

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT, 1981

Section 53 Duty to keep the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review.

(3) The events referred to in sub section (2) are as follows:-

(c) the discovery by the Authority of evidence which (when considered with all other relevant evidence available to them) shows:

(i) that a right of way which is not shown on the map and statement subsists or is reasonably alleged to submit over land in the area to which the map relates, being a right of way to which the part applies.

APPENDIX III

DEDICATION UNDER COMMON LAW

No minimum period of use is required, but the claimants must show that it can be inferred by the landowners conduct, that he or she had actually dedicated the route. Use of right, is not of itself necessarily sufficient. Under statute, twenty years, if proved to have been uninterrupted will be sufficient to show presumed dedication.

Under common law it is still possible that use was due to the landowners tolerance rather than because that landowner had intended to dedicate. Consequently there needs to be evidence that the landowner (or owners) for whatever period is being considered, acquiesced to that use and took measures to facilitate public use.

Obviously this means the landowners have to be identified and evidence that they wished to have the route dedicated to the public.

APPENDIX IV

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

1.1 Under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 53(2), this Council is obliged to keep the Council’s record of public rights of way, known as the Definitive Map and Statement under continuous review. Claims for additions to the Map and Statement are called “Schedule 14 applications” as they are made under this provision to the 1981 Act. They are often based on the public being able to demonstrate their long-term use of the path whether by showing:

(a) the minimum period of twenty years, as is required by Section 31 of the Highways Act; and / or:-

(b) a greater or lesser period than twenty years but under common law;

1.2 The Council is also obliged to make amendments to the Map and Statement where it discovers other evidence that shows a public path exists.

1.3 An application may also be made to show that path has been incorrectly registered in that say a footpath should be shown as a bridleway (an upgrading) or conversely a bridleway should be downgraded to a footpath (downgrading).

1.4 Application may be made to show that a path should be deleted on the basis that no such right existed when the initial review and surveys were undertaken after the passing of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

1.5 An application may be made to show that the entry into the Definitive Map is incorrect in that the path should be re aligned. This if successful would result in the path being re drawn via a different route.

1.6 Finally an application may be made to vary the description of the path as contained in the written description. For example that the width needs to be altered.

1.7 The manner by which the Definitive Map and Statement can be changed is by making a Modification Order, which modifies that Map and Statement. That Order will be subject to objections and representations but can only be confirmed by this Council if it is unopposed. If it is opposed the Order has to be referred to the National Assembly for Wales for determination. Once the Order has been made it can not be withdrawn or abandoned. Unlike public path diversion, extinguishment and creation orders where the Council could do so, if it considered it did not wish to pursue an order, perhaps for example where there were overwhelming numbers of objections which it had not envisaged originally.

1.7 In terms of applications to add routes, under the provisions of Section 31 to the Highways Act 1980 (Appendix 2) a public right of way will be deemed to have been dedicated to the public if a minimum period of twenty years uninterrupted use can be shown to have been enjoyed by the public provisions of Section 53(b) to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 therefore apply (Appendix 3).

1.8 This twenty year period is calculated by counting retrospectively from the first occasion the public’s alleged right to use the way was brought into question. This usually happens when the path is blocked by something like a locked gate or fence. When the twenty year period has been identified it is usually termed the “relevant period”. If there is no physical barring of the way then the relevant period is counted retrospectively from the date a Schedule 14 application is made. 1.9 Another means by which a path may be presumed to have been dedicated is under common law (Appendix 4). In these circumstances the landowner would have to show that he or she had not just acquiesced to public use but in some way facilitated or encouraged that use. The owner of all the land containing the claimed public path would therefore have to be identified but the period of use need not necessarily be twenty years and could be for a lesser period.

1.10 In addition, the Council may discover other evidence which suggests a public path exists. Under the provision in Section 53(3)(c)(i) to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, a Council is obliged to make a Modification even if it is only reasonable to allege such a way exists (Appendix 2). Such evidence could include user evidence and/or documentary evidence. APPENDIX V

Barriers

Point A

4.1 In 1992, blue gates were erected at the top end of the lane at point A. The evidence obtained about these gates and their use is as follows:

(a) One person interviewed said the gates were only closed on one occasion but had not been closed for many years. (b) Another person confirmed that when the gates at point A were closed, they were re-opened by a shop-owner, following pressure from local residents. The gates being re-opened could suggest that they were actually locked at this time. (c) One person said that the same gates were usually open, not locked at night and that they had only been closed since the application had been submitted. The claimant did not try to open the gates and therefore does not know if they were locked. (d) Another person who used the lane once or twice a month over a thirty year period had never known the gates at point A to be locked. (e) However, a shop-owner said that the owner of the gates at point A locked them on regular occasions for a number of years, usually on Public Holidays when the shops are closed. (f) In 1998 the City and County of Swansea demolished the public conveniences (shown as point PC on the plan) and did not erect adjoining boundary fencing or walls. Consequently, when the gates at point A were closed, the public were able to access the path via the vacant plot and walk around the gates. However, it is not clear whether the gates could have been opened or whether they were locked and the public had to walk around the gates in order to obtain access.

Point D

4.3 The entrance to the path is currently inaccessible due to a locked gate at point D. All seven people interviewed mentioned that since this gate was placed across the path and locked in 2000, they have not been able to use the path.

4.4 An interviewee believes the present gate was unlocked during the day to enable the proprietor of Sketty Garages and his staff to access the workshops shown on the plan near point D and that the gate was locked every evening and at weekends.

4.5 One interviewee said that between1973-1975 there was a chain link fence with a lockable gate in approximately the same position, which was locked in the evenings. Another person interviewed said they used the lane daily between1973-1975 to deliver newspapers but were unable to use the lane on Sundays due to a locked gate at point D.

4.6 One interviewee started working at Sketty Garage in 1945 and remembers at that time the lane being blocked by a fence. Another interviewee confirmed between 1974 and 1976, that he and the owner of Sketty Garage, erected a further fence across the bottom of the lane at point D and that there was a door in the fencing to which they had a key.

4.7 When Sketty Garage was sold in 1977, one person said the new owner opened the lane for vehicular access for a couple of weeks before building a wall across the lane. A door was placed into the wall and a key was given to Radio Supplies.

4.8 One person interviewed remembered a wall across the path at point D but said a door enabled people to continue to use the lane. He believes this wall was demolished between 1988 and 1992.

4.9 One person interviewed, could not remember the fencing nor the wall.

Notice at Point X

4.10 Shell Service Station stated in a letter dated 07/01/01 that ‘until recently’ there was a clearly visible sign stating “No public right of way exists across this land.” One person also confirms that a sign was fixed to the wall stating “No right of way exists over this area.” However, neither have been able to establish when the notice was erected or removed.

Pole at point E

4.11 In 1998 Shell said they erected a pole at point E situated on the alleged right of way. The works were carried out sometime during November 1998 and two photographs which have been produced, show the pole would necessitate anyone walking the route as claimed, to deviate off the path. This suggests that the path as claimed was only available up until late 1998 and consequently, the claimed path has not been available throughout the whole of the period 1980 to 2000.

Garage Forecourt

4.12 One resident said the house numbered 78 Gower Road was demolished in 1980 during the petrol forecourt refurbishment. Consequently, the route that is being claimed could not have been used when the house was in existence. This further suggests the path being claimed could not have existed until after this house was removed and the land cleared. The path was not available throughout either of the possible twenty year periods. 0 2 6

9 1 CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA ALLEGED RIGHT OF WAY

1 F EVERSLEY0 ROAD TO GOWER ROAD 0 R 1 O

G 2 COMMUNITY OF SKETTY M 1

E 4 1 N

E 5 1 Car Park 104 88 StILES 86 TCBs Metal Gates (top of lane) Eversley Road A 75 96 85 83 B Breeze Block Wall/Galvanised Gate a 87 PC 11 (Bottom of lane) 4 C 63 1 16 Car Wash Exit 96 Position of former Workshop CW 5 9 D Notice Step X 10cm Raised Step Garage 92 90 88 86 PO 84 No.78 - now demolished 82 39 86 LB 80 Shell Sign 35 t 0 o 1 37 E Shelter o t 3 1 76 5 Shelter Bank Raised Brick Bed 62.5m 74 72

29 4

2 o t 3 1

17 G OW ER RO AD 5 5 o Reproduced from the t 1 Ordnance Survey Map with 21 Claimed Path the permission of the7 controller of HMSO E Crown Copyright SS AE City and County of Maxime Court Swansea licence no. 100023509

Scale 1:750

1 CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA 1. BISHOPSTON DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE 5. COCKETT 7. DUVANT Report of the Head of Planning Services to the 8. FAIRWOOD Chair and Members of the Area 2 Development 9. GORSEINON Control Committee 10. GOWER 11. GOWERTON 12. KILLAY NORTH DATE: 13TH APRIL 2010 13. KILLAY SOUTH 14. KINGSBRIDGE 29 18. LOWER LOUGHOR 20. MAYALS 9 27 23. NEWTON 35 18 24. OYSTERMOUTH 14 25. PENCLAWDD 27. PENLLERGAER 11 28. PENNARD 5 29. PENYRHEOL 25 32. SKETTY 35. UPPER LOUGHOR 7 8 12 36. WEST CROSS

13 32

20 10 36 28 1 23 24

Bryan Graham B.A. (HONS); Dip. T.P.; M.R.T.P.I. Head of Planning Services CONTENTS

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

1 2009/0175 Land adjacent to Long Elms, 118 Bishopston Road, APPROVE Bishopston, Swansea, SA3 3EU Detached dwelling and detached garage

2 2009/1731 The Laurels, 34A West Cross Lane, West Cross, APPROVE 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

3 2010/0092 Plot 1, Plenty Farm Llangennith Swansea REFUSE Detached dwelling with integral garage

4 2009/1599 Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS REFUSE 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 and alterations to colour of marquee

5 2010/0049 Stavelhager Farm Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1ER APPROVE Retention of drainage ditch diversion works

6 2009/1666 The Dingle Horton SwanseaSA3 1LB APPROVE Side conservatory

7 2009/0892 Bloomfield Nursing Home 129 Gower Road Sketty APPROVE Swansea SA2 9HU Three storey front extension, front roof extension with two front dormers, two storey rear extension and rear dormer

8 2009/0607 Land adjacent to Robins Rest, Horton, Swansea, SA3 APPROVE 1LB Detached dwelling and garage.

9 2009/1264 Land to the rear of 175 Newton Road Newton Swansea REFUSE SA3 4UD Detached bungalow

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

10 2009/1346 32 East Cliff, Pennard, Swansea, SA3 2AS APPROVE Conversion of detached garage into living accommodation (variation of condition 4 of planning permission 2002/1302 granted 2nd January 2003

11 2009/1549 The Bungalow, Old Walls, Swansea, SA3 1HA APPROVE Replacement detached dwelling house with integral garage

12 2009/1832 Reynoldston Police Station Reynoldston Swansea APPROVE Conversion of existing police station house to create separate residential dwelling and police station with single storey side extension to police station and provision of two parking spaces for use by police station

13 2009/1896 Baytree House Mill Lane Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EH APPROVE Addition of front and rear porches and an increase in height to an existing shed

14 2010/0046 Ashcroft Oxwich Swansea SA3 1LU APPROVE Two storey rear extension

15 2010/0134 Little Cilibion Cilibion Swansea SA3 1ED APPROVE Two storey part single storey side extension and side conservatory

16 2010/0148 Brook House Stores Port Eynon Swansea SA3 1NL APPROVE Change of use from retail/post office (Class A1) to residential dwelling (Class C3), two single storey rear extensions, rear decked area and alterations to the pattern of fenestration.

17 2010/0209 Plot 53, Whitford Bay Leisure Park Swansea SA3 1DE APPROVE Construction of decking area with fencing

18 2010/0251 Southridge Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1AE APPROVE Single storey rear extension

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 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 16th March 2010 in order to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area given its AONB setting. 1 additional letter of objection from the Gower Society has been received retaining grave concerns to the development but welcomes the attempts to safeguard trees. 3 additional letters of objection from neighbouring residents making the following points, which are summarised:- 1. The notion that a 5/6 bedroom house with detached garage block giving rise to 1 additional traffic movement is completely unrealistic and unanswered by any of the comments in the agenda pack. 2. Disagree with the boundary line depicted on the plans which has been arbitrarily re-plotted in the applicant’s favour. The required width is unobtainable without incursion onto third party land and steps are being taken to establish the boundary line. 3. Discussion of the application should be deferred until the matter has been resolved as it is material to whether the application can proceed safely and legally. 4. The retaining works can’t be accommodated within the boundary line or without destruction of the protected beech tree at No.116. Other protected trees will also be adversely affected which are an attractive part of the street scene. One or both trees are not in the ownership of the applicant. 5. Concern about how a listed house of such character was allowed to be replaced by the current premises on this site. The act was a catalyst for adverse activity at the site and the new dwelling would add to this case. Request details of the process undertaken pre and post demolition of the property.

The additional comments received do not alter my recommendation which is still one of 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)

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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)

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) AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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

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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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. 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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. 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: AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

• 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. • 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

• 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. 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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. 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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 farily level, we are surprised that a pumped system would be required. 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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. 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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).

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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. 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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. 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 1 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175

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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 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 duringthe 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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT by the Area 2 Development Control Committee on the 16th March 2010 to consider the impact of the development upon the character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties. My recommendation of approval remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

Policy 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 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731

85/0525/01 ONE LUXURY DETACHED HOUSE OR BUNGALOW. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/06/1985

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731

The signatories to the petition signed in respect of the following statement.

“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. 12. The matter has been handled in an unsatisfactory way leading to the developer applying for retrospective permission for the access. Mature hedge was removed contrary to condition applied for the bungalow. To restore the hedge is impossible and the TPO tree has had its roots exposed and may have caused permanent damage. 13. The condition was imposed to preserve the visual amenity of the area and the effect was that the house could not be seen from the road. If the extension is approved it will then be visible from the road and compared to existing properties the new house would be much larger, modern and have unsympathetic materials.

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 eastern end to the western 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731

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.

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:

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731

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

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 pivacy protection

INFORMATIVES

2 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..

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.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 2 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731

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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 3 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

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 16th March 2010 to consider the impact of the development on the character of the area. My report has been updated and amended and also includes a statement from the applicant and letter of objection. My recommendation of refusal remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

Policy 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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

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

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. ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION has been received, which is summarised as follows:

1. I do not object to the principle of a house on Plot 1 nor object to the design but question whether or not it is appropriate in a Conservation Area. 2. I do not agree with its positioning squashed into the corner of the plot and this will have a detrimental effect on the garden of my property and the house to the north west. 3. I would suggest a better siting would be more centrally located as per the original consent. 4. I am concerned as when I attempted to change the design on Plot 2, I was advised that the scheme as originally designed should not be changed dramatically and the distances to the boundary adhered to. 5. I thought hat Members would agree that consistency in design and planning issues would be vitally important to creating a cohesive and thoughtful environment, especially within a Conservation Area.

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.

APPLICANT STATEMENT (summarised)

1. The house on plot 1 is not a traditional double fronted cottage but an executive style double fronted house. 2. How does the cottage on plot 2 relate to Plenty farm? Plenty Farm itself, whether Listed or not, has evolved with modern accommodation units, a restaurant and a car park replacing the former corrugated clad outbuildings and farmyard. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

3. The house previously approved on plot 1 hardly meets criteria for high design standards and the architect on this project has been the winner of the Lord Mayor’s Design Awards on 2 occasions. 4. There is no real traditional or local design distinctiveness in this part of the conservation area. 5. Does our proposal create any real differences in terms of it being unacceptably overbearing. It can always be sited a further from the boundary fence but will a few feet make any difference? 6. The main issues with regards to siting were to reduce the impact of the development on Rosedene who stood to lose much if its current outlook and the visual impact upon Cock Street will be reduced. These considerations should balance the concerns of additional overbearance. The revised design also takes away the detached garage on the boundary line. 7. The footprint of the previously approved scheme was larger. 8. Plot 2 has a larger footprint. 9. There are many diverse designs in this part of the conservation area so what character? 10. The report implies that the previously approved scheme was sensitively designed and the occupiers of those most affected thought the new scheme better thought out and better suited to the plot.

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.

Plot 1 currently comprises an area of rough land located between Plenty Farm and the dwelling to the east known as Rosedene. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

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, 2m from the common boundary with the new dwelling on Plot 2 and approximately 20m 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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

However, the plot in question is elevated above plot 2 and it is considered that as it’s siting within 2m 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 20m 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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 3 (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 dwelling house, 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

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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 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 and alterations to colour of marquee Applicant: Mr I Williams

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at Area 2 Development Control Committee on 16th March 2010 to assess the impact of the development given that the structure is already in situ.

The report has been updated further following a letter received from the agent on behalf of the applicant requesting an amendment to the proposal as follows:

“To note that the colour of the marquee roof to be a combination of olive and clear panels, with olive and clear sides, and clear front canopy”.

The agent has requested that this proposed amendment to the scheme be placed before the Area 2 Development Control Committee on April 13th 2010.

The application description has been amended to reflect the proposed change in the colour of the marquee and the report has been updated accordingly.

The Countryside Council for Wales CCW) has provided a consultation response to reminding it is the Council’s duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which requires Local Authorities to have regard to the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. The statutory purposes of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are conservation and enhancement of natural beauty.

The report has been updated. The recommendation of refusal remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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)

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 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)

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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

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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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

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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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

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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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.

Countryside Council for Wales – The proposal is within or may affect the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). We remind you of your Council’s duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which requires Local Authorities to have regard to the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. The statutory purposes of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are conservation and enhancement of natural beauty.

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.

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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (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.

Letter from the agent on behalf of the applicant received 31st March 2010 which is summarised below:

I have been requested to inform you that the applicant Mr Williams is now amending the application as follows:

“to note that the colour of the marquee roof be a combination of olive and clear panels, with olive and clear sides, and clear front canopy”.

I would be grateful if this amendment to the scheme could be placed before planning committee on April 13th.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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). The above National Planning Policy Guidance recognises that the Countryside Council for Wales LANDMAP provides nationally consistent data on landscape assessment in Wales.

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.

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.

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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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.

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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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 agent acting on behalf of the applicant has requested that Members be informed that it is proposed change the colour of the marquee roof to be combination of olive and clear panels, with olive and clear sides, and clear front canopy.

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.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant has indicated that the materials for the marquee would be changed to be combination of olive and clear panels, this does not negate the principle policy concerns that the marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape, particularly during the winter months, when additional internal and external illumination will be inevitably be required, increasing the potential for light pollution at the sensitive coastal location in the Gower AONB. Furthermore, 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. Notwithstanding any change in colour, the retention of the marquee during the winter months is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. To allow the marquee to remain on the application site for a continuous period until 31st March 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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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”.

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. 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. It is not considered that any change in colour of the marquee would overcome the fundamental policy concerns and as such the development is contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, 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). AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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’.

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 structure 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

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.

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The proposed retention of the existing temporary marquee until 31st October, 2011, by virtue of its siting, size, design and appearance, represents an inappropriate form of development at this countryside location that results in significant harm to the rural character of the landscape and high scenic quality of this coastal area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB landscape, and the character and setting of the Oxwich Village Conservation Area and 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 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0049 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Stavelhager Farm Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1ER Proposal: Retention of drainage ditch diversion works Applicant: Mr Simon Cogger

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 EV36 New development, where considered appropriate, within flood risk areas will only be permitted where developers can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that its location is justified and the consequences associated with flooding are acceptable. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

89/1436/03 Change of use from 2 joined caravans to one domestic unit. Permission granted 17th November 1989.

91/0058/04 Renewal of consent 89/1437 for use of cottage as bottling unit. Permission granted 8th April 1991.

2002/1271 Change of use from a bottling unit to residential use. Conservation Area consent granted 27th September 2002.

2003/2053 Increase of existing ridge height by approximately 1.15m, and a single storey extension on each side and a two storey extension to the rear. Approved 3rd August 2004.

2005/0790 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of one detached dwelling. Approved 8th November 2005.

2006/0604 Erection of a detached garage. Withdrawn. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0049

2006/0923 Detached dwelling house (Amendment to planning permission 2005/0790 granted 8th November 2005). Withdrawn.

2006/1856 Replacement dwelling (including part retention of works already carried out amendment to planning permission 2005/0790 granted on 8th November 2005). Permission granted 24th October 2006.

2006/2588 Detached garage. Permission granted 20th February 2007.

2007/2362 Retention of re-routing of watercourse. Grant Permission Conditional 26th June 2009.

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and two individual consultations were carried out. ONE LETTER HAS BEEN RECEIVED on behalf of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling, the full letter is available on file and the contents of which are summarised as follows:

1. You will know the very great level of concern felt by my clients regarding the unauthorised engineering works.

2. Would refer you again to the evidence already supplied to you in the form of photographs, video and expert report.

3. The urgent need for the implementation of protective measures was highlighted only 3 weeks after the original grant of permission when the watercourse was once again in full flood. Photographs attached.

4. The water also washed down a significant amount of stone which was then deposited on my client’s land.

5. There is no reason to question the measures now proposed on the submitted drawings.

6. Great care will needed when installing these gabions to ensure that the adjoining building is not damaged or undermined.

7. Important to ensure that protection measures are installed in accordance with the plans and without delay.

8. The scheme is acceptable as submitted but will only continue to be satisfactory into the future if the monthly checks on site are meticulously and continuously carried out.

9. The protection of my clients’ property and amenity will thus be dependant on the appropriateness of any planning conditions/legal agreements that you may impose and the willingness of your enforcement section to robustly enforce the applicant to comply with the requirements.

The Gower Society – We have the following comments to make: AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0049

1. We have expressed our concerns about the activities on this site for a considerable length of time. 2. We have the utmost sympathy with the owners of the adjacent property who have made repeated complaints about these works and we are told have suffered damage from flooding caused by them. 3. It is essential that all works are completed as expediently as possible and to ensure that NO further damage is possible to the adjacent property. 4. It is our opinion that the ditch should never have been diverted in the first place as this was for the convenience of the owners, with total disregard for the adjacent owners’ property.

We urge you to put as much pressure as you are able on this applicant; unless the works are carried out, it is suggested that you impose a condition to revert to the original stream’s route.

Environment Agency – Environment Agency Wales have no objection to the retention of the drainage ditch diversion works. We note that this is a retrospective application and the work to reroute the watercourse has already been carried out. The landowner is entitled to reroute the watercourse within the curtilage of their property providing that the entry and exit points remain unchanged, thereby not affecting the right to water that landowners both upstream and downstream have. Furthermore, please note a Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency is not required in this instance.

APPRAISAL

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

The application seeks full planning permission for the retention of works undertaken to reroute the watercourse at Stavelhager Farm, Llanrhidian located within the Gower AONB. The application site is a secluded location with limited visibility from a public right of way that also serves as the access road to the property.

In terms of the most recent planning history, members will recall that planning permission was granted for the retention of the watercourse (2007/2362 refers) on 26th June 2009, subject to the following condition:

Condition 1: The development shall be completed within 3 months from the date of this planning permission in accordance with the approved plans and additional engineering details of the construction of the proposed gabions and weirs (including the interface with the adjoining land) and a management scheme for the future maintenance of the protection measures and the diverted watercourse, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The applicant failed to submit the relevant plans and details for approval to the Local Planning Authority within the 3 month period. This application is for the retention of the watercourse and includes the submission of the additional engineering details for the construction of the proposed gabions and weirs, and a management plan for the future maintenance of the protection measures, and seeks the retention of the watercourse. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0049

The main issues for consideration in this instance are the acceptability of the engineering details and management plan submitted, having regard to the impact of the proposal upon the Gower AONB, the character and appearance of the area, and residential amenity. There are considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

The watercourse is within land owned by the applicant, and works have been undertaken to divert the watercourse from the original route to a new alignment. Historically the original watercourse ran approximately parallel with the Farm access track, and continues on to discharge into Llanrhidian Marsh. The watercourse retains its original position for the first part (the route through Stavelhager Farm), and has then been diverted for a distance of approximately 60metres before being re-aligned further east towards the boundary with ‘The Cottage’ and ‘The Mill’.

During the consideration of the previous application (2007/2362 refers), the Council’s Ecologist visited the site and considered that any minor damage will be repaired through natural regeneration and that there would be no ecological benefit to the stream being returned to its original route, and it was not considered that the proposal detracts from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or will result in any unacceptable detriment to the natural beauty or ecology of the surrounding area.

With regard to residential amenity and in response to the concerns raised in respect of the increase in flood risk and damage and erosion to the neighbouring property and land, the Environment Agency was consulted and raised no objection to the proposal. Furthermore, following further consultation with the Authority’s Drainage Division, the applicant was informed of the urgent need to protect against the erosion of both banks and bed of the watercourse. The applicant was advised of the extent of the requirements and this information was subsequently submitted to the Authority’s Drainage Division by the consultants commissioned by the applicant. Notwithstanding this, to ensure the completion of the works within a reasonable time fame, Condition 1 of planning permission 2007/2362 required the submission of engineering details and completion of works within 3 months of the date of permission.

The applicant failed to complete the works within the 3 month period and therefore cannot comply with Condition 1. This application has been submitted to extend the time frame for the completion of the protection works. Full details of the proposed works have been submitted to support this application together with a management scheme for future maintenance. A further site visit has been undertaken accompanied by the Authority’s Drainage Engineer. The submitted details are considered acceptable and an appropriate condition is recommended to ensure that these works are completed in accordance with the details provided.

Notwithstanding the above, concern has been raised relating to increased flood risk and damage to the neighbouring property. The objector has commented in detail on the proposed protection measures in the letter received. The concerns have been noted and an appropriate condition is recommended to ensure that the works are implemented in accordance with the details and management scheme submitted. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0049

In conclusion and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, on the basis of the above considerations the proposal is considered a satisfactory form of development that would accord with Policy Policies EV1, EV2, EV26 and EV36 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

1 The development shall be completed within 3 months from the date of this planning permission in accordance with the approved plans and additional engineering details for the construction of the proposed gabions and wiers (including the interface with the adjoining land), unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect against the erosion of both banks and bed of the watercourse and to safeguard the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.

2 Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall be maintained and managed in accordance with the details outlined in the 'Management Scheme for the Future Maintenance of the Watercourse at Stavel Hager Farm, Llanrhidian", dated September 2009 and received by the Local Planning Authority on 12th January 2010. The owner shall ensure that an up to date monthly maintenance schedule is maintained and made available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect against the erosion of both banks and bed of the watercourse and to ensure the future maintenance and management of the watercourse and to safeguard the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, EV26 and EV36 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

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

3 The developer's attention is drawn to the need for the installation of the gabions to have due regard to the neighbouring landowner's rights and the need for due diligence in the undertaking of the operations.

PLANS

7 site location plan, 8 existing part site plan, 9 proposed part site plan, 5962/1 Rev A watercourse details, 5962/1 Rev B watercourse details, 5962/2 watercourse section details, 5962/3 watercourse diversion weir details received 12th January 2010. The Management Scheme for the Future Maintenance of the Watercourse dated September 2009 and received on 12th January 2010. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1666 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: The Dingle Horton SwanseaSA3 1LB Proposal: Side conservatory Applicant: Mrs Catherine Dorran

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 23rd February 2010 to allow further negotiation on the scheme. Amended plans have been submitted reducing the depth and width of the conservatory and proposing a tiled roof. My recommendation of refusal is now changed to one of approval.

POLICIES

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

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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1666

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 91/1308 CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT TO DEMOLISH SHEET METAL/TIMBER GARAGES Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 03/12/1991

2008/0337 One detached dwelling (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 28/04/2008

94/0920 ADDITION OF PITCHED ROOF TO TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY FLAT ROOF REAR EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 21/09/1994

91/1237 ERECTION OF GARAGE TO REPLACE EXISTING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 22/11/1991

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a Development within the Horton Conservation area and two individual properties were consulted. No response.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for a side conservatory at The Dingle, Horton. The proposed conservatory would measure 2.5m in depth by 4.2m in width with an overall lean-to height of 3.2m. The conservatory would be constructed out of white Upvc with a tiled roof and will be sited 0.5m back from the main front wall of the dwelling.

The main issue to be considered in this instance is the visual impact of the proposed conservatory on the host dwelling together with the surrounding Conservation Area and AONB, having regard to the Policies HC7, EV9, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Policy HC7 relates to criteria against which householder extensions must be assessed and Policy EV9 states that all developments within a Conservation area will only be permitted if it will preserve or enhance its character. Policies EV22 and EV26 seek to protect the landscape of the Gower AONB for its own sake and to preserve it for future generations.

With regards to residential amenity, it is considered that detached nature of the dwelling would dictate that here would be no loss of residential amenity for occupiers of neighbouring properties through loss of light, privacy or overbearing physical impact. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1666

It is acknowledged that The Dingle has white Upvc windows and as such the use of white UPVC for the conservatory would be consistent with this. The proposed use of a tiled roof to match the host dwelling instead of the previously proposed glazed roof together with its 0.5m set back from the front elevation and the reduction in width from 3m to 2.5 now renders the conservatory more sympathetic with the overall appearance of the host dwelling to a degree that would now not warrant a recommendation of refusal. It is also now considered that the conservatory on this attractive property in a highly visible area within the Horton Conservation Area would preserve its character and appearance. In addition, the changes made to the proposed conservatory would also dictate it would not unacceptably detract from the visual amenities of the Gower AONB, thus complying with Policies EV1, HC7, EV9, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposed conservatory is not considered an acceptable form of development at this location, conflicting with the requirements of the prevailing Development Plan and refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, and before development commences, a sample of the width of the glazing bars or details to a scale of 1:10 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of preserving the visual amenities of the Horton Conservation Area.

3 A sample of the tiles to be used on the roof of the proposed building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The roof shall be tiled in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVES

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1666

PLANS

Site location plan, existing block plan, proposed block plan, existing ground floor plan, existing south and east elevation, proposed floor plan and south and east elevation, proposed north elevation received 4th December 2009

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0892 WARD: Sketty Area 2

Location: Bloomfield Nursing Home 129 Gower Road Sketty Swansea SA2 9HU Proposal: Three storey front extension, front roof extension with two front dormers, two storey rear extension and rear dormer Applicant: JJL Care Ltd

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2002/0252 Erection of a detached dwelling house and garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/05/2002

2002/2199 Rear dormer roof extension Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 04/03/2003

2007/1357 Replacement single storey side extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 09/08/2007

2009/0857 Single storey rear extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 07/08/2009

A01/0196 Erection of 2 detached dwelling houses (outline) (amendment to outline planning permission 98/1426 granted on 5 September 2000) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 22/05/2001

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0892

2003/2364 Rear conservatory Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/01/2004

98/1426 ERECTION OF 2 No DETACHED DWELLING HOUSES (OUTLINE) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 05/09/2000

74/1084/03 RESIDENTIAL - 6 FLATS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 16/05/1975

2004/1858 External lift shaft and porch on front elevation, single storey rear extension and erection of four canopies Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 22/10/2004

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

The application was advertised on site and fourteen individual properties were consulted. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION and a PETITION OF OBJECTION with 24 signatures have been received, which are summarised as follows:

1. Gower Road is a road that is too busy to take more heavy traffic with daily deliveries, visitors and workers at the Nursing Home. 2. Lorries and vans park on the pavement outside Bloomfield and does not help with the flow of traffic with children having to cross the other side of the road and pushchairs cannot pass. 3. The entrance to Bloomfield is too small and when traffic comes out the drivers cannot see any pedestrians coming up and down the pavement. 4. The proposal will block my sunshine and would invade my privacy from the rear. 5. The extension will be very close to my boundary and being a three storey building with dormers I will be overlooked very closely on both sides. 6. There will be a lot more noise from tenants and staff.

Highways Observations – “This proposed extension will result in an additional 5 bedrooms totalling of 31 bedrooms. Parking is indicated at 19 spaces whereas guidelines recommend a need for 8 visitor spaces and one space per 3 members of staff. Details submitted with the application confirm that there will be 23 full time and 10 part time staff and therefore sufficient parking will be available to cover this number, however, it is unlikely that all staff will be present at the same time as shift working is normally undertaken at such establishments. I am satisfied that adequate parking is being provided and recommend that no highway objections are raised.”

AMENDED PLANS (where a rear window has been relocated and the external materials changed). AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0892

Fifteen individual properties were consulted. No response to date.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor June Stanton.

Full planning permission is sought for a three storey front extension, a front roof extension with two front dormers, a rear dormer and a two storey rear extension at Bloomfield Nursing Home, 129, Gower Road, Sketty. The proposal would provide six bedrooms and two bathrooms within the rear extension with the rear dormer providing an additional bathroom window, the front extension providing an elevator shaft (and the removal of one second floor bedroom to provide access to it on this floor) with the two front dormers facilitating an increase in size of two first floor bedrooms.

The front extension would measure approximately 2.8m in width, 9m in depth with a maximum overall height of 8.9m. The two first floor front dormers would each measure approximately 1.9m in width, 2.5m in depth and have a maximum height of 2.3m. The two storey rear extension would measure approximately 9m in width, 9.5m in depth with an eaves height and overall hipped roof height matching that of the existing building. The rear second floor dormer would measure approximately 1.4m in width, 2m in depth with a height of 1.5m. Both the front and rear extensions would be externally clad in painted render and no external materials are specified for the dormers, but this could be controlled by condition in order to ensure that they do not detract from the character and appearance of the area.

The main issues to be considered are the impact of the proposal upon the visual amenities of the existing building and the street scene together with its impact upon the residential amenities of surrounding occupiers and highway safety having regard to the prevailing Development Plan.

In terms of visual amenity, it is recognised that both the front and rear extensions have a substantial depth. However, when these extensions are viewed in the context of the Nursing Home itself which is made up of buildings of varying size scale and massing, it is not considered that they will appear unacceptably prominent or as discordant features upon the host buildings. The materials proposed would dictate that they would relate well to the overall appearance of the existing buildings and blend in with the variety of materials previously used which combine both red brick and painted render. The dormers by virtue of their limited scale and appropriate design would be acceptable in visual terms.

The rear extension is sited closer to the properties at 137 and 139 Gower Road, where loss of privacy could be an issue from the first floor windows. However, amended plans have been submitted where one of the first floor windows has been relocated to the side elevation. It is acknowledged that one first floor window will still be sited in the rear elevation, but the distance between the window and the common boundary with no.137 Gower Road is in the region of 9m to 10m, which together with the existence of a 3.2m high wall at the boundary would prevent any unacceptable direct overlooking of their garden area. There are two bedroom windows in the side elevation of no.137, facing towards the nursing home but the distance to the new window in the rear extension of the Nursing home is between 18m and 20m and the angles between the windows would dictate that no significant loss of privacy would be occur. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0892

In addition, the wall between the two properties from the ground level of the nursing home measures in excess of 3.2m, with additional tree growth behind it and as such, these factors are sufficient to mitigate any harmful impact. As no windows are proposed in the side elevation facing the western boundary of the nursing home, no direct overlooking would occur here.

The Nursing home is located to the south of the properties in Gower Road and to the east of the properties in Glan Yr Afon Gardens therefore it is not considered that the rear extension would result in any overshadowing or loss of light significantly over and above that which is currently experienced.

All of the other elements of the development are considered to be far enough away from adjoining properties so as not to cause any harmful effects from any overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking. In terms of highway safety, the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection as it is considered that adequate parking is being provided.

Turning to the objection letters received and the comments made with regards to loss of light, privacy, and traffic implications, these issues have been addressed above.

In conclusion therefore it is considered that, on balance, the proposal is an acceptable form of development at this location that complies with the requirements of Policies EV1 and EV2 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 Notwithstanding the details on the plans hereby approved, the front and rear dormers shall be clad in tile hanging to match the existing roof. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVES

2 To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System, foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0892

3 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment, no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment, land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system.

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

6 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).

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

PLANS

Site location plan, Drawing No: F20.BNH.D1- Rev A- existing elevations, F20.BNH.D2 Rev A- existing floor plans received 5thy August 2009. Amended plans - F20.BNH.D3 Rev F - proposed elevations, F20.BNH.D4 Rev D - proposed lower ground & ground floor plans, F20.BNH.D5 Rev D - proposed first & second floor plans, F20.BNH.D6 Rev E - proposed block plan received 19th February 2010.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land adjacent to Robins Rest, Horton, Swansea, SA3 1LB Proposal: Detached dwelling and garage. Applicant: Mrs A Taylor

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2008/0445 Detached dwelling and garage (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25/04/2008

2004/2041 Conversion of existing stable block/garage into one residential unit for holiday accommodation Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 12/04/2005

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

2007/1922 Variation of condition 04 of planning permission 2004/2041 granted on 12th April 2005, to allow for the retention of the existing 2 metre fence and the erection of 1.8 metre high fence along the 6 metre length of boundary with "Waters Edge" and 1.5m for the remainder. Decision: Approve Unconditional (S73) Decision Date: 12/11/2007

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL PLANS

Neighbours: The application was advertised on site in the form of a site notice and in the press as Development within a Conservation Area and all neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received which are summarised below:

1. Traffic congestion. 2. Impact on services. 3. Unacceptable form of suburban development. 4. Intrusive form of development. 5. Overdevelopment of the site. 6. Impact upon vegetation and trees. 7. Impact upon Gower AONB, Conservation Area and historic charm of the village. 8. Access issues.

Penrice Community Council: The Council object to this application due to the scale being too large, with the garage on one side being too close to the boundary with Serendipity.

Gower Society: Following comments:

1. The site is elevated and within the Horton Conservation Area in the AONB. 2. Any development must be sympathetic to surrounding property and landscape and must not involve the removal of any trees/destruction of hedgerow. 3. We note the changes to the access for the development.

We are not minded to object to this application but we are concerned about any adverse effect on the Conservation Area and AONB; we ask that the greatest care is taken in its appraisal.

Legal and Democratic Services: Having checked the register of Common Land and Town and Village Greens, I can inform you that the land identified in the above application Abuts common land, CL107 Oxwich Point and Slade Cliffs common. The boundary of the common abuts the property on the southern part and the development appears to indicate that the works would be curtailed within the plot and not interfere with the common land. However any works should interfere with the common land the applicant should consider the need for Section 194 Consent. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

Highways: Whilst this proposal will be accessed via a generally single track road with passing places, I do not consider that the volume of traffic movements generated by this one additional dwelling will be likely to result in any adverse affect on local highway conditions.

No highway objection on condition that the Developer;

1. Sets back the entrance gateway 5 metres from the edge of the existing carriageway and realigns the property boundaries to form 45 degree vision splays. 2. Ensures that the recessed area is not obstructed by any chain or other barrier and is kept open at all times. 3. Surfaces the recessed area to Highway Authority Satisfaction. 4. Ensures that the entrance gateway is no more than 150mm above or below the level of the near side carriageway. 5. Ensures that the drive gradient is no steeper than 1 in 6. 6. Provides a satisfactory turning space within the curtilage of the site. 7. Ensures that no surface water from within the site flows onto the highway.

Note: As the access track leading to the site is not heavily trafficked, a reduction in boundary height to a maximum of 1m may be considered acceptable i lieu of setting back and widening.

Given the sensitivity of the site, the Local Planning Authority requested the submission of full details and the application was advertised on site in the form of a site notice and all neighbours and previous objectors were individually consulted.

Additional Plans

Neighbours: No letters of objection were received.

Highways: Amended Plans

My previous recommendation still stands, the amended plan does not include the access layout requirements as recommended in my previous observations.

Penrice Community Council: The Council felt that this dwelling would be too large for the plot and would be out of character in the area.

Gower Society: The Gower Society has noted the amended plans submitted, but wishes its comments in its letters of 6th May 2009 to remain on file.

Following concerns expressed by the Local Planning Authority regarding the proposed access arrangements and the lack of detail with regard the new access point, additional information and amended plans were requested by the LPA. All previous objectors and adjoining neighbours were individually consulted and the following comments were received:

Neighbours: TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received which are summarised below: AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

1. Out of keeping with the character and appearance of the neighbouring properties. 2. Detrimental to the visual amenities of the Conservation Area. 3. Contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan. 4. Once the applicant has achieved the principle of development I fear something more intrusive. 5. Removal of the hedgerow, trees and landscaping due to the engineering works would unduly impact upon the visual amenities of the area. 6. Proposal would result in the loss of trees on boundary which don’t belong to applicant. 7. Overlooking. 8. Dwelling would disturb the roots of the adjacent trees. 9. Unacceptable impact upon the ecology of the area. 10. Precedent for intense infill development. 11. Loss of light. 12. Out of keeping with the building line. 13. Loss of view. 14. Proposal will impact upon AONB and Tourism.

Highways: Amended Plans

The proposed access alignment is altered in order to avoid any significant cut into the land. The access drive is now indicated to follow a similar alignment to that of the adjacent property Robins Rest.

The width of the new junction onto the access track is almost as wide as would be achieved with a splayed access and therefore I do not consider that an additional splay will be necessary.

My amended recommendation therefore is one of no highway objection.

Gower Society: Notwithstanding the changes, the Society has concerns regarding this development and wishes its comments in the letters of 6th May and 4th August 2009 to remain on file when a decision is reached.

APPRAISAL

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

The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of a detached 2 storey dwelling house with integral garage on land adjacent to Robins Rest, Horton. The land lies in a sensitive location on the south eastern edge of the village within the settlement of Horton. The land lies within the Horton Conservation Area within close proximity to the beach.

In terms of planning history, planning permission was previously refused for a Detached Dwelling (Outline) (Ref: 2008/0445) for the following reasons:

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

1. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its siting would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of neighbouring properties, detrimental to the visual amenities of the Horton Conservation Area, contrary to the requirements of Policies BE17, BE1, BE2 and V3 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No.1.

2. The construction of the proposed access to the site, due to the topography of the land, would result in substantial engineering works and the removal of a large area of mature hedgerow, trees and landscaping which would unduly impact upon the visual amenities of the area to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Horton Conservation Area and Gower AONB, contrary to the requirements of Policies BE17, BE1, BE2 and V3 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No.1.

3. The siting and design of the proposed dwelling would be likely to result in unacceptable direct overlooking of the amenity areas of the adjacent dwellings to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of these properties, contrary to Policies BE1, BE2 and V3 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No.1.

In order to overcome reasons 1 and 3 of the previous refusal the dwelling has been re- orientated through 90 degrees in order to follow the orientation of adjoining properties. In addition to this habitable room windows have been removed from the west facing elevation. Furthermore, following concerns from the Local Planning Authority and given its location within a Conservation Area, full details were requested in order to fully assess the application. Reviews access details were also requested in order to minimise the amount of engineering operations.

The main issues to be considered in this instance are the principle of a dwelling at this location and its impact on the character and appearance of this part of the Horton Conservation Area and the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty together with its impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents and highway safety having regard for the previous refusal and the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

The application site is considered to lie within the Gower settlement of Horton and the application falls to be considered against the criteria under Policy EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy EV16 requires that development within small Gower Villages, such as Horton, must be appropriate in terms of a number of criteria including scale, density, elevational design, prominence, materials, screening, acceptable access and relationship to adjacent buildings, spaces and landscape features. It should also be noted that as the application site lies within the Horton Conservation Area, any new dwelling would have to be of a sensitive design to ensure that it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Given that the plot is over 19m wide and 70m deep, it is considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate a detached dwelling, and as it is considered to fall within the village an appropriately designed dwelling would not, it is considered, have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

Given the sensitivity of the location the Local Planning Authority requested further details and as such full details have now been submitted for consideration. The area is characterised by a mixture of architectural styles and designs and as such it is not considered that there is a prevailing characteristic or dominant house type to suggest a specific architectural response on this site. The general form incorporates a mix of two storey, part storey and a half with accommodation in the roof and single storey elements which help to break down the overall massing of the building ensuring the proposal is in scale with the plot and the wider area. As such it is considered that the proposed dwelling incorporates an acceptable design, incorporating a mix of traditional materials including stone and render to the front elevation. The house incorporates a roughly rectangular footprint, set well back from the road similar to other neighbouring properties and as such it is considered to relate well in terms of scale and design to the neighbouring dwellings and the linear character and appearance of the street-scene.

The revised access arrangements which now take a more curved and sweeping route similar to the existing access at Robins Rest will reduce the need for such excessive engineering operations and result in a smaller portion of the existing hedge to be removed, which on balance is considered to overcome the Council’s previous concerns. On this basis the proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area or this part of the AONB and subject to an acceptable landscaping scheme being submitted would preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Turning to the impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring residents the proposed dwelling will mainly affect the properties to the east and west of the site. The dwelling will be situated within the side garden of the property to the east and it is considered that the incorporation of two storey, single storey and storey and half elements has helped break down the overall massing of the dwelling and this coupled with the separation distances combine to ensure the proposed dwelling will not have an unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of these neighbouring dwellings. With regard overlooking an agreed level of boundary treatment can overcome issues in relation to overlooking at ground level. Turning to the windows at first floor level, there are no issues raised relating to the windows in the north and east facing elevations, however the flank window of bedroom 4 will be within 10m of the western boundary, however given that it’s a secondary window a condition requiring it to be fixed shut and obscurely glazed will overcome any overlooking issues. With regard the front balcony, it will allow overlooking within close proximity into the private amenity space of Robins Rest and as such a condition requiring its removal and replacement with a flush fitting balustrade is considered necessary.

Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering it is acknowledged that the proposed access alignment has been altered in order to avoid any significant cut into the land. The access drive is now indicated to follow a similar alignment to that of the adjacent property Robins Rest. The width of the new junction onto the access track is almost as wide as would be achieved with a splayed access and therefore an additional splay will not be necessary. In light of the amended plans the Head of Transportation and Engineering therefore recommends no highway objection.

With regard the impact of the proposal upon existing trees having consulted the Councils Tree Preservation Officer it is considered that whilst there are some good trees on site which are not covered by TPO’s they are protected by the Conservation Area. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

The group of pines in particular are important, however provided the access road is of suitable construction and kept away from these they should remain undisturbed. There are no objections to the removal of the fruit trees and it is acknowledged that some of the row of sycamore would need to be felled, however these are not considered particularly important trees. Therefore there are no objections raised to the proposal subject to the imposition of standard conditions.

Turning to the ecological implications, the plot is a domestic garden and having consulted the Councils Ecologist there are no objections to the proposed dwelling subject to the standard Bat and Bird informatives being attached to any approval.

Notwithstanding the above nine letters of concern were received raising issues relating to the proposal impact upon additional traffic, the form of development, overdevelopment of the site, vegetation and trees, impact upon the Gower AONB and Conservation Area, access, size and scale of dwelling, the impact on residential amenity, proposal being contrary to the provisions of the development plan and the siting out of keeping with the building line. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed in the main body of my report.

Concern has been raised with the regard the establishment of a precedent for similar development and the submission of a subsequent larger dwelling following approval. Each application is determined on the basis of their own individual merit and as such these points have no bearing upon the determination of this application. The comment made with regards to the loss of a view is not a material planning consideration.

In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposal represents an acceptable form of infill development which preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the wider Gower AONB. The proposal has been carefully designed to ensure that the development does not have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore the revised access and driveway layout have reduced the need for major engineering operations and removal of the front hedgerow and as such it is considered that the proposal has overcome the previous reasons for refusal and as such it complies with Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the UDP. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

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

3 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.

4 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.

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

6 Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved no permission is hereby given to the proposed balcony. The balcony shall be replaced with a flush fitting balustrade details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

7 The first floor side facing window serving bedroom 4 shall be obscure glazed and unopenable except for a fan light and thereafter retained as such unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of privacy protection.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

8 Before development commences a scheme for the construction of the new access drive shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

INFORMATIVES

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

5 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 protect 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. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0607

PLANS

Floor plans and elevations dated 16th July 2009, Site Location Plan, Block Plan, Cross section through ground showing drive line, Topographical Survey of site at Robins Rest, Topographical Survey of Plot Adjacent to Robins Res dated 18th January 2010.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1264 WARD: Newton Area 2

Location: Land to the rear of 175 Newton Road Newton Swansea SA3 4UD Proposal: Detached bungalow Applicant: Mr Andrew Michael Jones

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: Six neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted and the application was advertised on site and in the press as development within the Newton Conservation Area. ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION was received which is summarised below:

1. Detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of Newton Conservation Area. 2. The proposal is a form of backland/tandem development. 3. Newton Conservation Area is described by the Conservation Area Note ‘comprises the mixed use core of the village, its narrow streets fronted by picturesque natural stone boundary walls and many excellent terraced cottages. This interspersed with some fine individual buildings and beautiful mature trees (CA: 028). AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1264

It is considered that this form of development, described within the planning application documentation as a ‘dormer bungalow’, is not in-keeping with the above mentioned description of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposed development does not accord with guidance at the national level which indicates that ‘conservation and development is compatible through careful and sympathetic developments which have the potential to create new opportunities for sustainable development (PPW, paragraph 2.9.7).

4. In addition, the Swansea UDP Policy EV9 – Conservation Area states:

Development within or adjacent to a conservation area will only be permitted if it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area or its setting.

New development in such locations must also be of a high standard of design, respond to the area’s special characteristics, and pay particular regard to:

(i) Important views, vistas, street-scenes, roofscapes, trees, open spaces and other features that contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area; (ii) The retention of historically significant boundaries or other elements that contribute to the established pattern of development; (iii) The relationship of existing buildings and spaces, and pattern of development; (iv) Scale, height and massing; (v) Architectural design, established detailing, and the use of materials; (vi) Boundary treatment; and (vii) Public realm materials.

The proposal should therefore in our view be refused by virtue of its conflict with UDP Policy EV9.

5. The proposed development fails to satisfy both national and local guidance as it does not replicate, in any way, the existing dwellings as it is neither an excellent terraced cottage nor a fine individual building. Furthermore, it conflicts with the established pattern of development within the Conservation Area, it does not maintain any form of relationship to existing buildings and spaces and it does not appear to possess a high standard of architectural design.

6. It is our consideration that this form of backland development conflicts with the objectives of Swansea UDP Policy EV1 – Design, as it:

- Is not appropriate to its local context; - Does not integrate with adjacent spaces; - Does not incorporate a good standard of landscape design; - Does not sensitively relate to existing development patterns; and - Does not provide a safe environment in terms of security as the Design and Access Statement describes the site as being ‘secluded.’

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1264

As a result of the proposals non-compliance with UDP Policy EV1 the planning application should not be approved in its current form. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the poor design qualities of the scheme can be overcome within the land in the applicants ownership.

Mumbles Community Council: Object on the following grounds:

• Conservation Area; • Over intensification; • Across common land; • Access to the new property.

Legal and Democratic Services: Having checked the register of common land and town and village greens I can inform you that part of the development identified on the plan you provided is registered common land (register CL4 - Picket Mead).

Please note that the marked location on the map provided is registered common land and any proposed works on this you may require consent from the Welsh Assembly under s.194 of the Law of Property 1925. Any works carried out without such consent will be unlawful.

Highways: This proposal is for a new dwelling on land to the rear of 175 Newton Road. Access is intended from the track leading to Picket Mead off Murton Lane. The track where it meets Murton Lane is sufficiently wide to accommodate additional traffic movements and visibility is acceptable so as not to compromise highway safety.

The proposed site layout indicates provision for 3 cars and turning facilities, although the turning area is restricted and may result in a vehicle reversing out onto the track. However, this is unlikely to compromise safety and is a considerable distance from the adopted highway. The existing property retains access and parking from Newton Road.

On balance, I recommend that no highway objections are raised subject to the access, parking and turning area being complete prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Susan Waller Thomas.

Full planning permission is sought for a detached dormer bungalow at land to the rear of 175 Newton Road, Newton, Swansea. Following initial concerns expressed by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) the plans were amended by removing one dormer window and extending the size of the proposed plot.

The rectangular shaped site slopes in a westerly direction and is currently an overgrown garden with some perimeter trees and bushes. To the North of the site is the rear garden of No 179 Netwon Road, the south the adjacent Picket Mead site which currently has an application submitted for 5 detached dwellings (Ref: 2009/1226), the west the open green, and the east the residential curtilage of 175 Newton Road. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1264

The proposed dwelling would be orientated in an east to west manner. The dwelling would have a ridge height of approximately 7.2 metres and a footprint of approximately 7.2 metres wide and 13 metres deep. The accommodation for the dwelling would comprise an open plan living room, dining room and kitchen, study, w/c and lounge at ground level and 3 bedrooms and a bathroom at 1st floor level.

Access to the dwelling would be via the existing Picket Mead access which involves no alterations to it. It is unclear what the external building materials would comprise of, however should the Committee be minded to approve the application this element of the scheme could be controlled by condition.

The Principal of Development

The application site is located within the urban area where subject to conformity to other policies of the plan the principal of residential development is acceptable.

Issues

The main issues for consideration with regard the determination of this application are whether the scheme:

• Relates appropriately to its local context in terms of scale, height, massing, elevational treatment, materials and detailing layout, form, mix and density, • Integrates effectively with adjacent spaces and the public realm to create good quality townscape, • Does not result in a significant detrimental impact on local amenity in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy, disturbance and traffic movements • Preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, • Is acceptable in terms of highway safety, access and the Councils parking requirements, • Has an acceptable impact on the Ecology of the area

Regard must be had for Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV9 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP. There are not considered to be any overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the area

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1264

The site is situated within the Newton Conservation Area and as such under Policy EV9 new development must conserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Area. Briefly stated the special character of Newton comprises the mixed use core of the village, its narrow streets fronted by picturesque natural stone boundary walls and many excellent terraced cottages. This interspersed with some fine individual buildings and beautiful mature trees.

The proposed plot is of a very limited width and by virtue of its location immediately to the rear of several other properties demonstrates a very awkward building relationship that is considered to neither preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In fact, it is considered that if a dwelling was built on this site, it would appear ‘shoe-horned’ into the plot contributing to the assertion that it would amount to overdevelopment.

In addition, the proposed design of the dwelling is a response to the constrained nature of the site rather than the character of the Conservation Area, given that a bungalow with accommodation in the roof is proposed which is considered to be at odds with the identified character of the Conservation Area which is of a predominately two storey nature.

It is considered that the submitted scheme fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the submitted Design and Access Statement fails to explain how the intrinsic design of the dwelling complements the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is clearly at odds with the character and appearance and the established pattern of development within the Conservation Area and as such is considered to conflict with Policies EV1, EV2, EV9 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

The applicants in their supporting statement have listed a number of bungalows within the area, however consent for these was granted a long time ago and planning policy have moved on significantly since then with the aim to strive up the quality of design.

In terms of street scene impact the proposed dwelling would not be readily visible from Newton Road or from across Picket Mead and whilst not therefore visually prominent it is not considered justification for allowing an inappropriate form of development. Indeed if this argument were followed the character of the Conservation Area would be significantly eroded.

Impact upon Residential Amenity

Turning to residential amenity the proposed dwelling will mainly affect No 179 Newton Road and the prospective site at the adjacent Pickets Mead. Numbers 5 and 7 Newton Road and 171, 175 and 177 Newton Road would be sited in excess of 15m from the proposed dwelling and as such the proposal would not result in unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impacts. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1264

Whilst the dwelling will be sited within close proximity to the rear garden of No 179 Newton Road this part of the garden is not used as garden area incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and as such this coupled with the minimal eave height of approximately 2.5m and the roof design sloping away from the neighbour it is considered that the proposal will not lead to unacceptable overshadowing to this neighbouring property which would warrant the refusal of this application.

With regard the impact upon the potential site for five dwellings at Picket Mead House (Ref: 2009/1226) the proposal would potentially mainly affect plot No 5. However it is considered that given the proposed dwelling would be to the immediate north of No 5, the proposal would not lead to overshadowing. Furthermore given the low eaves height and the fact the roof will slope away from plot 5 it is not considered the dwelling would give rise to an unacceptable overbearing impact.

In terms of loss of privacy it is considered that ground floor overlooking could be overcome by the existing hedge boundary treatment. With regard overlooking at 1st floor level the east and west facing windows will overlook the proposed plot respectively and will be set at a minimum of 10m from the boundaries from the neighbouring properties in order to ensure the proposal will not give rise to unacceptable overlooking. Turning to the flank facing windows, the south facing dormer will serve a bathroom and as such could be conditioned fixed shut and obscurely glazed in order to overcome issues relating to overlooking. Whilst it is acknowledged the south facing velux type window is situated at a high level in order to overcome issues relating to overlooking, it could result in the creation of a small bedroom with no outlook. Whilst this is unfortunate it would not be so harmful as to amount to a refusal reason in its own right.

Highway Safety

Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering it is considered that the access track where it meets Murton Lane is sufficiently wide to accommodate additional traffic movements and visibility acceptable so as not to compromise highway safety.

The proposed site layout indicates provision for 3 cars and turning facilities, although the turning area is restricted and may result in a vehicle reversing out onto the track it is considered that this is unlikely to compromise safety and is a considerable distance from the adopted highway. The existing property retains access and parking from Newton Road and as such on balance, there are no highway objections to the access subject to the parking and turning areas being complete prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling.

Common Land Having consulted the Councils Legal and Democratic Services it is acknowledged that part of the access drive identified as part of this proposal is registered common land (register CL4 - Picket Mead). Whilst the proposal does not involve any work to the access and as such therefore not a planning issue any proposed works on this land not covered under planning legislation may require consent from the Welsh Assembly under s.194 of the Law of Property 1925. Any works carried out without such consent would be unlawful. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1264

Ecology

Having consulted the Council’s Ecologist it is considered that there are no ecological implications with the proposed development subject to the addition of a bird informative.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above TWO letters of objection were received raising concerns relating to the impact upon the Conservation Area, over intensification, pattern of development, development on Common Land, access, and conflicts with national and local policies. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Conclusion

In conclusion, whilst not being harmful to residential amenity or highway safety, it is considered that the proposed siting and design of the dwelling would be at odds with the character and appearance of the Newton Conservation Area and would therefore result in the introduction of an alien incongruous addition to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area. As such the proposal is considered contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, HC2 and EV9 of the Swansea UDP.

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The proposed dwelling by virtue of its inappropriate siting and detailed design would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Newton Conservation Area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the surrounding area. As such the development is considered to be contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, HC2 and EV9 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (2008).

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan, 2946701 a proposed floor plans, 2946702 a proposed elevations dated 17th February 2010.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1346 WARD: Pennard Area 2

Location: 32 East Cliff, Pennard, Swansea, SA3 2AS Proposal: Conversion of detached garage into living accommodation (variation of condition 4 of planning permission 2002/1302 granted 2nd January 2003 Applicant: Mr Patrick Homer

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2002/1302 Construction of replacement dwelling house Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 02/01/2003

2009/1343 New detached double garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 19/11/2009

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL SCHEME

Three neighbouring properties were consulted. ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION has been received, which is summarised as follows:

1. We were relieved at the time of the initial application 2002/1302 that the garage shall not be used for any form of living accommodation. 2. The additional dwelling will lead to the urbanisation of the area. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1346

3. Concerns over increase in traffic as the original dwelling has been advertised on the residential letting market and will have additional vehicles associated with it. 4. The plans bring into question if the balcony could be supported within the boundaries of 32 East Cliff.

The Gower Society – Objects:

1. We are uncertain what condition 4 of 2002/1302 stated, but we assume that it was preventing the garage being converted into a dwelling. 2. The application 2009/1343 (with strict control on potential future domestic use) was an application for a detached garage – recently approved. It seems strange to have approval for a second garage on this site. 3. The change in widows and first floor accommodation is not in keeping. 4. If 2009/1343 was permitted with a strict non- residential clause, then for consistency, this application should be refused.

Pennard Community Council – The Council objects to any variation on any earlier planning conditions. Additionally, it objects to the proposed development on the same grounds as submitted previously.

Highways Observations - Adequate parking will remain within the curtilage of the site and therefore the conversion of the garage will not result in an unacceptable loss of parking facilities. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

AMENDED SCHEME (where the rear balcony has been removed).

Three individual properties were again consulted. ONE LETTER Of OBJECTION has been received, which is summarised as follows:

1. The proposed development is akin to with the introduction of an additional property and constitutes over intensification. 2. Do the title deeds allow a second dwelling? 3. It is not an ancillary development as it supports bathroom and kitchen facilities. 4. Main drains not available at this site. 5. Appearance cannot be maintained as the door will be replaced by a window visible from the road. 6. Similar application 2003/0944 has been refused. 7. Creating an undesirable precedent.

The Gower Society – Notwithstanding the changes made to the design, the Society has concerns regarding this development and wishes its objection to remain on file when a decision is reached.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Margaret Smith. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1346

Planning permission is sought for the variation of condition 04 of planning permission 2002/1302 granted on 2nd January 2003 to allow the existing detached outbuilding to be used as ancillary living accommodation at 32 Eastcliff, Pennard. External alterations include the removal of the garage door and its replacement with a window and the insertion of patio doors in the rear elevation at both ground and first floor level. The original submission included a balcony at first floor level but this has now been deleted from the scheme. The proposed accommodation includes a kitchen and lounge on the ground floor and one bedroom and bathroom on the first floor.

Planning permission 2002/1302 was granted for a replacement dwelling house and detached garage in January 2002. As part of this permission, a condition was placed which stated that “the garage…. shall be used for the parking of private vehicles motor vehicles and ancillary storage only and shall not be used for any form of living accommodation whatsoever unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.” The reason given was “to protect the visual and residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling”.

The main issue to be considered therefore is the impact that the conversion of the garage to ancillary living accommodation would have on the visual amenities of the area and the residential amenities of neighbouring properties having regard to Policies EV1, EV17 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

It is considered that the external alterations proposed would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the main dwelling and would not appear as discordant within the area. In terms of residential amenity, the removal of the external balcony and its replacement with a flush fitting balustrade would dictate that there would be no undue impact in terms of direct overlooking or loss of privacy, whilst also reducing any visual impact. In addition, whilst the rooflights in the building are existing it is considered that the west facing ones should be obscure glazed and fixed shut in the interest of privacy protection.

With regards to impact upon highway safety and traffic conditions, the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objections as adequate parking will remain within the curtilage of the site.

With regards to the issues raised by the objectors that the proposal will lead to another dwelling at the site, and whilst acknowledging that the conversion will have its own small kitchen and bathroom, the proposed conversion is for ancillary residential accommodation only and not another independent dwelling. It is therefore recommended that a condition be imposed to prevent it being used as an independent dwelling, only as ancillary living accommodation and in conjunction with the use of the main dwelling, and shall not be let sub-let or otherwise used as a separate dwelling or as holiday accommodation. It is considered that the imposition of this condition will prevent any unacceptable intensification of residential use at the site to conflict with the requirements of Policy EV17 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

The point made by the objector with regards to another scheme being refused in 2003, does not refer to this property but to 21 Eastcliff where the proposed was for the “construction of a detached ancillary building to be used as bed and breakfast accommodation with ancillary use of room in existing dwelling for breakfast purposes.” AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1346

This current proposal is for ancillary use in conjunction with residential use of the main dwelling house and not for holiday accommodation.

In conclusion therefore, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered an acceptable form of development at this location that complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV17 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 The proposed development shall remain at all times an integral part of and be used in an ancillary function to the existing dwelling and shall not be sold, let or otherwise occupied, as a separate unit of living or holiday accommodation. Reason: It is not considered that the property is suitable for the creation of separate units of accommodation.

3 Prior to the beneficial occupation of the development commencing, the west facing rooflights shall be obscure glazed and unopenable and thereafter be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of privacy protection.

INFORMATIVES

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

PLANS

HG.09.32.OS REV 0 site location plan and block plan, HG.09.32.01 REV 0 existing floor plans and elevations, design and access statement received 28th October, 2009 Drwg No.HG.09.32.02 REV.A Amended floor plans and elevations, Received 26th February 2010

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1549 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: The Bungalow, Old Walls, Swansea, SA3 1HA Proposal: Replacement detached dwelling house with integral garage Applicant: Mr Paul Crowther

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 82/0767/03 DINING ROOM EXTENSION, UTILITY ROOM AND CAR PARK Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 02/09/1982

98/1529 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY OFFICE/STORAGE BUILDING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 08/12/1998

2009/0638 Increase in ridge height to create a two storey dwelling with side dormer and part two storey, part single storey side extension to provide residential annexe Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 10/08/2009

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1549

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and four neighbouring residents were individually consulted. NO RESPONSE.

The Gower Society – The Gower Society inspected the above application, visited the site and has the following observations to make.

1 The site was subject of a recent application 2009/0638 to which we strongly objected. 2 We see little improvement in the latest proposals. 3 The increase in size is unacceptable on such a small plot in this location. 4 The second storey will compromise the nearby properties, especially the property opposite. 5 There will be a large impact upon the local ‘street scene’

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd – No objection to the determination of this application.

Highway Observations – This proposal is to demolish the existing bungalow and replace it with a new dwelling. Access is to remain as existing with splayed walls for visibility as per the standard for accesses in Gower. Parking is indicated for 4 vehicles with sufficient space remaining for turning within the site and this is more than adequate as the maximum number of spaces required for a residential property is 3 spaces. I would not wish to restrict the parking facility however as this would inhibit the proposed turning facility. I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

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

This application seeks full planning permission for a replacement detached dwelling house with integral garage at ‘The Bungalow’ Oldwalls. The application site is within the small village settlement of ‘Oldwalls’ as identified in the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The application site fronts the B4295 road which provides the main access to North Gower and is currently occupied by the existing dwelling and detached garage. The application site is bounded to the west by the car park of the ‘Greyhound Inn’, to the east by ‘Elm Tree’ a residential dwelling and to the rear (south) by open countryside. The existing property is of no great architectural merit, and in principle there is no objection to the demolition of the existing building.

In light of the fact that the existing dwelling would be demolished, the key considerations in assessing this proposal are whether the scale, design and external appearance of the replacement dwelling relates satisfactorily to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the wider AONB, the impact of the proposal on residential amenity and highway safety having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV16 and EV26 of the UDP. There are, in this case, considered to be no additional overriding considerations arising from the provision of the Human Rights Act. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1549

Within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. Policy EV16 requires that within the small villages identified on the Proposals Map, small-scale development will be approved where it is of a scale, density and layout compatible with the size and form of settlement; it has a design that in it’s form, elevational treatment, detailing and use of materials sympathetic to the architectural character of the village; will not involve a loss of land of recreational, natural heritage or amenity value; has an acceptable relationship with adjacent buildings; will not harm the amenity of neighbouring residents, and; will not prejudice highway safety. The amplification to this policy states the requirement for development to be sympathetic to the character of the village is not intended to discourage innovative sensitive design approaches that do not harm the character and amenity of settlements.

In terms of visual amenity, following consultation with the Authority’s Urban Design Officer the amended plans submitted for consideration represent a negotiated scheme that has addressed the initial concerns raised in relation to the design of the dwelling. The front elevation picks up on the traditional rural character displayed by the dwellings in the immediate vicinity and proposes an eaves height of approximately 5 metres and a ridge height of approximately 8 metres. The garage is set down from the ridge of the main house and appears subordinate to the main dwelling. The ‘L’ shaped plan form fits well on the application site and integrates the dwelling into the village character, and the front elevation proposes a traditional Gower dwelling. There is no objection to the more contemporary design to the rear elevation which incorporates larger areas of glazing to maximise solar gain. Solar panels are also proposed.

The proposed dwelling would be finished in high quality materials that are considered appropriate to the local character of the area, incorporating a slate roof, painted render walls and timber windows. On this basis, subject to an appropriate condition to control the quality of materials, it is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed scheme is in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the dwelling house and would not appear unduly prominent when viewed from public vantage points. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a significant harmful effect upon the street scene or the visual relationship of the character of the area and its setting which contributes positively to the quality of the Gower AONB.

In terms of residential amenity, the siting relationship of the proposed dwelling maintains a separation distance of approximately 6 metres from the common boundary with the nearest adjoining dwelling to the east known as ‘Elm Tree’. The land to the east is the car park of ‘The Greyhound Inn’ and there are no dwellings to the rear. The main habitable rooms to the rear elevation would be orientated towards the rear of the site overlooking the domestic curtilage of the dwelling as the existing situation. Given this relationship it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking/loss of privacy issues to the occupiers of any neighbouring residential property. The windows proposed at first floor level to the front elevation face towards the public road, and there is a separation distance of approximately 20 metres from the (north) front elevation to the main front elevation of ‘Yewtree Cottage’ (which includes the public roadway) opposite the application site. Having regard to the public highway in between and the separation distance, it is not considered that the proposal would raise any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to the occupiers of ‘Yewtree Cottage’ to justify a recommendation of refusal. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1549

With regard to issues of highway safety, access is to remain as existing with splayed walls for visibility as per the standard for accesses in Gower. Parking is indicated for 4 vehicles with sufficient space remaining for turning within the site and this is more than adequate as the maximum number of spaces required for a residential property is 3 spaces. The Head of Transportation and Engineering recommends no highway objections are raised.

A protected species survey has been submitted and the Council’s Ecologist has noted that the survey of the buildings has shown that it is unlikely that there are bats using the building. The surveyor has recommended a series of procedures at the end of the report which should be followed and can be included as conditions together with advisory notes should any consent be granted. A bat and bird informative would also be attached to any planning consent granted.

The concerns raised by the Gower Society have been noted and the issues raised in respect of visual and residential amenity have been fully considered in the above paragraphs.

In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area or the wider Gower AONB, the amenity of nearby residents or highway safety standards. The proposal is therefore considered to be an appropriate form of development, which would accord with Policies EV1, EV2, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan. Approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE subject to the following conditions:

2 Samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development is commenced. This should include natural slate roof; minimal flush timber eaves; metal rainwater goods; timber sliding sash double glazed windows recessed in the openings by at least 10cm; painted render walls. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

3 The first floor window serving the playroom in the side (east) elevation facing 'Elm Tree' as indicated on Plan No: 431.P.02C received on 18th March 2010 shall be obscure glazed and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1549

4 Prior to the commencement of development a working method statement for the protection of bats and details of the bat friendly features to be incorporated into the design of the proposed dwelling shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: 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.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, EV16 and EV26 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

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

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

4 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).

5 The working method statement referred to in Condition 4 above should included details of the procedure to be followed when working in areas which have not previously been accessed, as well as general working methods and emergency procedures. The statement should also provide a "toolbox" talk detailing the above, for all lead staff which can be incorporated into all site inductions. The developer is to ensure that the contact number of a bat worker is always available should bats be encountered.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1549

6 If connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.

7 To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System, foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.

8 To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment, no surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9 To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment, land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system.

PLANS

Site location plan, BBA 431.P.01 existing elevations and floor plans, design & access statement received 27th October 2009. Amended plan BBA431.P.02A proposed elevations & floor plans received 18th March 2010

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 12 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1832 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Reynoldston Police Station Reynoldston Swansea Proposal: Conversion of existing police station house to create separate residential dwelling and police station with single storey side extension to police station and provision of two parking spaces for use by police station Applicant: South Wales Police

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

None

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

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

Highways Observations - This proposal is to sub divide the existing Police house and Station into a separate Police office and residential dwelling. A small part of the property will be retained for Police office use and the remainder of the building will be used as a residential property. Access at the rear of the property off the side lane will be retained for residential use and a new access from the front onto the A4118 is intended for the Police office use.

The new parking area is indicated to accommodate turning as well, however, should the two parking spaces indicated be occupied, then no turning can take place and vehicles will have to reverse out onto the A4118. Amendments to this layout are therefore required. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1832

I recommend no highway objection subject to the following;

1. The proposed Police office parking area shall be extended along the front of the building to accommodate parking spaces set back enabling a separate turning area all in accordance with details to be submitted and approved. 2. The front wall along the A4118 shall be reduced in height to 1m maximum for a suitable distance adjacent to the new access point in order to provide satisfactory visibility for an emerging driver, all in accordance with details to be submitted and approved.

Amended Plans

The scheme has now been amended to exclude the new access directly onto the A4118. Both residential access and visitor/staff access to the Police Station element will now also take place from the rear of the premises off the side access lane.

I am satisfied that this is a safer option than that proposed previously, and therefore recommend that no highway objections are raised.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the conversion of the Police Station House in Reynoldston into a single dwelling whilst adding a single storey side extension to the existing single storey side extension to maintain a Police presence at the site.

The main issues for consideration are the impact upon the visual, residential and highway amenities of the area, having regard to the prevailing Development Plan Policies. The principal of the use is not considered to be an issue given that the premises currently operates as a dwelling with police presence and this would be maintained.

There are no external alterations to the existing Police House, apart from the removal of the Police Station sign above the door on the northern elevation. The single storey side extension would measure 2.35m by 1.5m with an overall height of 4.1m to the top of the lean to roof. An external ramp would also be provided. In addition two car parking spaces would be provided along the boundary with Timberley for the users of the Police station.

The original scheme proposed to remove the northern boundary to provide car parking spaces. However, due to officer concerns with the visual impact of this part of the proposal, amended plans have been received, indicating the retention of the pedestrian access to the northern boundary and the provision of two car parking spaces to the rear of the site.

The minor external alterations to the existing property would dictate that the scheme would not unduly impact upon the visual qualities of this part of Reynoldston. In addition, the car parking being provided to the rear of the site would not result in unacceptable impact upon highway safety. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1832

Although the car parking at the rear would be sited adjoining Timberley, the small number of car parking movements that would be associated with the use of this small police station would dictate that it would not unduly impact upon their residential amenity through increased noise and disturbance.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered an acceptable form of development that complies with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 The proposed car parking spaces indicated on plan 0638/19 dated 26th February 2010 shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans prior to the use commencing and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the freeflow of traffic.

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

INFORMATIVES

2 To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System, foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1832

5 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

6 The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus st all times. To protect the integrity of the public sewer and to avoid damage thereto, no part of the building will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centre line of the public sewer.

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

PLANS

0638/09 site location plan, 0639/10 Rev A existing ground floor plan, 0638/20 Rev A proposed ground floor plan, 0638/15 Rev A existing front and side elevation, 0638/16 Rev A existing rear and side elevation, 0638/25 Rev A proposed front and side elevation, 0638/26 Rev A proposed rear and side elevation, design and access statement received 24th December 2009. Amended plan 0638/19 Rev A proposed site plan received 26th February 2010

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1896 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Baytree House Mill Lane Llanrhidian Swansea SA3 1EH Proposal: Addition of front and rear porches and an increase in height to an existing shed Applicant: Mr & Mrs A Dixon

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2006/1799 Detached garden workshop/store Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 29/09/2006

2003/0914 First floor rear extension with balcony Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 28/10/2003

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a development within the Llanrhidian Conservation Area in addition to which neighbouring properties were consulted on an individual basis. No third party correspondence has been received in respect of the proposed scheme.

Highways and Transportation: There are no highway safety or parking implications with this proposal. I recommend no highway objection. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1896

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for construction of front and rear porches and alterations to the roof height of an existing outbuilding at ‘Baytree House’ Llanrhidian. The development site may be characterised as a detached dwelling in a large corner plot. The property is located within the Gower AONB and Llanrhidian Conservation Area and fronts onto the road running through this village. To the north west and north east the plot is bounded by residential curtilages serving neighbouring properties with the remainder of the perimeter fronting on to highway comprising Mill Lane and Marsh Road.

Concerns over the design of the proposed front porch and the blocking up of an existing doorway were raised with the applicant and amendments addressing these concerns have been forthcoming.

The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities in respect of Policies EV1, EV9, EV26 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. In particular policies EV9 and EV26 seek to ensure that new development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of a conservation area and the natural beauty of Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

In visual terms, the principle element of the proposal comprises an increase in height of an existing lean to roof that will be visible from public vantage points on the highway fronting the property. The proposal will see the point at which the lean to roof meets the pine end of the dwelling increase from 2.0 metres in height to 3.0 metres in height. It is not proposed to increase the footprint of the outbuilding and as such the proposal is compliant with the parameters as set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development 2008’.

In addition to this it is proposed to construct a porch with an open aspect on the front elevation which is considered, on balance, sympathetic to the host dwelling and a rear entrance porch that would not be visible from any public vantage points.

On balance it is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed alterations is respectful of, and proportionate to, the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and with materials proposed to match those of the existing dwelling it is considered that the proposed scheme would preserve the existing situation. As such it is not considered that the proposed alterations would have an adverse visual impact upon the character of the dwelling to which they relate, thereby preserving the character and appearance of Llanrhidian Conservation Area and Gower AONB.

With regard to residential amenity the nature and siting of the proposals dictate that no harmful physical overbearing or overshadowing effect would be experienced. Furthermore, no additional windows are proposed that would intensify overlooking and as such no loss of privacy would be experienced by adjoining occupiers. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1896

Access & Highway Safety The Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection to the proposal.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which preserves the character and appearance of the Llanrhidian Conservation Area and Gower AONB in accordance with Policies EV1, EV9, EV26 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority roofing materials shall be of natural slate in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of works. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity

INFORMATIVES

2 Bats may be present. All British bat species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (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).

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1896

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

PLANS

SH 047-01 site location plan, SH 047-02 existing block plan, SH 047-03 existing site plan, SH047-04 existing floor plans, SH 047-05 existing elevations received 22nd December 2009. Amended Plans SH 047-06b proposed floor plans, SH 047-07b proposed elevations, SH 047-08a proposed site plan, SH 047-09b proposed block plan received 17th February 2010.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 14 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0046 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Ashcroft Oxwich Swansea SA3 1LU Proposal: Two storey rear extension Applicant: Mr & Mrs Mead

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2008/0184 Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and two storey rear extension with associated works. Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 18/09/2009

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the local press as development within the Oxwich Green Conservation Area. Two neighbouring residents were individually consulted. NO RESPONSE. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0046

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey rear extension. In terms of the planning history of this application dwelling, planning permission was granted for the construction of a two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and two storey rear extension (2008/0184 refers) on 18th September 2009.

The principle difference between the current application and the previously approved application (2008/00184) is the addition of a first floor above the single storey rear extension to provide bathroom facilities. The ground floor footprint would be reduced in length from 6m (as approved) to 4m with the first floor above. Following initial concerns over the provision of a flat roof to the first floor, the Authority’s Principal Urban Designer has been consulted and the proposal now submitted for consideration represents a negotiated scheme incorporating a cat slide roof.

The principle and detail of development on this dwelling has clearly been established and the main issues for consideration in this instance relate to the suitability of the proposed amendments having particular regard to whether the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the character of the conservation area and the surrounding Gower AONB, the impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents and highway safety, having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled A Design Guide for Householder Development. There are in this case no additional overriding considerations arising from the provisions of the Human rights Act.

In terms of visual amenity, the context of the immediate area comprises dwellings of different sizes with generally a traditional appearance, plus the caravan park. The application property is joined to another property, which may at one time have been another cottage or outbuilding, but has now been redeveloped to form a bungalow at the expansive entrance to the caravan park. The caravan site wraps round to the rear of the site and to the south is an area of existing trees and open countryside. The main public views from the highway are to the front elevation and also onto the southern end of the property. The principle and detail of the proposed alterations and extensions to the original dwelling were carefully considered during the determination of the previously approved application (2008/0184 refers). The proposed external finishes are considered acceptable at this location.

Given the context of the site and the development that has been undertaken to the adjoining property, in this instance the proposed addition of a first floor to the single storey rear extension previously approved would not be highly visible within the street scene or from any public vantage point and is therefore considered acceptable.

Having regard to the siting of the dwelling and the relationship with the nearest neighbouring dwellings, the adjoining dwelling has been significantly redeveloped to the rear and it is not considered that the proposed addition of a first floor would give rise to any overbearing or overshadowing impacts in this instance. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0046

The additional window to the side elevation of the first floor serves a bathroom and there would be no unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy impact from the proposed extension over and above that previously approved.

There are no highway safety issues in respect of this proposal.

In conclusion, and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Oxwich Green Conservation area and its setting which contributes positively to the quality of the Gower AONB. The development is therefore considered an appropriate form of development which would not have a significant unacceptable impact upon the visual and residential amenities currently enjoyed in the vicinity in accordance with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled: A Design Guide for Householder Development. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions;

2 The first floor) windows in the north east elevation serving the en-suite bathroom as indicated on Plan No: 0907/AC/19 A received on 12 March 2010, shall be obscure glazed and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled: A Design Guide for Householder Development.

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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0046

PLANS

0907/AC/01C site location and block plan, 0907/AC/06D proposed ground floor plan, 0907/AC/03B existing elevations, 0907/AC/06B existing ground floor plan, 0907/AC/07B existing first floor plan, received 12th January 2010. 0907/AC/19A amended plan proposed elevations received 12th March 2010, 0907/AC/07E amended proposed first floor plan 31st March 2010.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 15 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0134 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Little Cilibion Cilibion Swansea SA3 1ED Proposal: Two storey part single storey side extension and side conservatory Applicant: Mr Vivian Purnell

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2005/0906 Detached garage and store with first floor storage and play area Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 09/08/2005

89/1836/03 REFURBISHMENT + EXTENSION OF EXISTING FARM HOUSE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 14/02/1990

90/0896/03 REFURBISHMENT AND EXTENSION OF EXISTING FARM HOUSE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 31/07/1990

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0134

98/1738 ERECTION OF A DETACHED BUNGALOW(OUTLINE) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 16/02/1999

90/1430/03 CONVERSION OF STABLES/BARN INTO PRIVATE DWELLING. Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 26/02/1991

2004/2411 Two storey rear extension Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 11/01/2005

98/1277 CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF OUTBUILDING TO FORM SINGLE DWELLING UNIT Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 27/10/1998

99/0880 ERECTION OF DETATCHED DOUBLE GARAGE. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 23/08/1999

99/0967 ERECTION OF A DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 23/08/1999

2005/1599 Two storey rear extension Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 18/10/2005

2006/1085 Two storey rear extension and side conservatory Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 05/12/2006

2008/1405 Two storey side extension and side conservatory Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 24/09/2008

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and three neighbouring properties were individually consulted. No response.

Highway Observations - Adequate room for parking is available within the curtilage of the site. I recommend no highway objection. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0134

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust - No objection.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought of a two-storey/part single storey side extension and side conservatory at Little Cilibion, Cilibion.

By way of background, Members may recall that planning permission has been refused for a two storey rear extension at this property on four previous occasions, (2004/2411, 2005/2599, 2006/1085 and 2008/1405 refers). In this respect each application was refused on grounds that the proposed extension would introduce a discordant and incongruous structure, which would adversely affect the scale and proportions of the existing cottage. In addition, the proposed extension by virtue of its size, design and siting was considered to result in an unacceptable overbearing/overshadowing impact upon the adjacent property to the north, to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

The application refused under 2006/1085 was subsequently dismissed at Appeal. In this respect, the Appeal Inspector stated that “its scale and massing would fundamentally change the rural impression of the cottage resulting in a substantial intrusion of built form into the countryside”. In dismissing the Appeal, however, the Inspector did not object to the proposed conservatory that formed part of the scheme nor considered that the rear extension would unduly impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property by virtue of unacceptable overshadowing or loss of light.

This current application seeks full planning permission for a part two storey side/part single storey side extension and a side conservatory. The width of the two-storey side extension would be 4.5m and the extension would have a total depth of 11m at ground floor with a total depth of 9.5m at first floor with a maximum height of 5.5m, 0.2m lower than that of the main dwelling. The side conservatory would be set back 5.8m from the front elevation and would project 4.2m beyond the side elevation, incorporating an overall width of 4.5m and a maximum height of 3.7m. The proposed extension would accommodate an additional two bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level and living accommodation on the ground floor. Proposed finishes would match that of the existing dwelling house. The proposed scheme differs from that previously refused under 2008/1405 with a reduction in the total depth of the first floor from 11m to 9.5m and a slightly larger conservatory.

The application property is a traditional two storey detached farmhouse located within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is currently being used as a self-catering holiday cottage. The dwelling house has been previously extended to the rear where the original roofline has been extended, forming a large cat slide roof. Current finishes are natural stone to the exterior walls, whilst the roof is finished with blue/grey reconstituted slate tiles. The windows and doors are constructed from stained timber. A two storey detached property lies adjacent to the north divided from the application site by a 1.8 metre high stone boundary wall. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0134

As identified in the previous applications, the main issues for consideration are of the scheme the visual impact of the proposed extension together with the impact upon the residential amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring property. There are considered to be no additional issues for consideration with regard to the provisions of the Human Rights Act and there are no highway safety issues to address.

Policy EV1 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 requires development to be appropriate to its local context and protect natural heritage and the historic environment and Policy HC7 states that extensions should be assessed in terms of relationship to the existing dwelling by virtue of size, design and materials. Policies EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan primarily seek to protect the landscape of the Gower AONB for its own sake and to preserve it for future generations, with particular emphasis on preserving its natural beauty.

Whilst it is recognised that the currently proposed two-storey projection of the side extension has been reduced only at first floor level when compared with the previous refused application under 2008/1405, it is considered that this reduction is sufficient to render the proposal acceptable in visual terms and for it now to relate well to the overall appearance of the dwelling house. The roof depth of between 5m and 7.4m from the main cat slide roof line of the dwelling, reduced from the previous refused 7m/9m, now dictates that the proportions of the original property are not undermined and as such, the proposal would not result in a bulky and incongruous addition.

Whilst it is also acknowledged that width of the two storey side extension has not been reduced from that previously refused, it is considered that on balance, the cumulative impact with the other amendments made now render the scheme more visually acceptable and in proportion with the existing dwelling. In addition, the width of the extension, being less than half of the existing dwelling complies with the requirements of the Householder Extension Design Guide.

The Appeal Inspector in respect of planning application Ref: 2006/1085, considered that, by itself, a conservatory to the side of the property would be a reasonably small addition to the dwelling. Whilst it is recognised that the proposed conservatory under this application is larger than the conservatory considered by the Appeal Inspector, the minor increase in its width from 4.2m to 4.5m and an increase in height from 2.9m to 3.7m, would not, it is considered, have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the dwelling and this part of the Gower AONB to warrant a recommendation of refusal.

Turning to the issue of residential amenity, and again having regard to the comments made by the Appeal Inspector, it is not considered that the proposal would impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of the property to the north by virtue of unacceptable and significant overshadowing or loss of privacy.

In conclusion, therefore and having regard to all material considerations and recognising that the proposal is a lesser scheme than previously submitted, it is considered that the siting, scale and design of the overall scheme is now acceptable and as such would comply with the requirements of Policies EV1, HC7, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0134

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 The materials used in the development hereby approved shall match those of the existing building. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVES

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

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

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 15 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0134

PLANS

01 site location plan, existing elevations and floor plans received 27th January 2010. Amended plan02A block plan, proposed elevations and floor plans received 8th February 2010

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 16 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0148 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Brook House Stores Port Eynon Swansea SA3 1NL Proposal: Change of use from retail/post office (Class A1) to residential dwelling (Class C3), two single storey rear extensions, rear decked area and alterations to the pattern of fenestration. Applicant: Mrs Kay Viney

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 81/0288/03 OMMISSION OF GARAGE AND LIVING ROOM AND FORMATION OF STORE IN ROOF SPACE - AMENDMENT TO PA 2/1/81/0477/02 Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 30/04/1981

2001/1773 Single storey front extension to incorporate granny flat and erection of front porch Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/12/2001 AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0148

2009/0491 Change of use from retail/post office (Class A1) to a pair of semi- detached holiday letting accommodation (Class C3) with alterations to front and rear facade Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/06/2009

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS:

Neighbours: Seven neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted and the application was advertised on site and in the press as development within a Conservation Area. FOUR letters of response were received which are summarised below:

1. It is proposed to move the LPG bulk tank close to my boundary. Can I be assured that the tank will be located at least 3m from my boundary wall in accordance with the relevant laws. 2. Additional screening could undermine my building foundations and my sewer due to root damage. 3. Loss of light. 4. Will this application supersede the recent holiday let application? 5. Relocation of LPG tank will encroach onto my land. 6. The proposed layout of the property appears to be more in line with the provisions of a bedsit which can only detract from the character and appearance of the adjoining properties and affect our quality of life. 7. Proposal out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 8. Overintensification of the use of the property in a very restricted space. 9. Will contribute to drainage and flooding problems. 10. Concern raised about the intended use. 11. Proposal could be used a self contained large flat for in excess of 8 people. 12. Increase in vehicle traffic and noise from late night parties. 13. Proposed bedrooms all have en-suite facilities which suggests the property will host numerous holiday groups either as a B&B arrangement or whole house let. 14. Proposed extensions will crowd the plot. 15. Object to the removal of the large double garage which actually gave us privacy and noise screening. 16. Entertainment area will result in noise which will affect our amenities. 17. Object to the change of use to an unknown use, possibly commercial.

Highways: This proposal is to convert the Post Office to residential use. There will be a reduction in overall traffic attraction and parking demand as a result of this conversion and therefore I recommend no highway objections.

All adjoining neighbours and previous objectors were individually consulted and the amended description was advertised on site in the form of a site notice. The following letters of response were received:

Port Eynon Community Council: Following observations:

1. The Council is concerned that this substantial increase in development of this constrained site. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0148

2. Although parking is provided within the site there is no facility for turning of vehicles and this will result in vehicles reversing out of the site onto a narrow lane with impaired visibility. 3. Neighbouring properties have commented that the planned rear extension will obstruct their light and ventilation. 4. Neighbouring properties have commented that the indicated landscape planting along the boundaries will obstruct their light and ventilation.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the change of use and conversion of Brook House Stores, Port Eynon, Swansea which currently comprises of a 3 bed dwelling and retail/post office (Class A1) to form a residential dwelling (Class C3), two single storey rear extensions, rear decked area and alterations to the pattern of fenestration.

In terms of planning history, planning consent was recently granted (Ref: 2009/0491) for the change of use from retail/post office (Class A1) to a pair of semi-detached holiday letting accommodation (Class C3) with alterations to front and rear façade on the 25th June 2009 and as such the principle of residential use is considered acceptable.

The main issues for consideration during the determination of this application are the impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the area and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and wider Gower AONB, the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and highway safety, having regard to the provisions of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. It is not considered the Human Rights Act raise any additional issues.

In terms of impact upon visual amenity, the two small rear extensions are considered proportionate to and in character with the existing dwelling and complement the size and scale of the existing building. The alterations to the form and design of the existing windows, centralisation of the front door on the primary elevation and formation of a traditional cottage style are considered, to introduce a symmetry to the property, which reflects a traditional design and aesthetic appearance. In this respect therefore the proposal will, it is considered, represent an improvement in visual terms and conserve and enhance the character and appearance the Conservation Area and the Gower AONB. Furthermore, as with the previous approval the change of use is considered to be in- keeping with the predominately residential use within the immediate vicinity.

Turning to residential amenities, the change of use will involve the removal of a Class A1 use from a predominately residential area and as such will have a positive impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. Whilst the loss of community facility will have an impact upon village life within Port Eynon, there are a number of other facilities available within the village and furthermore there are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which provide sufficient grounds to resist the principle of the conversion of the premises in this instance or justify a recommendation of refusal on this basis. The proposed dwelling will have sufficient amenity space, for the future occupiers of the dwelling. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0148

The proposed extensions are minimal in size and scale and will not result in unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking. In addition, the proposed amendments to the pattern of fenestration will not, it is considered, result in unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbours by virtue of overshadowing, overbearing visual impact or overlooking over and above what is currently experienced and as such it is considered that the proposal complies with Policies EV16, EV9, EV26 and EV1 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering there are considered to be no highway safety objections to this proposal.

Notwithstanding the above five letters of response were received raising concerns relating to the loss of residential amenity, impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, overintensificaiton nature of proposal, impact upon highways and access issues. The issues pertaining to which have been addressed above.

Having consulted Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water there are no objections to the proposed development. Further issues relating to drainage are covered under separate legislation and were not therefore taken into consideration during the determination of this application.

Issues have been raised regarding the proposed use of the building. The application is for one dwelling and if the dwelling is to be split into independent flats a subsequent application would have to be submitted which would undergo the statutory consultation process and be determined on the basis of its own individual merit.

Concern has been raised regarding the demolition of the garage, however this does not require planning consent and again has no bearing on the determination of this application.

The LPG tank does not form part of this planning application and the guidelines associated under its relocation would again be covered under separate legislation.

Any resultant damage to neighbouring properties would be a Civil Matter between the relevant landowner and again is covered under separate legislation.

In conclusion it is considered that the change of use of the application property to form a residential dwelling is acceptable in land use terms at this location and is considered to have an acceptable impact upon visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety standards. Furthermore it is not considered that the proposed alterations to the pattern of fenestration and extensions would have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties or the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the Gower AONB. Therefore the proposal is considered to comply with Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the Swansea UDP.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions: AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0148

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

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

INFORMATIVES

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

3 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.

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 protect hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 16 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0148

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.

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

PLANS

Design and access statement, site location plan, drawing no: 039-09/SD01- existing floor plans and elevations, 039-09/SK01- proposed floor plans, 039-09/SK02- proposed elevations received 1st February 2010 and amended block plan received 8th February 2010

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 17 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0209 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Plot 53, Whitford Bay Leisure Park Swansea SA3 1DE Proposal: Construction of decking area with fencing Applicant: Mr Peter Watkins

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 EC21 Improvements to the environmental quality, conditions and facilities will be encouraged within existing camping, touring unit and static caravan sites and small increases in the number of pitches maybe permitted where justified by environmental improvements and where the overalls scale would not be increased. Change to the type of accommodation will only be permitted where there is no adverse impact on the landscape, would bring about environmental improvements and not require extensive additional infrastructure, nor cause harm to the natural heritage. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0209

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 97/1249 Use of land for outdoor sports/recreations (Class D2) in association with existing static caravan site Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 20/07/1998

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

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

Gower Society: Object on the following grounds:

1. We are rightly concerned about implications and visual impact of extensive decking around static caravans in the AONB. 2. This site is very bare and devoid of landscaping any significant numbers of similar applications will have an undesirable impact on the AONB.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council: We have no objection to this proposal.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a decked area at Plot 53, Whitford Bay Leisure Park, Llanmadoc. The proposed timber deck area will replace the existing patio area.

The main issue for consideration with regard to this application is the appropriateness of this additional structure in this prominent rural location and the resultant effect upon the character and appearance of the area, having specific regard to Swansea Unitary Development Policies EV1, EV22, EV26, EC17 and EC21 and the planning history of the site.

Policies EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea UDP seek to protect the environment and natural beauty of the countryside for its own sake. Within the Gower AONB the protection of natural beauty will be the primary objective. Development will not be permitted in the open countryside except where essential for the rural economy, or in specified defined circumstances.

Whilst Planning Policy Wales (March 2002) recognises that tourism is a major element in the Welsh economy particularly in rural and coastal areas the primary objective is the preservation and safeguarding of the natural area and interests of the local communities. The general thrust of development plan policies is therefore aimed at protecting the character, appearance and natural beauty of the Gower AONB and ensuring that new tourism and recreation development is consistent with this primary objective. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0209

The application site is well established and it benefits from a lawful use of 12 month occupancy for both residential and holiday purposes granted in May 2004 (2003/1718 refers) as “the relevant planning permission P25/Z/267 (licence reference PH/4/60 ) granted on the 1st May 1961 contained no conditions restricting type of occupier or occupancy period”.

Caravans do not benefit from any permitted development rights, as such rights only relate to dwelling houses. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the siting of Plot 53 grouped within the main bulk of caravans within a low lying position and the fact that the decking is not raised above ground level by any significant amount dictates that any visual impact would be minimal and it would not appear unduly prominent in the landscape. It is considered therefore to comply with the prevailing Development Plan Policies.

It is not considered that there are any residential issues to consider in this instance as the amount of residential amenity expected within a caravan park is not considered to be the same as would be expected for a dwelling house. It is neither considered that the approval of this applicaiton would set an undesirable precedent for other developments of a similar nature in the park as due to the topography of the site, the visual prominence of each caravan would differ and as such, each application would be treated on its own individual merits.

There are many other examples of decking in this Caravan Park and there is only one record of any planning permission being granted. In this respect, the details have again been passed to the Enforcement Section for investigation.

With regards to the comments raised by the Gower Society, each application is determined on the basis of its own individual merit. The issue relating to visual impact is addressed above.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, the proposed decking in this instance is, on balance, considered to be an acceptable form of development at this location, complying with the requirements of Policies EV1, EV22, EV26, EC17 and EC21 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following condition:

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 17 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0209

INFORMATIVES

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

PLANS

Site location plan, existing & proposed elevations with roof plans, design & access statement received 5th February 2010. Additional block plan received 25th February 2010

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 18 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0251 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Southridge Reynoldston Swansea SA3 1AE Proposal: Single storey rear extension Applicant: Mr L K Davies

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2008/0839 First floor side extension Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 17/06/2008

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The neighbouring properties have been individually consulted and no third party correspondence has been received in respect of this application.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a rear kitchen extension at Southridge, Reynoldston. The application site may be characterised as a relatively modern detached dwelling within a relatively large plot in a rural residential area. The extension will be located fairly centrally on the rear elevation of the host dwelling and it will measure 5m in width, 4.5m in depth and 2.3 to the eaves. AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0251

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

The proposed extension will be located to the rear of the property and will not be visible from any public vantage points. The proposal is of a standard design which would not be an uncommon feature on this type of property. It is therefore considered that the scale, design and external appearance of the proposed rear extension is in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and that it would not have an adverse visual impact on the host dwelling of the street scene to which it relates or the natural beauty of the Gower AONB.

With regard to residential amenity, the distance, existing hedge screening and relationship of the existing surrounding properties is considered sufficient to safeguard residential amenity. It is not therefore considered that the proposed extension would have an unacceptable overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties.

There are no highway safety issues arising from this proposal.

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

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 The materials used in the development hereby approved shall match those of the existing building. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

AREA 1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 13TH APRIL 2010

ITEM 18 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0251

INFORMATIVES

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

PLANS

DRNG. NO. 101/01-site location plan, 101/02- block plan, 101/03- existing floor plans, 101/04- existing section and rear elevation sheet one of two, 101/05- existing elevations sheet two of two, 101/06- proposed floor plan and roof plan, 101/07- proposed section and rear elevation sheet one of two, 101/08- propose elevations sheet two of two received 24th February 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