CITY and COUNTY of SWANSEA 2.00P.M. AGENDA

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 16th March 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 23rd February and Site Visits held on 2nd March 2010.

FOR DECISION

4. Alleged Public right of Way between Caergynydd Road and Swansea Road, Waunarlwydd, Community of Cockett.

5. Alleged Public Footpath from Rhyd-y-Fenni to Salthouse Point, Crofty, Community of Llanrhidian Higher.

6. Alleged Public Right of Way from Bryn Terrace to Footpath 10, Community of Mumbles.

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

David M. Daycock Head of Legal & Democratic Services 10th March 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

Item No.3a CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON TUESDAY 23RD FEBRUARY, 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 P M Matthews W Evans M H Jones P M Meara E W Fitzgerald S M Jones J Newbury R Francis-Davies J B Kelleher C L Philpott D I E Jones K E Marsh D P Tucker

Non-voting Member:

P R Hood-Williams

214. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A M Day, D H James, E T Kirchner, D Price, T H Rees, J C Richards, G Seabourne, R J Stanton, M Smith, P B Smith, R L Smith and S M Waller Thomas.

215. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

Councillor R D Lewis - Planning Application No. 2009/0995 (Item 1) - personal and prejudicial following legal advice given by lawyer - vacated chair and left during discussion.

Councillor D P Tucker - Planning Application No. 2009/0995 (Item 1) - personal and left during discussion.

NOTE: The Legal Officer advised the Chairman that following a written complaint against him regarding the recent site visits and in the light of recent Adjudication Panel Judgment, that he should declare a personal and prejudicial interest to avoid any “perceived” bias.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.02.10) Cont’d

216. MINUTES

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee held on 2nd February 2010 and the site visits held on 9th February 2010 be agreed as correct records.

217. PROPOSED DOWNGRADING AND DIVERSION OF BRIDLEWAY NO. 22, PROPOSED CREATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE BRIDLEWAY, COMMUNITY OF PORT EYNON

The Head of Legal & Democratic Services presented a report outlining the request to remove Bridleway No. 22 from crossing an area of dunes and creating a public footpath via a different alignment through the dunes.

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

RESOLVED that:

(1) the original Orders made to extinguish and create the paths shown on plan nos. 1 and 2 be abandoned;

(2) an Extinguishment Order be remade to remove Bridleway No. 22 between points A and B and provided no objections are made the Order be confirmed as unopposed but that confirmation be dependent upon (3);

(3) a concurrent Public Path Creation Order be made to register a public footpath via the route B-D-E-F and a public bridleway via the route A-B-C and, if no objections are received, be confirmed as unopposed.

218. ITEMS FOR DEFERRAL

RESOLVED that the undermentioned planning applications BE DEFERRED for the reason outlined.

(Item 5) Application No. 2009/1271

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

Reason

To enable photographs of the building to be shown at Committee.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.02.10) Cont’d

(Item 6) Application No. 2009/1666

Side conservatory at The Dingle, Horton, Swansea.

Reason

To allow further negotiation on the application.

219. ITEMS DEFERRED FOR SITE VISITS

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

(Item 12) 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.

Reason

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

220. 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 (#).

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

# (Item 1) Application No. 2009/0995

Change of use of part of field from agriculture to camping for a maximum of 10 tented units for weekends and bank holidays from 31st May or Spring Bank Holiday whichever is the earlier until the second weekend in September or 9th September, whichever is the later in any year at Eastern Slade Farm, Oxwich, Swansea.

NOTE: Amend description to refer to “overspill camping” as opposed to “camping”.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.02.10) Cont’d

Omit reason for refusal 2.

Amend informative 1 by referring to Policy EC17 as opposed to Policy EV17).

Application was approved contrary to officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

Reason

01. That given the limited number of units proposed and the limited time period being applied for the development would not represent unjustified development in the open countryside that would be detrimental to the character, appearance and natural beauty of the Gower AONB.

NOTE: As the matter was contrary to policy the matter was Referred to Planning Committee with a recommendation of approval.

(Councillor K E Marsh presided for the above item only).

(Item 4) Application No. 2009/1289

Two storey side extension, addition of pitched roof over existing flat roof, external alterations and provision of 7 space car park at Llanrhidian Community Hall, Llanrhidian, Swansea.

(Item 7) Application No. 2008/0447

Detached dwelling at land adjacent to Underhill Cottage, Horton, Swansea.

(Item 8) Application No. 2009/0772

Retention and completion of detached garage with storage area, associated landscaping works and retaining wall at Talgarths Well, Middleton, Swansea.

(Item 10) Application No. 2009/1696

Two storey side extension with front and side canopies and external alterations at Driftwood, Oxwich, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.02.10) Cont’d

# (Item 11) Application No. 2010/0003

Change of use of ground floor from pottery shop (Class A1) to café/restaurant (Class A3) at 626 Mumbles Road, Mumbles, Swansea.

NOTE: Late letter of no objection from Mumbles Community Council reported.

Late letter of concern relating to parking problems reported and response of officers outlined.

Late letter from applicant reported.

(Item 13) Application No. 2010/0015

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from 1st of March to 30th November during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 3478, Crickton Farm, Llanrhidian, Swansea.

(Item 14) Application No. 2010/0017

Use of land for the siting of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 6362, Great Lunnon Farm, Lunnon, Swansea.

(Item 15) Application No. 2010/0018

Use of land for the siting of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 0785, Stavel Dene, Llanrhidian, Swansea.

(Item 16) Application No. 2010/0020

Use of land for the siting of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 30th September during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 7429, Little Reynoldston Farm, Reynoldston, Swansea.

(Item 17) Application No. 2010/0021

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from 1st March to 30th November during the 2010/2011 seasons at Field 2000, Stembridge Farm, Llanrhidian, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.02.10) Cont’d

(Item 18) Application No. 2010/0022

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from 1st March to 30th November during the 2010/2011 seasons at Field 7267, Perriswood Farm, Nicholaston, Swansea.

(Item 19) Application No. 2010/0023

Use of land for the siting for a maximum of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is earliest) to 31st October in 2010/2011 season at Field 0031, Ivy Cottage Farm, Nicholaston, Swansea.

(Item 20) Application No. 2010/0024

Use of land for the siting of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 7924, Blackhills Lane, Fairwood, Swansea.

(Item 21) Application No. 2010/0025

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from 1st March to 30th November during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 0050, Eastmoor Farm, Rhossili, Swansea.

(Item 22) Application No. 2010/0026

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 2872, Mewslade View, Middleton, Swansea.

(Item 23) Application No. 2010/0027

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from 1st March to 30th November during 2010/2011 seasons at Fields 2463 and 2854, Heatherbrae, Nicholaston, Swansea.

(Item 24) Application No. 2010/0029

Use of land for the siting of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 0028, Little Hills Farm, Port Eynon, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.02.10) Cont’d

(Item 25) Application No. 2010/0030

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October 2010/2011 season at Field 7608, Sunnyside Farm, Llandewi, Swansea.

(Item 26) Application No. 2010/0031

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from 1st March to 30th November during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 8270, Fairwood Corner Farm, Fairwood, Swansea.

(Item 27) Application No. 2010/0032

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 3890, Barraston Hall Farm, Llangennith, Swansea.

(Item 28) Application No. 2010/0033

Use of land for the siting of a maximum of 5 touring caravans from 1st March to 30th November during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 2746, Orchard Park Farm, Llanmadoc, Swansea.

(Item 29) Application No. 2010/0034

Use of land for the siting of 5 touring caravans from Good Friday or 1st April (whichever is the earlier) to 31st October during 2010/2011 seasons at Field 2311, Lake Farm House, Llandewi, Swansea.

(Item 30) Application No. 2010/0080

Single storey rear extension with first floor living accommodation in the roof space incorporating recessed balcony at The Croft, 3 Priors Town, Llangennith, Swansea.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.02.10) Cont’d

(2) the undermentioned planning applications BE REFUSED subject to the reasons indicated in the report and/or indicated below:

# (Item 2) Application No. 2009/0890

Replacement detached dwelling at 70 Langland Bay Road, Langland, Swansea.

NOTE: Report updated to amend site history.

Application refused contrary to officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The proposed development by virtue of its inappropriate design would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Langland Bay Conservation Area and adjacent Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV26 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

# (Item 3) Application No. 2009/1785

Demolition of existing dwelling (application for Conservation Area Consent) at 70 Langland Bay Road, Langland, Swansea.

NOTE: Two late letters of objection reported and response of officers outlined.

Recommendation changed in the light of the refusal of Item 2 to REFUSAL for the following reason:

Reason

In the absence of an approved scheme for the redevelopment of the site, the demolition of the dwelling would result in an unacceptable loss of visual amenity and would be detrimental to the character of the Langland Bay Conservation Area. As such the demolition would be contrary to Policy EV10 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

Minutes of the Area 2 Development Control Committee (23.02.10) Cont’d

(Item 9) Application No. 2009/0783

Part two part first floor side/front extension and change of use of land to form part of residential curtilage at 22 Porth- y-Waun, Gowerton, Swansea.

The meeting ended at 3.38 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

Z: Area 2 Development Control Committee - 23 February 2010 (GB/KL)

Item No.3a

CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA

MINUTES OF THE AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE SITE VISITS

HELD ON SITE ON TUESDAY 10TH MARCH 2010 AT 09.30AM

PRESENT: Councillor R D Lewis (Chairman) presided

Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s): A C S Colburn D H James K E Marsh W Evans S M Jones

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Doyle, E W Fitzgerald, E T Kirchner, P Matthews, J Newbury, C L Philpott, J C Richards, P B Smith, R L Smith, R J Stanton 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 23rd February 2010, Members visited the undermentioned site prior to it’s determination at the Committee scheduled for Tuesday 16th March 2010.

a) Planning Application No 2010/0096 - 17A Wellfield, Bishopston, Swansea SA3 3EP - Increase in ridge height and rear roof extension with juliette balconies to provide living accommodation in roof space.

The meeting ended at 10.30 am.

CHAIRMAN Item No. 4

Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services

Area 2 Development Control Committee – 16th March 2010

ALLEGED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN CAERGYNYDD ROAD AND SWANSEA ROAD, WAUNARLWYDD, COMMUNITY OF COCKETT

Summary

Purpose: To consider whether a public right of way exists via the route shown on the plan attached to the report.

Policy Framework: Paragraphs 4.13, 4.14 & 4.15 of the Countryside Access Plan 2007-2017, along with Policy DM3 of the same Access Plan Reason for Decision: An application has been made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Council is under a statutory obligation to consider the evidence put forward by this application Consultations: CK’s Supermarkets (Owners), Corporate Property (owners), Community Cllrs D Lloyd, V Alexander and L Hopkin (June 2002 consultations), Byways and Bridleways Trust, The Ramblers Association, The British Horse Society, The Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, The Countryside Council for Wales, The British Horse Society, The Green Openspaces and Heritage Alliance, Mr G Bligh, Mrs L Lock, H Sawyer, Cllr V Hughes, Cllr N Holley, Cllr J Kelleher, Cllr K Morgan (May 2009 consultations)

Recommendation(s): That this Committee makes a recommendation to Cabinet that the application to make a Modification Order to add the route to the Definitive Map and Statement should be refused.

Introduction 1.1 An application has been made to this Council to make a Modification Order to add a public footpath to the Definitive Map and Statement which commences from a grassed area adjacent to Caergynydd Road (Point A on the attached plan) and follows a worn path down a steep embankment via a rough, ash based path approximately 2 feet wide emerging at the back of CK’s Store Car Park and continuing through the car park to join Swansea Road (Point D on the attached plan). The Store was owned by Kwiksave at the time of the application.

1.2 The application by a Mr Mike Jones (then Secretary of the Waunarlwydd Tenants and Residents Association) of 99, Waunarlwydd Road, Waunarlwydd, Swansea, was made on 8th June 2000 and supported by thirty-one users claiming an average of 27.25 years use of the path.

1.3 The application was lodged after Kwik Save erected galvanised palisade fencing at the rear of the Car Park in April 2000 (Point C on the attached plan).

Land Ownership

2.1 This Council owns the section of land adjacent to Caergynydd Road (A- B), but the majority of the land over which the claimed route runs is owned by Mr C R Kiley of CK’s Supermarkets (B-D).

Consultations

3.1 Consultations were first carried out in June 2002. All the usual organisations and consultees were informed of this application including the Local Members. At the time, the four Cockett Ward Members objected to the application. The main concerns were the security of the Tenant at No.11, Caergynydd Road, the steepness of the slope, the path being used as a hideaway by youths and the potential danger of children using the path and running into oncoming traffic at Caergynydd Road. All residents had been informed by the Council in a housing residents meeting that there was no public right of access and use of the route was at their own risk.

3.2 Consultations were carried out a second time on 28th May 2009, to have up to date views on the application. Only Cllr Morgan objected, on grounds of health and safety, as the path is very steep, unstable underfoot and likely to cause harm to possible users. Mr Kiley, the owner of CK’s Supermarket, also replied to consultations, stating he had no objection to the alleged Right of Way, as long as any boundary fences are maintained and any damage caused reinstated.

Evidence

4.1 In order to decide whether a public right of way exists, it is necessary to identify a minimum period of twenty years’ use which will satisfy the provisions of Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. This period is calculated by counting retrospectively from the first occasion the public’s right of way was brought into question. This usually occurs when the path becomes blocked or that use is challenged by someone. Kwik-Save erected fencing at the rear of their store (Point C) in April 2000 which effectively blocked the path. Therefore the relevant period is 1980 - 2000.

4.2 Of the thirty-one claimants who submitted user evidence forms, sixteen claim to have used the path for the full twenty years of the relevant period. The remaining fifteen claim an average of 6.7 years use of the path prior to April 2000.

4.3 Of the sixteen users who claim over 20 years use, only 9 claim that they walked the full route to Swansea Road, and not just as a short cut to Kwik-Save. However, from the time the Kwik-Save store was being built in 1980, there has been a car park between points C and D.

4.4 The exact route taken by the public would therefore have to alter to avoid parked cars. Consequently, no one route can be said to have been in use for the required period.

4.5 Being a car park, no defined path is evident and there would inevitably be occasions where the public would have to avoid parked or moving cars. The provisions of Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 (Appendix 2) state that use must be “without interruption” for a right of way to be created. In this regard, it is questionable whether any route across a car park could be deemed “without interruption” if users would have to continually alter the route they take across the car park.

Probable Special User Group

5.1 Of the thirty-one claimants who submitted user evidence forms, all thirty-one were residents of Caergynydd Road. This raises the question as to whether those who used the claimed route represent a special user group. This is defined in more detail in Appendix 5 but it means a group of persons who live in close proximity to the path and being the only persons for whom the path would provide a useful means of access. Whilst providing a useful short-cut to the Co-Op/Kwik-Save Store for the residents of Caergynydd Road, the path may have little utility for the public at large and no evidence has been put forward from others living further away. In this instance the claimants would appear to form a special user group.

Common Law Dedication

6.1 Under Common Law (See Appendix 4), a greater or lesser period than 20 years could establish a public right of way if it can be shown that the landowner, in this case Kwik-Save/Co-Op (throughout the relevant period), along with the Council, took steps to encourage and maintain the path. This Council granted planning permission for the store on 6th June 1979 under reference 2/1/79/0702/02. A condition of this Consent was for a pedestrian link to be created to Caergynydd Road. Co-Op successfully appealed to The Secretary of State for Wales in 1983 to have the condition removed.

6.2 Co-Operative Retail Services stated that they were not aware that any legal right of way existed and that, due to the steepness of the bank, it would be unsuitable for access.

Conclusion

7.1 Since the construction of a retail store in 1981, the claimants would have to cross the car park between points C-D during the ‘relevant period’ of 1980-2000. As indicated, there is no defined route, so it is likely the route used would have had to vary and it is questionable whether use was “without interruption”.

7.2 Those in support of the application reflect a special user group and so cannot be said to represent the public at large.

7.3 As a result of the above points, it is recommended that no Modification Order should be made.

Recommendation

8.1 That this Committee makes a recommendation to Cabinet that the application to make a Modification Order to add the route to the Definitive Map and Statement should be refused.

Financial Implications

9.1 There are no financial implications to this report.

Background Papers 1. Documents contained within file ROW-32 Contact Officer: Greg Hopkins 01792 636170 File Reference: ROW-32/GH

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. 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 often are 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;

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

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 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).

- This twenty year period is calculated by counting retrospectively from the first occasion the publics 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.

- 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.

- 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 3). Such evidence could include user evidence and/or documentary evidence.

APPENDIX 2

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 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 ‘brought 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 3

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 4

DEDICATION UNDER COMMON LAW

No minimum period of use is required, but the claimants must show that if can be inferred by the landowners conduct, that he or she had actually dedicated the route. User 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 5

SPECIAL USER GROUP

(a) The Planning Inspectorate has produced advice on this matter in that they say there is no strict legal interpretation of the term ‘public’. The dictionary definition being ‘the people as a whole’ or ‘the community in general’. Arguably and sensibly that use should be by a number of people who together may be taken to represent the people as a whole/the community.

However, Coleridge L J in R -v- Residents of Southampton 1887 said that “used by the public must not be taken in its widest sense – for it is a common knowledge that in many cases only the local residents ever use a particular road or bridge”. Consequently, use wholly or largely by local people may be use by the public as depending on the circumstances of the case, that use could be by a number of people who may sensibly be taken to represent the local people as a whole/the local community”.

(b) In contrast to this view was the decision made by Lord Parke in Poole -v- Huskinson 1834 who concluded: “there may be dedication to the public for a limited purpose…but there can not be dedication to a limited part of the public”. This case was quoted by an Inspector in 1997 appointed to consider an application to add a public bridleway to the Definitive Map for North Yorkshire County Council. Here the route had also been in use for 40 to 50 years. That Inspector concluded: “In the case before Lord Parke, residents of the same parish were held to constitute a limited part of the public and I therefore believe the inhabitants of the Parish of Cliffs should also be held to constitute a limited part”. The Inspector refused to confirm the Order. C LAS-Y -BEDW

SW Alleged Public Right of Way ANSEA ROAD Caergynydd Road to Swansea Road

StILES Waunarlwydd Community of Cockett 4 58.1m D

17 15 11

CK's Car Park CK's

11 B A

Caergynydd Road

16 22 18 24 20

Alleged Public Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map Right of Way with the permission of HMSO. Crown Copyright. City and County of Swansea. SCALE 1:500 Licence No 100023509 Item No. 5

Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services

Area 2 Development Control Committee – 16th March 2010

ALLEGED PUBLIC FOOTPATH FROM RHYD-Y-FENNI TO SALTHOUSE POINT, CROFTY COMMUNITY OF LLANRHIDIAN HIGHER

Summary

Purpose: To determine whether or not a path from Rhyd-Y-Fenni to Salthouse Point should be added to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement as a public footpath.

Policy Framework: Countryside Access Plan No. 4 and 5

Statutory Tests: Section 53 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 31 Highways Act 1980 Section 26 Highways Act 1980

Reason for Decision: The evidence submitted does not warrant making a modification order under Section 53 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as the evidence does not satisfy the tests set out under the provisions of Section 31 Highways Act 1980. However, it is proposed to make a creation order to register an almost identical route as there is clearly a need for the path which satisfies the provisions of Section 26 Highways Act 1980. Consultations: The following persons and bodies have been consulted: -

Byways and Bridleways Trust Ramblers Association British Horse Society Commons Openspaces & Footpaths Preservation Society Countryside Council for Wales Green Openspaces and Heritage Alliance Mr G Bligh (former Countryside & Bridleways Officer) Mrs L Lock (Local representative of the Ramblers) Mrs H Sawyer (Countryside and Bridleways Officer), Councillor Paul Tucker Llanrhidian Higher Community Council Estates Department Knight Frank (as agents for the Somerset Trust) All local residents living adjacent to path.

Recommendation(s): That this Committee recommends to Cabinet that a creation order be made to add a public footpath from Rhyd Y Fenni to Salthouse Point, Crofty to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement.

Introduction

1.1 An application was made on the 22nd July 1997 in order to register the path from Rhyd Y Fenni to Salthouse Point as a public footpath. This was a resubmission of a claim made by the same applicant on the 29th July 1987 which failed due to insufficient length of usage by the 6 claimants who submitted evidence forms.

1.2 Details on the processes involved in determining such claims can be found in Appendix 3 and this Council’s obligation to keep the definitive map and statement under continuous review is set out in Appendix 5.

1.3 The route of the claimed footpath can be seen on the plan attached to the report (Appendix 1).

1.4 Between points A and B on the plan, the land is owned by this Authority and the land between points C and D is common land owned by the Somerset Trust.

1.5 Site notices were erected in order to try to ascertain land ownership of the section between points B and C but the owner has not come forward and so the ownership of this section remains unknown.

User Evidence

2.1 In order to decide whether a public right of way exists, it is necessary to identify a minimum period of twenty years’ use which will satisfy the provisions of Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 (Appendix 4). This 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 occurs when the path is blocked or that use is challenged by someone. However, this has not occurred in this instance and so the alleged existence of the path has not been brought into question by any challenge from a landowner.

2.2 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 established that in the absence of a calling into question, the date of the application can be considered as a date when the public’s right to use the path was brought into question and can be used to determine the relevant twenty year period for consideration. This makes the relevant period for the application 1977 to 1997.

2.3 Full details of the evidence submitted by the claimants is set out in Appendix 6. The following points should be noted: -

(a) The majority of claimants appear to fall under a special user group category (Appendix 7) and under the provisions of Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 a modification order cannot be made to a limited section of the public (Appendix 4)

(b) Due to the nature of the construction of the path it is questionable whether the claimants are able to show 20 years uninterrupted use during the relevant period.

Creation Order

3.1 Despite the evidence outlined above and in Appendix 6 recommending no modification order should be made, the Council has considered the benefit the path would provide to the public. If this Council considers that the path would be a useful addition to the public rights of way network it could consider making a public path creation order.

3.2 As landowners, this Authority’s Estates Department and Knight Frank who act as agents for the Trustees of the Somerset Trust were contacted and both confirmed they would be happy for a creation order to be made. However, the Estates Department suggested that the line of the eastern end of the path near point A be moved marginally northwards so that the Council would be able to consider the possibility of selling the land adjacent to 41 Rhyd Y Fenni in the future. This Authority’s Countryside Access Team also proposed a variation to the claimed route in that the angle of C-D be altered so that the path on the ground would pass along a gentle slope onto the marsh. The line of the path proposed is shown in Appendix 2.

3.3 These suggestions were put to the claimants in December 2009 and they agreed to withdraw their claim on the condition the Council makes a creation order to add the route shown in Appendix 2 to the definitive map.

Informal consultations

4.1 Consultations were carried out on 8th September 2009 in accordance with Welsh Office Circular 5/93 and the following responses were received: -

(a) The Llanrhidian Higher Community Council registered their full support for the creation order.

(b) Two Letters of support and three objections were submitted by local residents living adjacent to the proposed route.

4.2 Details of the three objections received can be found in Appendix 8.

Grounds for Making a Creation Order

5.1 Appendix 9 sets out the provisions of Section 26 of the Highways Act 1980 which allows the Authority to make compulsory creation orders. It should be noted that:

(a) This Authority is satisfied that it is expedient to make the order as there is significant evidence of the demand from local residents living in the area. This satisfies the provisions of Section 26(1)(a) of the Highways Act 1980

(b) The Council has considered the effects which the creation of the path would have on the rights of persons interested in the land, taking account of the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 (Appendix 10). Two persons living adjacent to the path have referred to the possible devaluation of their property as a reason for objecting to the proposed creation order (Appendix 8) However, neither stated they would seek compensation for the loss in value or have given any grounds for why they consider they would be entitled to such compensation. In any event, the onus would be on the occupier of the property to establish that their property would be devalued. It should be noted that the path is already in existence, it is in use and its registration is not necessarily likely to result in any increase in use, but merely to recognise existing use. Furthermore, there is no intention to promote use of the path.

5.2 The Authority does not consider the objections set out in Appendix 8 to be valid grounds for recommending against the proposal to make a creation order. The reasons for this are set out in the Appendix.

Conclusion

6.1 A claim was originally submitted to register the route shown in Appendix I as a public footpath. However, given the reasons set out in paragraph 2.3 above this claim would not warrant making a modification order.

6.2 This Authority proposed that the route shown in Appendix 2 be subject to a creation order as it considers the resultant path a useful addition to the public rights of way network. The claimants subsequently withdrew their application on the basis that the creation order is to succeed.

6.3 There is significant evidence to suggest that the public footpath would add to the enjoyment and convenience of local residents and hence the provisions of Section 26 of the Highways Act 1980 are satisfied.

6.4 The three objections received are not considered to provide sufficient grounds for dismissing the creation order for the reasons set out in Appendix 8.

Financial Implications

7.1 There are no financial implications attached to this report.

Recommendation

That this Committee recommends to Cabinet that a creation order be made to add a public footpath from Rhyd Y Fenni to Salthouse Point, Crofty to the Council’s Definitive Map and Statement.

Background Papers: Documents contained within file ROW-5

Contact Officer: Kieran O’Carroll 01792 637233 File reference: ROW-5/KAO

9 a

1 t 21b20b h

( u APPENDIX 1 - PLAN OF ROUTE CLAIMED m)

7 2 23 25

22b 14 & 15

6 13 Ty Halen 2 Ty Croeso a 6 43 P 2 44 a 8 t 3 h

9 45a ( 68 3 u Newhaven m

) 34 64 64a 60 35 K AR P 59 NI Marshfield 74 El S N House L ub Sta FE 5 C R 9 53 1 1 P AE

E E 1 N 4 CAE 41 C S R N 1 FE 17 5 NN E Pen Llanw U I P P 7 A 47 2 7 RK 1 O 8 LB

H 2 9

6 1 0 T 8 1

L 8 5 2 6

0 7

A 1 6 1 2

8 0 S 6a

6 1 2 8 1 5a 2 T 4 ra C 6 5 ck 1 8 2 8 D 0 23

1 1 B 3 0 2

0 1 1

2 1

1 1 97 8

6 116 A 137 Pond

N 6

4 D 3

D Y

r H

i n 28 33 2

1 27 20 H artwell

Claimed footpath 9 PO 1 0 8 5 1 Dr ain SCALE 1:2500 52 0 6 2 6 5 k c 2 58 a 6 r T M 4 e 6 PH an T L r o a S w n a Reproduced ifrom the Ordnance Survey Map with c W k lth a a r 1 o t the permission of the controller of HMSO 7 u er D se in Crownra Copyright in P D ra ill City and County of Swansea licence no. 100023509 -D 10.6m M D A L (2010) 7

7 W O M Crofty 4 7 u R d M e a a n Rourkes Drift 1 d 7 8 n FORGE 8 NTL H S i M a g n h u d g d Carre W Ty Pont P

9 a

1 t 21b20b h

( u APPENDIX 2 - PLAN FOR PROPOSED CREATION ORDERm)

7 2 23 25

22b 14 & 15

6 13 Ty Halen 2 Ty Croeso a 6 43 P 2 44 a 8 t 3 h

9 45a ( 68 3 u Newhaven m

) 34 64 64a 60 35 K AR P 59 NI Marshfield 74 El S N House L ub Sta FE 5 C R 9 53 1 1 P AE

E E 1 N 4 CAE 41 C S R N 1 FE 17 5 NN E Pen Llanw U I P P 7 A 47 2 7 RK 1 O 8 LB

H 2 9

6 1 0 T 8 1

L 8 5 2 6

0 7

A 1 6 1 2

8 0 S 6a

6 1 2 8 1 5a 2 T 4 ra C 6 ck 5 1 8 2 8 D 0 23

1 1 B 3 0 2

0 1 1

2 1

1 1 97 8

6 116 A 137 Pond

N 6

4 D 3

D Y

r H

i n 28 33 2

1 27 20 H artwell

Proposed footpath 9 PO 1 0 8 5 1 Dr ain 52 0 6 2 6 5 k c 2 58 a 6 r T M 4 e 6 PH an T L r o a S w n a Reproduced ifrom the Ordnance Survey Map with c W k lth a a r 1 o t the permission of the controller of HMSO 7 u er D se in Crownra Copyright in P D ra ill City and County of Swansea licence no. 100023509 -D 10.6m M D A L (2010) 7

7 W O M Crofty 4 7 u R d M e a a n Rourkes Drift 1 d 7 8 n FORGE 8 NTL H S i M a g n h u d g d Carre W Ty Pont APPENDIX 3 - 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. 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 often are 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;

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

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, to modify the Map and Statement. That Order may be subject to objections and representations and 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 terms of applications to add routes, under the provisions of Section 31 to the Highways Act 1980 (Appendix 4) 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. The provisions of Section 53(b) to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 therefore apply (Appendix 5).

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.

Another means by which a path may be presumed to have been dedicated is under common law. 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.

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 5). Such evidence could include user evidence and/or documentary evidence.

APPENDIX 4 - 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:

APPENDIX 5 - 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:-

(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 is sufficient to raise a presumption of dedication (see S.31 Highways Act 1980 (Appendix 1)).

(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 6 – EVIDENCE

(a) Initial Claim and User Evidence

When the application was submitted in 1997 ten people submitted evidence forms supporting the claim alleging an average use of 20.3 years. However, four of the original claimants withdrew their support and two did not respond to letters sent to them enquiring as to whether they were continuing to support the application. In addition three have died. This left only the principal claimant and one other person from the original claimants in support.

(b) Additional User Evidence

One additional person came forward in July 2008 and offered support for the claim and the Principal Claimant provided further evidence of use by 12 claimants including two Community Councillors in January 2009. This means the application is now supported by 15 people who allege an average use of 30.1 years.

Of the claimants who are now in support of the claim, seven claimed to have used the path for the full 20 years within the relevant period (1977-1997).

The evidence submitted suggested that the path was well used with all fifteen claimants stated they had used the path for over 20 years with three of these claiming over 40 years use and a further five claiming use of between 30 and 39 years. The main reasons for using the path being for accessing the marsh for recreational purposes, as a short-cut to the post office and shop, and for dog walking.

Of the fifteen claimants two had gardens backing onto the claimed path and could be said to have been using the route as a private means of access to their properties rather than as a public right. Therefore, their information cannot be considered to provide evidence that the path is a public right of way.

Eleven of the fifteen claimants live in close proximity to the claimed route and there is the question as to whether or not those claimants could be said to be represent a special user group. A special user group is defined in Appendix 7 but it generally means a group of people who live in close proximity to a path and for whom the path provides a useful means of access. Of the four claimants living further afield, one uses the path to visit his mother-in-law who lives adjacent to the path. Therefore, he too could be considered to form part of a user group. The remaining three claimants lived in Pencaerfenni Park from 1969 to 1978 and have continued to use the path since moving to Llanmorlais. However, three claimants would be too low a number to warrant the making of a modification order.

(d) Origin of the path

Nine persons stated that there was no path prior to the bungalows of Pencaerfenni Park being built. Three stated that there was no access across the fields to the marsh via this or any other route. However, one stated that the path had always been there but only in its present position from approximately 1995. Three people stated they were one of the first to live on the estate and the path did not exist when they moved there in 1969. However, one person stated that although this path did not exist, he used to walk across the fields to access the marsh. At the time of his interview in 2005, he stated that he had used the path since 1976 but when re-interviewed in 2008, he stated that he had been using the path since 1938.

(d) Ordnance Survey Plans

None of the earlier editions pf the ordnance survey show this path. The 1971 edition shows the beginning of the housing development at Pencaerfenni Park and along Rhyd Y Fenni. The path is not shown. The next available ordnance survey edition is dated 1991 and this shows most of the estate as it appears today. This established that the path was not in existence before the development of the housing estate at Pencaerfenni Park.

(e) Construction of the Path

T. R. Harris Arnold Solicitors who act for the developer of the housing estate, Bickford Building and Civil Engineering Limited were consulted. They stated the footpath is the level surface following the line of the sewer serving the estate. It came into existence as a result of the construction of the sewer and it is used to access the sewer. They stated that the houses of Pencaerfenni Park were constructed between 1967 and 2003/4 and building work took place in stages in an East to West direction. They add that as each phase was constructed, a further stretch of sewer pipe would be laid and during those periods of construction the increasing length of the path would have been fenced off. In their opinion, there would be insufficient time to establish any dedication of a public footpath.

One claimant stated in interview that there were periods when there would be building materials on the path although he cannot remember specifically when but guesses it was in the 1980s. He vaguely remembers some parts of the path being dug up but states he could always walk the path and simply walked around any obstructions. However, walking around any obstructions along the route could mean that at certain times he was deviating from the claimed route as shown on the plan. Another claimant stated that there was a way to get across the field before the path was built but the path as it exists today was created in sections as each cul-de-sac was built.

Therefore, it is not clear whether the claimants could be said to have uninterrupted use of the path over the relevant period from 1977 to 1997.

APPENDIX 7 – SPECIAL USER GROUPS

APPENDIX 8 – OBJECTIONS

The following objections were received when informal consultations were carried out on the possibility of making a creation order to register the route shown in Appendix 2: -

(a) One local resident objected in September 2009 based on her belief that registering the route as a public footpath would encourage more people to use the path which would affect her privacy. She indicated that she had a six year old son and thus she would expect the Council to provide fencing to secure her family’s privacy. She was informed that the footpath is already open and in use by the general public. Registering the path as a public footpath would be unlikely to increase its use as the path is mainly used by local residents.

(b) Another resident living along the footpath submitted a letter of objection in October 2009. Her reasons for objecting and the officer responses are set out below: -

i. She fears that the registration of the footpath would result in greater use of the path, added noise, and that it would result in undesirable and antisocial behaviour. She was informed that the path is already open to the public and the registration of the footpath is intended to regularise the current position. It is unlikely to cause any increase in pedestrian traffic as the route is mainly used by local residents.

ii. She fears that dog fouling would be. If it does become a problem in the future, this Council could consider installing dog waste bins and appropriate signage.

iii. She feared having the public footpath registered would devalue the properties situated along the path. Whilst having a public footpath adjacent to a property may be seen as a disadvantage to some people, for others it may be seen as an advantage.

(c) A third local resident expressed concerns in relation to the registration of the footpath based on increased use and that it could lead to horse-riders and motorcyclists using the lane illegally. He also feared that this route would be advertised as part of a coastal path and that having a path adjacent to his house would devalue the property. As above he was informed that the path was already open to the public and registration is unlikely to result in a significant increase in use. Furthermore, he was informed that the Council has no plans to promote this route and it does not form part of a coastal access route.

APPENDIX 9 – HIGHWAYS ACT 1980

Section 26

Compulsory powers for creation of footpaths and bridleways

(1) Where it appears to a local authority that there is need for a footpath or bridleway over land in their area and they are satisfied that, having regard to—

(a) the extent to which the path or way would add to the convenience or enjoyment of a substantial section of the public, or to the convenience of persons resident in the area, and

(b) the effect which the creation of the path or way would have on the rights of persons interested in the land, account being taken of the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 (Appendix 10)

it is expedient that the path or way should be created, the authority may by order made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or confirmed by them as an unopposed order, create a footpath or bridleway over the land.

An order under this section is referred to in this Act as a “public path creation order”

APPENDIX 10 – HIGHWAYS ACT 1980

Section 28

Compensation for loss caused by public path creation order

(1) If on a claim made in accordance with this section, it is shown that the value of an interest of a person in land is depreciated, or that a person has suffered damage by being disturbed in his enjoyment of land, in consequence of the coming into operation of a public path creation order, the authority by whom the order was made shall pay to that person compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation or damage.

(In this section “interest”, in relation to land, includes any estate in land and any right over land, whether the right is exercisable by virtue of the ownership of an interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement, and in particular includes sporting rights.)

(4) This right to compensation does not confer on any person, in respect of a footpath or bridleway created by such an order, a right to compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land, or for disturbance in his enjoyment of land, not being in either case land over which the path or way was created or land held with it, unless the creation of the path or way would have been actionable at his suit if it had been effected otherwise than in the exercise of statutory powers.

Item No. 6

Report of the Head of Legal Services

Area 2 Development Control Committee – 16th March 2010

Alleged Public Right of Way from Bryn Terrace to Footpath 10, Community of Mumbles

Summary

PURPOSE: To consider an application which has been received from Mr J Pile to add a public footpath to the Definitive Map (as shown on the attached plan) and the additional evidence submitted.

POLICY FRAMEWORK: Paragraph 4.12 of the Countryside Access Plan. REASON FOR The City and County of Swansea are under a statutory DECISION: obligation to consider the above application made under s.53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to modify the Definitive Map and Statement for the City and County of Swansea. STATUTORY TESTS: s.31 Highways Act 1980 s.53 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

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

Countryside Council for Wales Local Member Ramblers Association The Open Spaces Society The Byways and Bridleways Trust West Wales Auto Cycle Union The Green, Openspaces and Heritage Alliance Mr L Locke Mumbles Community Council Landowner

RECOMMENDATION: 1. That a recommendation be made to Cabinet that this application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement be refused.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 An application was made on 7th July 2007 by Mr J Pile, for the addition to the Definitive Map of a footpath situated alongside 1 Bryn Terrace, as shown A-B on the attached plan.

1.2 The application was initially supported by 7 evidence forms alleging an average of 18 years use.

1.3 A further 3 claimants submitted information in support of the application. Therefore, there are currently 10 claimants in support of the application.

2. THE CLAIMED ROUTES

2.1 The claimed route commences alongside property No 1 Bryn Terrace and proceeds in a south westerly direction to join the registered footpath number MU10.

3. LAND OWNERSHIP

3.1 Between points A-B the land is owned by Mr D M Taylor and Mrs S Taylor. There has been no response to three letters of notification sent.

4. CONSULTATION

4.1 All the usual consultations have been undertaken on 20th September 2007 and the 14th May 2009 in accordance with Welsh Office Circular 05/93 but no responses were received.

5. CALLING INTO QUESTION

5.1 The evidence submitted does not point to any one incident which would constitute a calling into question for the purposes of s.31 of the Highways Act 1980. (see Appendix V Para. 5 for more details). Consequently, the application to modify should be treated as the calling into question. This gives a relevant period of 1987-2007.

6. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

6.1 Interviews were conducted with 9 of the claimants. One of the claimant’s use of the route falls outside the relevant period and should therefore be discounted. The evidence obtained can be found in Appendix VI.

7. COMMON LAW

7.1 For dedication to take place under common law no minimum period of use is required but the claimants must show that it can be inferred by the landowners conduct and that they have not only acquiesced to the use but also encouraged and facilitated use. (Appendix III).

7.2 As no information has been received from the landowner, there is no evidence to establish that the current or previous landowners have encouraged or facilitated use. Therefore, common law dedication cannot be said to have taken place.

8. SPECIAL USER GROUP

8.1 The vast majority of the claimants live within 100 metres of the claimed route.

8.2 This raises the question of whether the route can be said to be used by the public at large as opposed to a small number of local inhabitants who live in close proximity to the path. (see Appendix IV for more details).

8.3 While use must be by the public this does not mean that witnesses must have come from all over the country, as it is likely in most cases that they will be drawn from the local community. However, they must represent a wider cross section of the public rather than just the owners/occupiers of nearby properties.

8.4 Five of the claimants have stated that a number of residents from Bryn Terrace and Tichbourne Street park their cars in Western Close and use the path to access their properties. Such a use would appear to be more akin to a private easement as opposed to a public right of way. This suggests that many of the people use the route to access their properties rather than to access a highway from another highway.

8.5 The route lies in close proximity to an urbanised area and as such it would be expected that both the number of users and the degree of use should exceed that provided by the claimants.

8.6 There is insufficient evidence in this case to show that the route was used by the public at large as opposed to a small number of local residents. The claimants would therefore appear to constitute a special user group.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 There is insufficient evidence to raise a presumption of dedication. There is insufficient evidence to show that this route has been used by the public at large as opposed to a small number of local residents.

9.2 Common law dedication cannot be established

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS - None

RECOMMENDATION

That a recommendation be made to Cabinet that this application to modify the definitive map and statement be refused.

Contact Officer: M. Ward Tel: 01792 636696 Background Papers: ROW-118

APPENDIX I

HIGHWAYS ACT, 1980

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

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:-

(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

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

APPENDIX III

DEDICATION UNDER COMMON LAW

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

APPENDIX IV

SPECIAL USER GROUP

(b) In contrast to this view was the decision made by Lord Parke in Poole -v- Huskinson 1834 who concluded: “ there may be dedication to the public for a limited purpose…but there can not be dedication to a limited part of the public”. This case was quoted by an Inspector in 1997 appointed to consider an application to add a public bridleway to the Definitive Map for North Yorkshire County Council. Here the route had also been in use for 40 to 50 years. That Inspector concluded: “In the case before Lord Parke, residents of the same parish were held to constitute a limited part of the public and I therefore believe the inhabitants of the Parish of Cliffs should also be held to constitute a limited part”. The Inspector refused to confirm the Order. APPENDIX V

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

5.1 Under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 53(2), this Council is obliged to amend the Council’s record of public rights of way, known as the Definitive Map and Statement. 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 often are 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;

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

(c) the Council is also obliged to make amendments to the Map and Statement where it discovers evidence that shows a public path exists.

5.2 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.

5.3 Under the provisions of Section 31 to the Highways Act 1980 (Appendix I) 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. The provisions of Section 53(b) to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 therefore apply (Appendix II).

5.4 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.

5.5 Another means by which a path may be presumed to have been dedicated is under common law (Appendix III). 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.

APPENDIX VI

6.3 Seven claimants have used the route at various times throughout the relevant period but not for the full period of twenty years. Six of those interviewed, claim to have used the route for periods of between two and nine years, within the relevant period. One of these claimants states she has used the route for approximately ten years and another claims she has used the route for eighteen years.

6.4 The remaining two claimants state they have used the route for a full period of twenty years. One of these claimants is travelling from his home on Bryn Terrace (a private street) to Footpath MU10. However, a key characteristic necessary to establish a public right of way is that it must connect one highway to another. Consequently, such use cannot be said to provide evidence of a public right of way.

6.5 All of those interviewed agree that they have never been challenged whilst using the claimed route nor do they recall any stiles, gates or notices at any point.

6.6 One claimant stated that ‘ the path becomes overgrown very quickly in the spring/summer months and therefore, difficult to negotiate, with tall grass and brambles impinging on a fairly narrow, rough and uneven pathway.’ He also states that it ‘provides a quick route from the Higher Lane/ Plunch Lane area, to gain access to Mumbles.’

6.7 Evidence was received from one claimant who leads walks organised by the Mumbles Development Trust. He states that the path is part of two organised walks called “The Mumbles Way” and “A Ridge War Walk”. He claims that the Mumbles Development Trust have taken dozens of walkers along the route. However, no evidence has been received to support this. As such, it is difficult to attach any significant weight to this evidence.

OV ERL 4 HA A 1 ND LLB R A 6 OAD 59 3 5 NK 19.2m 4 2 6 PH 630 d e 150 65 l s PH O u

8 o 1 He h h e AL T Tk LB E ER A a R N 7 N A K B C BM 15.68m 4 E 5 StILES C A Rockhill Club oa L 1 He stg ad ua 1 qu rd N 164 arte R rs St Anne's Hotel 4 E 1 High T Nook S 3 E 7 2 Winnerene W

9 Wood Edge E 2 N 2 A 23.2m L 4

2 E G Dunraven A L 5 Cairnside IL 1 Maryland V Coastal Slope

BM 30.67m 1 5 2 2 1 6

1 6 3 30 2 2 32.3m 1 T EE B 0 TR 1 R 1 S NE 2 Y UR N 18 BO Alpine Cott T ICH 3 E T D M 6 R

R 9

U 3 A

1 1 C 15 1 2 0 5 E 39.0m

T 1 7

1 H 1 I Croydon S T 1 L E B R Holyrood O O 1 O 4 A Westward Sea Winds N 1 1 D 9 Ho 2Briarhurst

9 Thistleboon House

5 3 1

2 1 W 7 2 ES Caravan 7 T Park 1 ER 4 N 4 C 1 El LO 1 Sub H S Sta E E A T 49.7m H E R S L 1 A 7 St Ives D TCB E C 8 1 L 3 5 3 O 4 1 S 1 E 1 1 1 4 ON 1 THISTLEBO 2 51.2m 5 1

2 E W 2 3 0 9 7 1 E 5 V 3 N 1 1 5 I 53.9m A L SE L L LO R A C m S VE E 1 CO H .1 Y G 5 3 ND I 5 0 A BR H 4 56.7m M 4 3 B 13 T 1 H IS T L E 1 B 8 O 1 25 O 0 KEY 1 0 T 1 14 N 7 H IG S D T N 1 1 Alleged path L S 1 B 6 1 E 6 1 13 M 19 B 2 1 O 5 O 7 Registered footpath N . 4

G 3 D m N Scale: 1:1250 S 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: 16TH MARCH 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 2010/0053 69 High Street Gorseinon Swansea SA4 4BP REFUSE Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 2005/1901 granted on 25th January 2006 to extend the opening hours to 3.00 am on Fridays and Saturdays and 2.00 am Monday to Thursday

4 2009/1271 Compass Coffee Shop, Reynoldston, Swansea, SA3 REFUSE 1AN Change of use from coffee shop (Class A3) and first floor holiday flat (Class C3) to one detached dwelling (Class C3), front canopy, porch and two new accesses

5 2010/0096 17A Wellfield Bishopston Swansea SA3 3EP REFUSE Increase in ridge height and rear roof extension with juliette balconies to provide living accommodation in roof space

6 2009/0643 54 Brynaeron Dunvant Swansea SA2 7UX APPROVE Two detached split level dwellings with basement garages

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

7 2009/1009 Land off Fairwood Road, Dunvant, Swansea APPROVE 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

8 2009/1137 Brynhyfryd, Robins Lane, Reynoldston, Swansea, SA3 APPROVE 1AA Part replacement and part erection of 1.2 metre high side boundary fence.

9 2009/1376 Glenbryn Parkmill Swansea SA3 2EJ APPROVE 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

10 2009/1410 Kittle Hill Poultry Farm Kittle Swansea SA3 3JQ APPROVE Three replacement chicken sheds and one packaging shed

11 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

12 2009/1813 15 The Glebe Bishopston Swansea SA3 3JP APPROVE Detached dwelling and conversion of existing dwelling to residential annexe ancillary to proposed dwelling

13 2010/0092 Plot 1, Plenty Farm Llangennith Swansea REFUSE Detached dwelling with integral garage

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM APP. NO. SITE LOCATION OFFICER REC.

14 2010/0183 Field 0005, Bank Farm Horton Swansea SA3 1BA REFUSE Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 50 units from 20th July to 10th August 2010 (inclusive)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 1 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0175 WARD: Bishopston Area 2

Location: Land adjacent to Long Elms, 118 Bishopston Road, Bishopston, Swansea, SA3 3EU Proposal: Detached dwelling and detached garage Applicant: Mr John Bollom

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee meeting on the 23rd June 2009 to allow for the submission of further detail. My report has been updated to include addition letters of objection and a petition. In addition to this the report has been updated to include further supporting information in relation to the impact upon the protected trees and as such my recommendation has changed to APPROVAL.

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EV12 The character of lanes and public paths that contribute to the amenity, natural and historical qualities of an area will be protected. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV40 Development proposals will not be permitted that would cause or result in significant harm to health, local amenity, natural heritage, the historic environment or landscape character because of significant levels of air, noise or light pollution. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

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

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

Policy EV17 Within the boundaries of the large villages as identified on the Proposals Map, development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and, in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off, subject to the other defined criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

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

Policy EV30 Protection and improved management of woodlands, trees and hedgerows which are important for their visual amenity, historic environment, natural heritage, and/or recreation value will be encouraged. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2002/1921 To fell 2 Ash trees, 1 Cedar tree and 1 Cypress tree, and lop 2 Beech tree covered by TPO no 352 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 25/03/2003

2002/2222 Single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, single front/rear extension and construction of a two storey detached building comprising of residential accommodation on the first floor with garages/ storage area/car port on ground floor Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/03/2003

2002/2227 Single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, single front/rear extension and construction of a two storey detached building comprising of residential accommodation on the first floor with garages/storage area/car port on ground floor (Application for Listed Building Consent) Decision: Grant Listed Build Consent (C) Decision Date: 16/06/2003 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

2003/0803 Repositioning of two storey detached building comprising residential accommodation on the first floor with garages/storage area/car port on ground floor (amendment to planning permission 2002/2222 granted on 17th March 2003) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 03/07/2003

2003/0997 To fell 10 Sitka Spruce trees and 2 Cypress trees covered by TPO No. 352 Decision: Grant Tree Pres Order Consent (C) Decision Date: 10/07/2003

2003/2555 Construction of replacement dwelling to match the external appearance of the former timber framed dwelling Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 16/11/2004

2006/1738 Demolition of dwelling and retention of replacement dwelling to match the external appearance of the former timber framed dwelling (application for Listed Building Consent) Decision: Grant Listed Building Consent Unconditional (UC) Decision Date: 08/08/2008

2006/1737 Retention of replacement dwelling to match the external appearance of the former timber framed dwelling Decision: Grant Permission Unconditional Decision Date: 05/06/2008

2004/0535 Retention of land within residential curtilage (application for a Certificate of Lawfulness) Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 10/03/2005

93/1081 ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING HOUSE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 14/12/1993

93/1293 THE CLEARANCE OF SELECTED AREAS OF MAINLY CYPRESS TREES, THE CUTTING BACK AND COPPICING OF UNDERSTOREY AND REPLANTING IN WOODLAND SHOWN AS W1 ON THE PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO 352. Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 18/01/1994

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

94/0886 ERECTION OF ONE DWELLING HOUSE (AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS PLANNING PERMISSION 93/1081 DATED 14.12.93) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 23/08/1994

95/0029 TO FELL 4 AND LOP 2 TREES COVERED BY TPO 352 Decision: GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 28/02/1995

95/0485 FELLING OF CONIFERS COVERED BY TPO 352 Decision: *HGCC - GRANT CONSENT WITH CONDITIONS Decision Date: 09/06/1995

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as development which might materially affect the setting of a listed building. Neighbouring occupiers were also individually consulted. As a result 60 letters of objection have been received and a PETITION of 126 objectors. All letters are available for inspection on the planning application file. A summary of the main points is provided below:

Character & appearance of the area 1. The proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the AONB, Bishopston Valley and wider character of the area. The site is also visible from a Public Footpath and much further a field. 2. The existing property is already overdeveloped. The site is too small and will create a cramped and overintensive form of development. 3. There is concern about the threat to several TPO trees on the site, particularly as a result of the access alterations. The development would be contrary to Policy EV30 of the UDP. Several TPO trees have already been felled. 4. The development would have an adverse impact on the adjacent Grade II listed building. 5. The development by virtue of its scale and massing is out of keeping with the low density and semi-rural character of the surroundings and represents an overdevelopment and urbanizing of the site. 6. The development is of a poor quality design. 7. The proposal will result in the loss of an important green space under Policy EV24 of the UDP. 8. The development would encroach into the countryside. Residential amenity 9. There is concern about noise and disturbance during the construction stage. 10. There is concern about noise, dust and petrol fumes nuisance as a result of a further gravel drive. 11. There is concern about additional light pollution. The removal of several trees has already made the situation worse. 12. The development is inappropriate and unacceptable backland development which would have a significant adverse overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties contrary to Policy EV2 of the UDP. 13. To grant permission for the development would be in breach of the Human Rights Act as it would affect the right to the natural enjoyment of neighbouring properties. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

14. If permission is granted permitted development rights should be removed for new windows in the flank walls in order to preserve privacy. 15. Additional use of the existing lane would be harmful to the amenities of adjoining residents by virtue of noise and disturbance. 16. The detached garage would give rise to overlooking, a loss of sunlight and introduce additional noise and light pollution. 17. The buildings would be too close to the boundaries giving rise to loss of light and overshadowing and overbearing impact with little scope for additional planting. 18. There is a safety risk to adjoining residents as a result of the close proximity of the access to the adjoining dwelling’s flank wall. Highway safety 19. The proposed development would have an adverse impact upon highway and pedestrian safety as a result of additional traffic generation and poor visibility at the junction with Bishopston Road. 20. The assertion by the Head of Transportation that the additional traffic movements anticipated due to the occupation of the new dwelling is one traffic movement during peak periods is frankly unrealistic and for a house of this size the expectation must be that more than one vehicle would be in the control of the new household and movement would be far in excess of a single movement at peak periods. 21. The visual splays at the junction of the access lane with Bishopston Road do not approach the figures claimed by the applicant of 60m at 2m and 2.4m and are lower than the 25m claimed in the report on the right hand side and as such present a hazard for drivers leaving the lane and using the main road at this junction. Drainage 22. The septic tanks are too close to the existing and proposed dwellings. The development and existing dwelling should connect to the mains sewer as required by Policy EV33 of the UDP and WO Circular 10/99. 23. The development would have an unacceptable impact on current drainage infrastructure. 24. Question the reasoning why the proposal cannot link to mains drainage. 25. Even if available falls did not permit a gravity drainage system a small domestic pumped system (eg Flygt Micro 7) could be installed at modest cost. Other concerns 26. The proposed access alterations would have an adverse impact on the stability of the existing retaining walls. The proposed retaining wall is also unsatisfactory. 27. The development would set a precedent for further development which would be detrimental to the area. 28. The development would have an adverse impact upon the wildlife of the area. There has already been a degrading of wildlife habitat by previous actions of the applicant. 29. There is a history of planning refusals in the area for similar developments. 30. There is concern about the unlawful use of the existing annex as a business premises and permanent living accommodation. It is not being use as ancillary accommodation. 31. The development would result in a loss of view for adjoining residents and a loss of property value. 32. The site is subject to a restrictive covenant limiting the site to a single dwelling. 33. There is no shortage of large houses for sale in the area therefore this is just a profit making venture. 34. There is concern about the accuracy of the plans i.e. the access road and the manner in which No.116 Bishopston Road is depicted. 35. The lane boundary ownership is unclear and no notice has been served by the applicant. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

36. There is concern about the ‘tactic’ used by the applicant in seeking approval for this development then applying subsequently for a larger development. 37. Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV12, EV17, EV26, EV30, EV33, EV40 of the UDP are relevant to this application. 38. The Beech Tree is not located within the applicants control. 39. I advise that the ground levels of the site of the tree have been raised per the formation of the hedge bank. Hedgebank was constructed by me from a mixture of top and subsoil derived from the construction of my property (no 120). Originally the ground levels on access driveway and our property were roughly equal with the driveway dipping down at its very end to the road. This would mean that the root system of the subject tree would have been spread laterally beneath the driveway and would therefore inevitably be adversely affected by the retaining wall construction. It is not planted in the hedgebank with roots system inclined to vertical. 40. Concern over the content and credibility of the submitted Powell Dobson Report and Tree Care Wales Report. 41. The removal of the wall and infill as proposed will re-expose the roots and put the health of the tree at risk again. 42. The proposals for protecting the integrity of the banks and stability of the trees are inadequate. 43. The validity of the Powell Dobson Report dated 7th July has been brought into question and the following comments have been summarised below: • Assumptions of the report with regard the dating of the south hedgebank are wholly incorrect and poorly researched. • The extant trees No1 and No3 did not develop from the beech hedge. • The southern earth bank was constructed by ourselves prior to the construction of No 120. • It was also a condition of sale of the land to us (and possibly planning consent) that the beech hedge was planted to mitigate loss of vegetation per the development of our property. • What is unquestionable is that the beech tree No1 pre-existed the construction of the earth bank which was formed from soil excavated from the development of 120 circa 1995/6. • Messrs P&D are incorrect in their assumptions regarding the history of the site and their report must therefore be regarded as flawed and unreliable. • The roof plate of trees No’s 1 and 2 will have extended radially from its trunk and will have penetrated beneath the driveway to 118. It is absurd to assume that this will not have happened as suggested in the specialist tree report. • Tree No 2 may have been planted on the bank but it is my recollection as a former resident of 116 that the root system was never so exposed as is evident today. • The use of Tensartech green slope system as proposed is wholly inappropriate for the retention of the excavated/widened hedge bank. • Messrs P&D have completely misunderstood the functionality and purpose of this system. It is disturbing that a company of that reputation could be so careless in the promotion of it as a satisfactory detail to the concerns previously expressed by us. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

• It is (refer to appended literature) a reinforced or engineered earth system that relies on geotextile grids embedded within the embankment to retain a steeply sloping earth surface. A geotextile matting connected to embedded grids serve to retain vegetation on the steeply sloping surface. Its use will necessitate the excavation of the earth bank beyond the limits of our boundary to install the horizontal reinforcing grids, with even more risk to the trees and established hedge than for the masonry wall hitherto proposed. We will resist by any necessary means, any attempt to construct this method of bank retention should it encroach within our boundary or have adverse affect on the stability of the boundary construction. • It can be seen from the attached literature that its use has been incorrectly promoted by P&D. • They have clearly suggested its use without having understood the principles of its construction. The surface matting simply serves to retain cosmetic vegetation on the slope surface. It does not afford any retaining facility to the cut back earth bank. It has to be tied back into the reinforcing grid system for its positional stability. Without such a grid system in place it would fall away from the steeply sloping face leaving the exposed face vulnerable to erosion and collapse. • I make the foregoing comments as a Chartered Engineer familiar with the design and construction of reinforced earth systems for earth retaining purposes. • The historic sketches included in the report are inaccurate and the author of these is misinformed – the southern hedge bank did not exist at any time before 1996. The land to the south of the drive was delineated from the drive by a post and wire fence and sporadic hedging Lonicera. • The driveway was originally very much narrower than it is now, the boundary line having moved 1.2m to the south per arrangement of sale. • The revised arrangement as shown on sketch No 6 indicates widening of the drive for significant distances to facilitate construction of vehicle passing bays. This will prejudice the integrity of the hedgerows and protected trees (e.g Norway Maple) adjacent to the driveway. No embankment retaining measures appear to be proposed to mitigate this action for most of the affected distance. • Policy EV2 serves to protect the integrity of trees and hedgerows and this development proposal is in contradiction with that policy.

The validity of the Tree Report has also been questioned and again is summarised below:

• The report seems to assume that there will be a masonry wall constructed to retain the widened driveway and appears to be in conflict with the Architects report which promotes the Tensar system. • Whether the beech trees are native species is irrelevant – they are subject to a protection order and should not be adversely influenced by these proposals. • It is not understood why the root system of trees planted adjacent to the drive would not penetrate beneath the drive. The surfacing of the domestic drive is a thin crust overlying subsoil. There is ample evidence of roadside trees with root systems penetrating beneath hard surfaced ground within the County of Swansea e.g. around the periphery of the Guildhall. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Trees such as this rely on a radial root growth pattern of resistance to wind forces. If there were only roots beneath the garden of 120 with no root spread beneath the driveway the tree would have little resistance to northerly winds. The 50year + life of the trees suggests otherwise. The report does recognise that it is not possible to tell if there would be root damage caused by a new wall construction. • Again the author is misinformed about the history of the south hedge embankment and the contents of his report must therefore also be considered to be unreliable. • Should the proposals be given approval then consent would be simultaneously given the destruction of these trees in that their root systems would inevitably be affected. • The report does recognise that the roots of tree no 3 may be have been affected by soil compaction and might also be affected by driveway widening. • Why this applies only to tree No 3 and not the others is not understood. 44. The boundary line with my property is inaccurate. The registered boundary line is a straight line and has no deviation at all. 45. The impermeable slabs will inhibit soil aeration and will cause localised desiccation of the soil in which they are situated. 46. Proposal will result in the loss of protected trees under TPO 352 described as G1. 47. We would not want the removal of any of the 16 treed under G1. 48. Request that 5 further trees are added to TPO 352. 49. Why haven’t TPO trees which have been felled not been replaced? 50. Concern has been raised regarding the engineering and widening of the road.

Bishopston Community Council – Original plans – The proposed development is within the AONB and constitutes over development of the site with a very substantive property and garage. The access way to this site is too narrow to allow vehicles to pass so that reversing on to the principle road would be necessitated and constitute considerable danger to other traffic and also to pedestrians on the footway at the access way entrance. Amended Plan1 – We object. The Council reiterates its previous set of objections to this proposed development with additional observations that the sight lines proposed demonstrate no control over the height of the wall. Amended plans2 – We object. The Council reiterates its previous objection to the proposed entrance way and queries how the new entrance way proposed will be constructed within land ownership and furthermore questions whether this proposed amendment constitutes tandem development. Amended plans 3 – No objection but a specialist be consulted to ensure that the proposed revised entrance changes of increased weight of concrete and reduction of water penetration does not have an adverse impact on the tree roots Also that the Highways Section agree with or accept any increase in discharge of water onto the public highway as a consequence of the proposed changes.

The Gower Society – Original plans – The Gower Society has inspected the above application, visited the site and has the following observations to make: 1. This site lies within the AONB and on the edge of the open countryside. 2. We are concerned about the closeness and impact on/to the adjacent property (built on the site of the previous listed building). The large development will compromise this house as well as the other neighbouring properties. 3. The development is much too large for its location and plot. 4. The access is unsuitable for such development. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

5. The history of this site makes disturbing reading, and must be taken into account. 6. We are advised that a lot of tree clearance has been carried out in recent months. Was this legal? 7. If allowed, this development would set a dangerous precedent for the area. The Gower Society has strong reservations about this application; it asks that you take all of the above points into consideration when making your decision or recommendation to the Planning Committee. Amended plans – we wish our comments contained in the letter of 25th February 2009 to remain. There is nothing in this new application to change our view of this proposal. Amended plans – we note the additional information submitted but wishes its comments in its letters of 26th May and 25th February 2009 to remain on file.

Environment Agency – Original comments - We note that the applicant intends to utilize a septic tank for the disposal of foul water from the site. However, from information available to us, it appears that the site is located in a publicly sewered area (Bishopston STW). On the drainage proposals plan submitted, it is stated that “the levels do not enable a gravity foul drain to be constructed to serve the existing and new properties”. It also appears that the new property is to connect to an existing septic tank and that a new septic tank will be provided for the existing property. We would highlight that the installation of private sewage treatment facilities within publicly sewered areas is not normally considered environmentally acceptable, due to the greater risk of failures leading to pollution of the water environment compared to public sewerage systems. This stance is supported by government guidance on non-mains drainage in WO Circular 10/99 (paragraphs 3 and 4), which stresses that the first presumption must be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer. Only where having taken into account the cost and/or practicability it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, should non-mains foul sewage disposal solutions be considered. In this instance the justification provided by the applicant for non-connection to the mains sewerage system is currently not considered to be acceptable. Prior to determination, it must be shown that the applicant has approached Dwr Cymru Welsh Water and sought connection to the main system. Furthermore, WO Circular 10/99 advises that a full and detailed consideration be given to the environmental criteria listed in Annex A of the circular in order to justify the use of non- mains drainage facilities. In this instance, no such information has been submitted. We would therefore ask that determination of the application be deferred until information has been provided by the applicant which confirms that connection has been sought with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water; addresses the issues as set out in Annex A of WO Circular 10/99; demonstrates that disposal of foul effluent to ground from the proposed septic tank would be effective at this location. Please note that the site is underlain by a major aquifer. Prior to determination of the application, your Authority must be satisfied that the sewerage arrangements in place are suitable. If your Authority is minded to go against this advice, we would ask to be informed of all matters that influence this decision, prior to granting consent, allowing sufficient time for further representations to be made. Amended comments – I am writing following an email from the agent, Powell Dobson Ltd. Attached with the email is a site location plan, upon which Powell Dobson have marked out the length of the driveway, which is stated to be in excess of 50 metres. It is also stated that they are investigating connection to the main sewerage system, but have been informed that ‘due to the length and gradients involved, a pumped system would be the solution’. Due to the cost of installation and yearly maintenance, Powell Dobson have asked that we re-evaluate our response. Having walked the site, which appears to be fairly level, we are surprised that a pumped system would be required. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Furthermore, the installation and on-going maintenance costs of a septic tank or package treatment plant can be considerable. Private sewerage systems depend on proper operation and regular maintenance to function effectively. If this does not happen, the plants are prone to failure, causing pollution of land and/or watercourses, as well as potential nuisance and risk to human health. Many householders unaware of the potential impacts until the system fails or are unwilling to spend potentially significant sums of money on maintaining or replacing the plant when necessary. Connection to public sewer significantly reduces the risk of pollution from a householder’s sewerage system. As connection is being investigated, we would ask to see a copy of Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s response, prior to determination. However, I have spoken to Welsh Water’s Network Development Consultant’s who have confirmed that the distance to the nearest sewer from property No.118, which the proposed site lies adjacent to, is around 81 metres. As this distance is in excess of 30m, if your Authority are satisfied that the risk to controlled waters is manageable, then in this instance we would offer no further objection to the use of a non-mains drainage system within the sewered area. It should be noted that the siting of a septic tank will require the approval of your Authority’s Building Control Department; there must be no connection to a watercourse or land drainage system; no part of the system to be located within 10 metres of any ditch or watercourse; no siting of the septic tank within 50 metres or upslope of any well, spring or borehole used for private water supply. Soakaways are an acceptable method of surface water drainage, should ground conditions prove suitable. Please note that this method of drainage will require the approval of your Authority’s Building Control Department. The applicant should also be encouraged to investigate additional sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), for example permeable paving, grey-water harvesting systems, green roofs etc, as advocated by TAN15 (July 2004). Further information on SUDS is available. All appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase to ensure that the integrity of controlled waters (surface and groundwaters) is assured. Pollution prevention guidance is available from our website. If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the developer must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorized facility. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movement of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. Applicants should also be made aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on the site (for example as infill) then they will need to obtain the appropriate authorization from us. If the applicant wishes more specific advice on waste matters, they will need to contact the Swansea Environment Management Team at our Llandarcy office on 01792 325526 or look at the available guidance on our website

Amended Comments: Mr Baxter has asked whether we believe the risk to controlled waters is manageable should a non-mains drainage system be implemented.

As advised in our response of 6th April 2009, as Dwr Cymru Welsh Water have confirmed the distance to the nearest sewer is around 81m, we would offer no objection in this instance to the use of a non-mains drainage system such as a septic tank.

We also confirm that the guidance bullet points detailed in this previous response could be included as part of a condition on any planning permission approved.

Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water – No objection subject to standard conditions and advice. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Martin Caton MP – At our recent surgery Edwina Hart AM and I received representation from a number of residents of Bishopston, strongly opposing the above application on a variety of grounds. I undertook to raise their objections with you on behalf of both the AM and myself:- 1. Road Safety We were told that the site is accessed by a long, single track with no passing places. This already serves two dwellings and is used regularly by a considerable number of vehicles. There have already been dangerous incidents at the junction of this track with this busy section of Bishopston Road. Apparently, the visibility splay is less than satisfactory, even when vehicles come onto the main highway in a forward direction. However, because the track is single lane without passing or turning places, vehicles that have turned into the track and meet another vehicle coming out onto Bishopston Road end up reversing onto the highway. School children use the pavement at this location on their way to and from school. The construction of another very large dwelling, as well as workspace using this track, it is argued, will inevitably further undermine highway safety. 2. Loss of Flora and Fauna Residents informed us that a substantial hedgerow and some high quality trees, including some covered by Tree Preservation Orders, have been removed in recent years without being required to be replaced. This has reduced biodiversity in this part of Gower and further removals will increase that damage. 3. Loss of Visual Amenity for Nearby Footpath The loss of trees and hedges described above, we were told, has already reduced the visual quality for walkers using the nearby footpath in the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The construction of the proposed buildings would increase this negative impact. 4. Impact on the Residential Amenity of Neighbouring Properties Our constituents who live closest to the proposed development site were particularly concerned about the consequences of approving this application for their enjoyment of their own properties, including gardens. They reported that they already experience problems with light pollution and gravel noise from use of the existing buildings at 118 Bishopston Road. The close proximity of new, large buildings would further undermine their residential amenity. They regard the proposal as backland infill and argue that it should be resisted. We ask you to take all these issues into consideration in determining this application.

Highways observations – This proposal is for the erection of a new dwelling within the grounds of 118 Bishopston Road. Presently the site accommodates the main dwelling and an annexe building, therefore the access is considered to serve one residential unit. This proposal therefore will result in a separate unit of accommodation requiring the access to be improved for shared use.

The applicant has submitted details of an access improvement which will widen the drive to 4.5m wide at its junction with Bishopston Road. This accords with guidelines on shared private drive widths. In some circumstances a wider drive is recommended however in this instance I consider that 4.5m to be adequate. The improved width is indicated to allow one car to pass another at the junction, the drive then reverts to single width before opening out to access the existing and proposed properties. Passing facilities therefore are intervisible and this aspect accords with guidelines. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Visibility at the junction with Bishopston Road is indicated to be 2m x 60m to the left and 2.4m x 60m to the right for an emerging driver. The right hand splay is over an adjacent wall and therefore its retention cannot be guaranteed, it is acceptable to allow a minimum splay set back of 2m and with this dimension, the adjacent wall is not affected. The distance for which visibility is required is governed by the speed of vehicles on the main road and in this instance as traffic calming is present, guidelines suggest that 25m is sufficient, the distance of 60m indicated by the applicant (being the former requirement prior to new guidelines) is therefore more than sufficient for safety purposes.

Local concern has been raised regarding the safety of pedestrians when passing the access as visibility for them is restricted due to adjacent walls. This is the situation with the current access requirements and is often the case with many private accesses. The level of risk presented is considered acceptable due to the limited number of traffic movements generated, which in this case is expected to be one additional movement during the peak period, therefore in these circumstances there is not considered to be sufficient grounds for refusal for highway safety reasons.

I recommend no highway objection subject to no work commencing on site until the access has been improved to provide a minimum width of 4.5m for a distance of at least 6m from the edge of the Bishopston Road carriageway.

Edwina Hart (AM): Following observations:

• The access to the site is by way of a very narrow lane of little more than 3 metres in width. In order to widen this to the normally required 4.5 m and provide splays to enable adequate vision it will be necessary to remove a number of mature trees which I understand are subject to TPOs. Currently soil has been removed by the developer from the roots of two trees which, it is felt by residents, is designed to bring about the death of the trees in order to ease approval of the development. Meanwhile the trees represent a hazard in the event of strong winds. The access, in the event of a development of this size, would only be barely adequate when widened. There would be likely to be a number of cars associated with such a large dwelling which would involve 3 households on the site. It also seems to be the case that a business involving attendance of clients at the site is being conducted from the existing "garage/workshop". • There is concern that, if permitted, this development would lead to pressure for development on the other side of no 118, an area of mature trees and a haven for local wildlife. • The proposed development is of such a size as to be overbearing and intrusive. I accept that there are a number of very large properties in the area but these are all contained within large plots of land which reduces the crowding effect. This development is closer to its neighbours than the generality of large dwellings in the area and will have a negative effect on the area. • It is understood to be proposed that sewage from the property be disposed of by way of a septic tank. There is considerable concern that the existing property is connected to a septic tank and that constucting another dwelling with this method of disposal would be contrary to best practice and could lead to problems. At the same time it has to be noted that there are already problems concerning the adequacy of the sewers in the area in the event of a new property being connected to the main sewer system. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Bridges and Structures: I reviewed the calculations and they are ok.

Just to recap the previous concerns which have been addressed:

1. Ko coefficient has been used in the design of the stem base. 2. Bearing pressures have been checked and are low i.e. 8KN/m2. 3. The consultant is of the opinion that frost heave is unlikely whilst assuming the founding strata is susceptible to frost heave.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a detached dwelling and detached garage at land adjacent to Long Elms, 118 Bishopston Road. Long Elms itself is a Grade II listed building and Members will recall that Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent was granted in 2008 for the retrospective demolition of the original dwelling and the retention of the replacement dwelling. There is also a detached annex building within the curtilage of the dwelling the use of which is ‘tied’ to the dwelling by a specific condition.

The applicant has in recent years acquired additional land to the north of the annex building and this is the land upon which planning permission is being sought. The irregular shaped site is relatively flat and is currently laid to lawn with some perimeter trees. Existing boundaries comprise a mixture of fencing, walls, hedgerows and trees. To the west of the site are open fields (countryside), to the north is the curtilage of No.104 Bishopston Road and to the east are the individual gardens of several properties fronting Bishopston Road.

The proposed dwelling would be orientated in a north-east to south-west manner. The two storey dwelling would have a ridge height of approximately 8 metres and although the footprint of the building would be a maximum of 21 metres deep and 21 metres wide the main form of the dwelling would be approximately 16.5 metres wide and 10 metres deep (including roof overhang). Essentially the overall footprint is made up of a series of projections from the main form and significantly, at is closet point to the boundary with No.104 Bishopston Road, it drops down to single storey i.e. 4 metres high to ridge and 2.3 metres high to eaves. The single storey element itself would have a depth of approximately 18.4 metres (including roof overhang). The accommodation for the dwelling would comprise a living room, dining room, kitchen/breakfast room, utility room, bedroom with disabled facilities and toilet at ground floor level and five bedrooms (3 with en-suites) and a bathroom at first floor level.

The detached garage would have a ridge height of approximately 5.1 metres, a width of approximately 13.7 metres and depth of approximately 7.5 metres (including roof overhang). The building would have space to park two cars and an office/workshop with toilet.

Access to the dwelling would be via the existing driveway, which is proposed to be widened to 4.5 metres at the junction with Bishopston Road and external building materials would comprise of render and oak cladding for the walls with a stone plinth and red clay tiles for the roof. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

The main issues for consideration with this application are the principal of development, the impact upon the character and appearance of the area including Gower AONB, the amenities of neighbouring residents, highway safety and drainage having regard to the relevant policies of the Development Plan. There are not considered to be any overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

The Principal of Development

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

The application site is identified as falling within the village boundary for Bishopston on the UDP Proposals Map for the area. Policy EV17 of the UDP requires that within the boundaries of the large villages (which Bishopston is one of) development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and in locations outside the AONB, small scale rounding off. The site is essentially a small infill plot within the village and subject to conformity to other policies of the plan the principal of residential development on the site is acceptable.

Impact upon the Character and Appearance of the area

The application site is located within the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty whereby Policy EV26 of the UDP requires that the primary objective is the conservation and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. There are also several trees on the site and adjoining the site that are subject to Tree Preservation Order’s (TPO). Policy EV30 of the UDP encourages the protection of such features where they are important for their visual amenity.

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

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

The proposed siting of the dwelling is immediately to the north of the detached annex building where it would not be readily visible from Long Elms. As such it is not considered that it would adversely affect the setting of the listed building. The site is also sufficiently far away from the Bishopston Conservation Area so as not to impact upon its character or appearance.

In terms of street scene impact the proposed dwelling would not be readily visible from Bishopston Road and would not therefore be harmful to its character. The site is located just within the Gower AONB boundary and glimpses of the site are possible from a public footpath at some distance to the north. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

However, from the footpath the proposed dwelling would be seen against a background of the existing dwelling and annex and given the limited opportunity for elevated views to the site it is not considered that the proposed development would have a significantly harmful impact upon the wider AONB such that a recommendation of refusal could be justified.

Concern has been expressed that the development would represent an over development of the site, however, it is considered that with a depth of over 50 metres and width ranging from 14 metres at its narrowest to 45 metres at its widest, the site is large enough to be more than capable of accommodating the dwelling and garage without appearing over intensive for the site or the area.

The design of the dwelling and garage is fairly simple and through the use of hipped roofs and materials that would be in keeping with the existing annex building it is considered to be sympathetic to its immediate surroundings. The ridge height of the dwelling at 8 metres is also considered modest.

A significant amount of concern has been conveyed about the impact of the development upon existing trees that are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. No protected trees in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling or garage would need to be felled to facilitate the development and any works needed to them could be adequately controlled by the imposition of conditions.

Members will recall that previously this application was reported to Committee with a recommendation of refusal, as concern was raised by the Councils Tree Preservation Officer that by widening the access on the left to avoid damage to the Beech on the right the problem would be transferred to the Beech tree in the garden of No.120 as well as the double stemmed Beech on the left where the roots would need to be cut back. Essentially it would not be possible to widen the access without cutting into the root system of the Beech tree at No.120 thereby rendering the tree as a potential danger to road users. This would ultimately lead to a requirement to fell this very attractive and dominant Beech tree, which it was considered would be significantly detrimental to the visual amenities of the area contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.

The application was subsequently deferred at the Area 2 Development Control Meeting on the 23rd June 2009 in order to allow the applicant to submit further information. Additional information was submitted which included a Tree Report, revised access details and engineering calculations. Following further consultation between the Head of Transportation and Engineering and Bridges and Structures the proposed alterations are considered acceptable.

In terms of the Tree Report, in further consideration with our Tree Preservation Officer it is considered that subject to certain measures being undertaken during the road construction the damage to the trees would be minimal and should not affect their stability or long term health. The bank to be excavated should be done by hand, thus avoiding damage to the bark covering the roots and any exposed roots covered in dry clean Hessian sacking to prevent desiccation and to protect from rapid temperature changes. Roots smaller than 25mm may be pruned back to a side branch, however anything larger should only be severed following consultation with the Local Planning Authority. Prior to backfilling the Hessian should be removed and roots surrounded with sharp sand before backfilling with soil. All work should be conditioned to be in accordance with BS 5837:2005 (para 11.3 Principles for avoiding tree root damage during construction). AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

The removal of the existing tarmac may or may not reveal surface roots underneath. However provided that no further excavations are carried out and new in situ concrete slab is put down on top of the cleared surface then little or no damage to the roots would occur. Even if there are major roots directly beneath the tarmac, these could be covered with granular material and the area levelled off before putting on the new surface. In any event the developer will be required to contact the Local Planning Authority once the old tarmac is removed so that a further inspection can be made by the Tree Preservation Officer. In addition to this, a condition will be recommended on any approval requiring the new road surface to incorporate falls and openings in order to provide water and air to enter the soil. This would be achieved by making 50mm diameter holes in the slab at spacings between 300 to 600mm and the holes subsequently filled with fine gravel or aggregate. Therefore subject to the above recommendations being carried out, the proposal should have an acceptable impact upon the protected Trees in compliance with Policies EV1 and EV30 of the Swansea UDP.

Third party concern has been raised relating to the loss of TPO’s on the site, however having consulted the Councils Tree Preservation Officer it has been confirmed that the removal of a number of the TPO trees were permitted as a result of applications made in 2002 and 2003. Also a number of other trees collapsed and others were felled as a result of being in a dangerous condition. Following significant Site Visits over the past few years the TPO Officer is satisfied that for the majority of the trees removed was as a result of the trees having died or become dangerous, and those removed following planning consent, have been replaced. These are obviously still immature trees and will take a while to become established and contribute to the amenities of the area.

Furthermore it has been clarified that group G1 of the order covers only 2 trees, (1 Ash and 1 Sycamore), not the mixed group of 16 deciduous trees you referred by the third party. The only trees given a blanket cover and referred to as 'mixed deciduous and evergreen trees are those in woodland W1 to the south of the driveway. There is a group of trees in the area which has been referred to but these are for the most part self seeded trees of poor quality and the landscaping scheme does show some of these to be removed with some new planting along that boundary.

With regard the pruning of the hedge referred to in the application 2009/0175 this would be a civil issue between the relevant parties and is not a material planning consideration.

Impact upon Residential Amenity

Policy EV1 and HC2 of the UDP require new development to not result in a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity in terms of visual impact, loss of light or privacy and disturbance. Policy EV40 adds to these criteria by requiring regard to be given to noise and light pollution.

The proposed dwelling would be orientated so that its frontage would be facing towards the rear boundaries of several properties fronting Bishopston Road and its rear facing towards the open fields. At a distance in excess of 20 metres to the boundary with those properties on Bishopston Road, which themselves have rear gardens in excess of 25 metres deep, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling could be regarded as being harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of these properties by virtue of any overlooking, overbearing or overshadowing impact. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Similarly the proposed garage building would have a limited ridge height of approximately 5.1 metres, eaves height of approximately 2.5 metres and be over 3 metres from the boundary so that its impact upon these neighbouring residents would, it is considered, also be negligible. The garage building would have rooflights close to the boundary although none of these rooflights would afford views out of the building other than towards the sky.

No.104 Bishopston Road, with its annexes, adjoins the northern boundary of the application site. In terms of overbearing and overshadowing impacts the garden of this property is most likely to be affected by the development given that the proposed dwelling comes to within 1 metre of this boundary. However, at its closest point the building drops to single storey and whilst the main form of the dwelling would be 8 metres high it is the gable of the dwelling that would present itself to the boundary. Although this may cast a small amount of shadow over the garden of No.104 the harm generated is unlikely to be so significant as to warrant a reason for refusal. Neither is the dwelling likely to be significantly overbearing towards this property, particularly given the extensive size of this property’s garden. In terms of the visual impact the proposed dwelling would be seen against the background of the existing annex building. Similar to the impacts upon the properties fronting Bishopston Road the limited height of the detached garage and its hipped roof form ensure that it would not be significantly overbearing or give rise to harmful overshadowing of this property.

In terms of overlooking impact to this property and properties further north there are no first floor side windows proposed in the dwelling therefore there would be no direct loss of privacy. Only very oblique views would be available towards the garden from front and rear facing windows, none of which would be significantly harmful. There are some rooflights proposed at ground level, but similar to the garage building, these windows would only afford views to the sky. If mindful to approve permission a condition could be imposed preventing the insertion of any new first floor side windows in the dwelling.

There are some first floor windows in the existing annex to No.118 Bishopston Road that would overlook the garden of the proposed dwelling. However, if mindful to grant permission a condition could be imposed to obscure glaze these windows given that they are secondary windows to the rooms that they serve.

Concern has been expressed about additional light pollution from the proposed dwelling. Given the precise nature of these concerns if the Authority was mindful to approve permission it would be reasonable to impose a condition requiring details of all external lighting to be agreed prior to installation. Noise, dust and petrol fumes as a result of the proposed gravel track are not considered to be matters of overriding concern. Similarly, disturbance during the construction stage is an inevitable consequence of development and only a temporary inconvenience that could not warrant refusal.

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

In terms of disturbance, concerns have been conveyed about the intensified use of the access drive so close to the gardens and living accommodation of adjoining properties. However, given the separation between the access drive and the sides of the dwellings themselves, the existing boundary screening and the fact that the drive is already in use it is not considered that the activity and vehicle movements associated with one additional dwelling would be so great as to be significantly harmful to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers through noise and disturbance. Other existing properties in the area are likely to be affected to a lesser extent as a result of these factors.

Highway Safety

Policy EV1 and HC2 of the UDP require new development to not result in significant harm to highway safety.

The existing driveway currently serves one dwelling. Whilst there is a detached annex building adjacent to the dwelling the planning permission for this building restricts its use as an integral part of the existing dwelling and shall not be sold, let or otherwise occupied, as a separate unit of accommodation. In planning terms the proposal would essentially result in two dwellings being served by the existing access.

The proposal incorporates alterations to the existing driveway access where it adjoins Bishopston Road by widening it to 4.5 metres in order to enable two vehicles to pass one another. Although the alterations would have the aforementioned impact on the protected trees the Head of Transportation and Engineering considers that they are acceptable and sufficient visibility is also provided.

Local concern has been raised regarding the safety of pedestrians when passing the access as visibility for them is restricted due to adjacent walls. This is the situation with the current access requirements and is often the case with many private accesses. The level of risk presented is considered acceptable to the Head of Transportation and Engineering due to the limited number of traffic movements generated, which in this case is expected to be one additional movement during the peak period. Overall, therefore, he raises no highway safety objections to the development subject to the alterations to widen the access being carried out prior to the commencement of the remainder of the development.

Drainage

The application proposes the use of a septic tank to dispose of foul sewage. Policy EV33 of the UDP suggests that planning permission will only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer, however, in exceptional circumstances where this is not feasible consideration will be given to the use of private drainage systems provided that the criteria set out in Welsh Office Circular 10/99 are met. The Circular states that if, by taking into account the cost and/or practicability, it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, a package treatment plant incorporating a combination of treatment processes should be considered. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Consultation has taken place with the Environment Agency (EA) who originally objected to the proposal on this matter. However, following an exchange of information between the applicant and the EA the latter has confirmed that, as the distance to the nearest mains sewer is in excess of 30 metres away from the site, they would offer no further objection to the use of a non-mains drainage system, provided that the local planning authority are satisfied that the risk to controlled waters is manageable. In this respect, if mindful to recommend approval of planning permission, an appropriately worded condition could be imposed dealing with the more technical details of the proposed septic tank. This has been confirmed as acceptable by the Environment Agency.

Other issues

In terms of ecological and wildlife impacts the Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that subject to the retention of trees on the site there would no adverse impact upon the ecology of the area.

The use of the existing annex has been called into question and as a result this matter will be passed to the Enforcement Section for investigation. However, there is a restrictive condition attached to the planning permission for this building which provides adequate control over its use.

Loss of views and property value are not material planning considerations. Similarly any restrictive covenant on the land is a separate matter that is covered by other legislation. The accuracy of the plans has been questioned, in particular the manner in which neighbouring properties is illustrated. A site visit has been undertaken to establish this and whilst there may be some anomalies outside of the site boundary a planning judgement on the merits of the development is still able to made based upon the site visit.

Concern has been raised by the adjoining neighbour that not all of the land outlined in red is within the control of the applicant. The Local Planning Authority has raised this with the applicant and they have confirmed in writing that all the land outlined in red is within their control and as such the LPA is satisfied that they have fulfilled their statutory obligation and furthermore any further issues arising from this are a Civil Matter between the relative parties and not a material planning consideration.

The setting of a precedent and other similar history in the vicinity of the site are not considered to give rise to overriding concerns given that it is incumbent that the application is considered on its own merits.

In terms of the stability of any proposed retaining walls at the access the additional information as been assessed by our Bridges and Structures Team who are satisfied with the works.

Concern has been raised with regard the accuracy of the additional information provided by the applicant, however following further consideration with the Councils Tree Preservation Officer, Highways and Bridges and Structures, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the level of information submitted by the Applicant is sufficient in order to determine the application. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Conclusion

In light of the above appraisal it is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its impact upon visual and residential amenity. Furthermore the submission of the additional information has demonstrated that subject to conditions the proposed highway improvements can be carried out without causing an unacceptable impact upon the protected trees and as such the proposal is considered to comply with Policies HC2, EV1, EV12, EV2, EV3, EV17, EV26, EV33 and EV30 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and a recommendation of approval is justified.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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

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

3 No further windows, doors or openings shall be inserted in the 1st floor flank elevations of the dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

4 No development in relation to the construction of the new dwelling and garage shall be commenced until such time as the existing access has been widened in accordance with the approved plans SW1006L(5)102 G dated 22nd January 2010. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

5 No external lighting shall be installed at the site unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual and residential amenity.

6 The garage hereby permitted shall be used for the parking of vehicles and as an office/workshop and shall not be converted to living accommodation. The building shall also be used wholly in conjunction with the existing dwelling and shall not be let, sublet or otherwise disposed of as a separate unit of accommodation at any time. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

7 No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of a scheme for the landscaping of the site. The landscaping scheme shall be carried out within 12 months from the completion of the development. Any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, become seriously diseased within two years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development, and to accord with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

9 No development for the excavation or widening of the existing carriageway shall be commenced until such time as a method statement detailing the excavation and construction methodology for the works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall demonstrate that adequate protection will be afforded to the existing protected trees growing on and adjacent to the site during the works and thereafter and in particular shall include the following:

a) The bank shall be excavated by hand avoiding damage to the bark covering larger roots and any exposed roots covered in dry clean Hessian sacking to prevent desiccation and to protect from rapid temperature changes. Roots smaller than 25mm may be pruned back to a side branch. Anything larger than that should only be severed following consultation with the Council's Tree Officer, Martin Appleby. b) Prior to backfilling the Hessian should be removed and roots surrounded with sharp sand (not builders sand or sand with high salt contents) before backfilling with soil. All work should be in accordance with BS5837:2005 (para. 11.3 principles for avoiding tree root damage during construction). c) The in-situ concrete road shall incorporate falls and openings to enable water and air to enter the soil. This should be achieved by making 50mm diameter holes in the slab at spacing's between 300 to 600mm and filling the holes with no fines gravel or aggregate.

The works shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: In the interest of protecting trees growing on and adjacent to the site.

10 Upon excavation of the existing access drive the applicant must contact the Council's Tree Officer, Martin Appleby, to arrange a meeting on site to inspect any tree roots. Reason: In the interest of protecting trees growing on and adjacent to the site. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

11 Before development commences a scheme shall be submitted to show the obscure glazing, or alternative, of the existing first floor side windows in the existing annexe building facing towards the new dwelling. The works shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the beneficial occupation of the new dwelling. Reason: In the interest of privacy protection.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: EV1, EV2, EV3, EV12 EV17, EV26, EV30, EV33, EV40 and HC2.

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

3 Soakaways are an acceptable method of surface water drainage, should ground conditions prove suitable. Please note that this method of drainage will require the approval of your Authority's Building Control Department. The applicant should also consider additional sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), for example permeable paving, grey-water harvesting systems, green roofs etc, as advocated by TAN15 (July 2004). Further information on SUDS is available from www.ciria.org.uk and www.sudswales.com

4 All appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase to ensure that the integrity of controlled waters (surface and groundwaters) is assured. Pollution prevention guidance is available at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ppg

5 If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the developer must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably authorised facility. The Duty of Care regulations for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate licensed disposal site and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

6 Applicants should be aware that if any controlled waste is to be used on this site (for example as infill) then they will need to obtain the appropriate authorisation from the Environment Agency.

7 If you require more specific advice on waste matters then you will need to contact the Swansea Environment Management Team at our Llandarcy Office on 01792 325526 or look at the available guidance on our website at www.environment- agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

8 Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system. No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment. If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.

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

PLANS

Drawing Number SW1006(5)001- existing site plan, SW1006AL(5)003 Rev B- proposed ground floor plan, SW1006AL(5)004 Rev B- proposed first floor plan, SW1006AL(5)005 Rev B- proposed elevations East & North, SW1006AL(5)006 Rev B- proposed elevations West & South, SW1006AL(5)07- General Arrangement House Section A-A, SW1006AL(5)08- General Arrangement House Section B-B, SW1006AL(5)09- General Arrangement House Section C-C, SW1006AL(5)10- General Arrangement House Section D-D, SW1006(5)101 Rev D- option two -proposed site plan & ground floor to garage, SW1006AL(5)120 Rev E option two- proposed garage floor plan, SW1006AL(5)122 Rev C option two- proposed garage elevations West & North, Sw1006AL(5)123 Rev C-proposed garage elevations East & South, SW1006AL(5)129- site location plan, SW1006AL(5)130- existing site features & landscape, SW1006AL(5)131-proposed site features and landscape, SW1006AL(5)132- proposed foul & surface water drainage received 5th February 2009. Additional proposed improvements details received 8th July 2009, Additional information basis of civil/structural design report received 30th September 2009 and SW1006L(5)102 Rev G and SW1006L(5)100 Rev A dated 22nd January 2010.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 2 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1731 WARD: West Cross Area 2

Location: The Laurels, 34A West Cross Lane, West Cross, Swansea, SA3 5LS Proposal: Increase in ridge height to provide first floor accommodation with front and side dormers and retention of alterations to parking and access Applicant: Mr Paul Davison

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2009/0359 Increase in ridge height and addition of first floor to create two storey dwelling Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25/06/2009

85/0007/10 SECTION 60 APPLICATION TO RAISE CROWNS OF 2 YEWS COVERED BY TPO 134. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 28/02/1985

86/0040/03 ERECTION OF A BUNGALOW. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 24/04/1986

85/0863/10 SECTION 60 APPLICATION TO FELL CEDAR COVERED BY TPO 134. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The neighbouring properties were consulted THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received in respect of the original proposal and a PETITION numbering FIFTY SIX signatories. The content of the correspondence is summarised below:

1. We will lose all privacy as three bedroom windows (proposed) will be overlooking two of our bedrooms, kitchen, lounge and garden, the bungalow was built very close to our boundary.

2. The present bungalow foundations are already about 6-7ft above our garden, this would make the proposed house about 30-35ft high overlooking our house and garden.

3. The proposed increase in ridge height will have a detrimental visual impact on the area

4. The height would also affect the amount of light entering our house and garden, we would be in deep shadow of the proposed modifications as we are already in the shadow of the bungalow.

5. The plans submitted do not blend well with neighbouring houses which were built around 1930.

6. The increase by a complete storey is unacceptable it would raise the roof well above the general roof line of the houses downhill from No34a

7. The bedroom windows will overlook our garden and main habitable rooms.

8. The rear wall of the proposed development is 1.0 metres away from our common boundary

9. The proposed house is totally out of character with neighbouring 1930’s properties.

10. The existing bungalow is well screened.

11. You have granted outline planning permission for infill development on the land behind us

12. The council awarded itself planning permission for a school that is not in keeping with the overall character of the area.

13. The retaining works between the application site and No.1 Grange Road are cracking and in need of repair.

14. The proposal will reduce light levels to my hall and side living room window.

The signatories to the petition signed in respect of the following statement. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

“We the under signed wish to object to the proposal on the grounds on its adverse visual impact on the area, loss of privacy to surrounding properties and requires the removal of mature trees and shrubs.”

Further to the receipt of amended plans a re-consultation exercise was undertaken and the following comments were received from previous objectors:

1. Our observations remain the same and the petition still stands. 2. The only material change is that the ridge height is slightly lower and the dormer windows are now skylights. 3. The proposed development would have a detrimental visual impact on the area. 4. We notified you that the developer was removing a hedge and trees in spite of a planning Condition. We are extremely disappointed by your department’s failure to act or check the facts. 5. The elevation facing my garden would be a large rectangle of artificial slate and skylights for 45% of my boundary. 6. My previous objections stand in respect of the proposed scheme. 7. The development of the house from my back garden will be unacceptably overbearing and will still result in a loss of privacy. 8. My property will be in ever increasing shadow. 9. The modest alterations to the proposal do not alter the fact that the new property will still be significantly visible from West Cross Lane. 10. It was previously determined that the residential impact would be significant and unacceptably overbearing and have an overshadowing impact on neighbours. The amendments do not remove these objections and the changes are not radical enough. 11. Any increase in ridge height will have a seriously detrimental effect on the quality of life for me and my family.

Mumbles Community Council: OBJECTS on the following grounds

• Out of keeping with existing houses and visual aspect.

Highways & Transportation – This proposed extension will add additional bedrooms to the property. Access is to be relocated from the western end to the eastern end of the site leading to a new drive and turning area together with a garage facility. There is room for at least 3 cars on the drive and a 4th car in the garage, therefore more than adequate parking will be available.

No highway objection subject to:

1. The construction of a vehicular crossing to Highway Authority Specification. 2. The removal of the old access and reinstatement of the footway.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Mark Child. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

Full planning permission is sought for an increase in the ridge height to provide first floor accommodation with front and side dormers at 34a The Laurels, West Cross with retention of alterations to the parking and access. The application property is a detached bungalow set in a relatively well screened and elevated plot close to the junction of West Cross Avenue and Grange Road. The streetscene is characterised by properties with a varied design and character however the more dominant property type may be described as substantial detached properties set in large plots.

Outline planning permission was granted under application Ref: 85/0525/01 for the construction of a “Luxury house or bungalow” at this location on the 27th June 1985. A subsequent reserved matters application Ref: 86/0040/03 was granted on 24th April 1986 allowing the erection of a bungalow. The two bedroom bungalow subsequently erected was constructed on an ‘L’ shaped footprint with the east facing elevation adjacent to the common boundary with No.34 measuring approximately 18.0 metres in length. The overall footprint of the bungalow as existing is approximately 234.8 square metres with a maximum height to the eaves of 2.4 metres and to the ridge of 4.8 metres. This permission was subject to a range of conditions one of which related to the retention of the hedge and trees that served to form the boundary treatment of the site at that time.

The scheme currently being considered will not result in an increase in eaves height which will remain at approximately 2.4 metres. The proposal will see an increase in ridge height from 4.8 metres to approximately 6.7 metres. The wing currently incorporating a garage will see an increase in ridge height from 4.5 metres to approximately 6.7 metres.

The alterations to the access and parking arrangements that have been undertaken on site give rise to a breach of condition in respect of the original application Ref: 86/0040/03. However, it is considered expedient to consider the merits of this application and determine it accordingly prior to instigating any enforcement proceedings.

Discussions have taken place between Officers for the Local Planning Authority and the applicant with a view to reducing the scale of the scheme and amended plans seeking to address the concerns raised have been forthcoming.

In respect of visual amenity looking west from the junction of Grange Road and West Cross Lane towards the application site the bungalow is largely hidden from view and does not detract from the character of the surrounding area. The increase in height proposed under this scheme is approximately 1.8 metres lower at the ridge than that previously refused under application Ref: 2009/0359 and the proposed alterations to the garage wing running east to west will see the eaves height remaining as is and the alterations to the roof forming a full hip. This element of the proposal will see the ridge height increased to 6.7 metres, approximately 1.2 metres less than the previous proposal.

It is considered that given the change in levels, the boundary treatment and the alterations proposed that the scheme would be sensitive to the character and appearance of the street scene as viewed from West Cross Lane. The retention of the existing eaves height would ensure that the resultant development would be sufficiently low lying as not to present the same visual impact as that originally proposed under application Ref: 2009/0359. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

The original vehicular access located in the south east corner of the site has been blocked and a new access has been created to the south west corner of the site. Whilst concerns have been raised in respect of the Tree Preservation Order relating to the Strawberry Tree at this location the Councils Tree Officer has confirmed by way of a site visit that the tree would be unaffected by the works. In addition to this the plants and shrubs removed from the south west boundary of the site were transplanted to the previous opening and replanted at this location providing a range of mature vegetation to the boundary. Visually the works to the boundary are considered acceptable subject to the block work wall enclosing the original opening being clad in stone to match the adjoining wall sections at this location.

Turning to the impact upon residential amenity, it was considered under the previous proposal that given the location of the existing property approximately 1.0 Metres off the common boundary with No.34 West Cross Lane, approximately 2.0 metres off the common boundary with No.18 West Cross Lane at its closest point and approximately 2.0 metres off the common boundary with No.1 Grange Road that the increase in height of the property in question, would give rise to a harmful overbearing impact upon these properties. The present scheme has, however, been amended in such a way as to overcome these concerns.

In terms of the impact upon No. 18 West Cross Lane whilst the ridge height of the dwelling adjacent to this dwelling will increase, the effect of this would be offsett by the hipping of the roof at this point so that the existing gable facing this property would be removed. As such it is not considered that the proposal will give rise to any significant increase in overbearing or overshadowing impacts upon this property. No additional fenestration is proposed to this elevation of the scheme and as such there are no additional overlooking impacts to consider in respect of this aspect of the proposal. The three dormer additions on the east facing roof plane, orientated towards the side amenity area of No.18 West Cross Lane, will not it is considered, given the nature of use of this area, the steep change in levels and the separation distance of approximately 16.0 metres to the boundary and approximately 21.0 meters to the side elevation of No.18, give rise to any additional unacceptable overlooking impacts.

In respect of No.34 West Cross Lane, whilst the separation distance is limited it is not considered that any significant residential impacts will arise. The extant footprint of the bungalow would remain as is and the principle issue for consideration is whether the proposed increase in ridge height introduces significant additional overbearing or overshadowing impacts such that a recommendation of refusal may be warranted. Given the more elevated position of No.34 West Cross Lane relative to the application site and the path of the sun it is not considered that any significant overshadowing or overbearing impacts will arise.

The roof lights on the western roof plane would serve a bathroom and two bedrooms. However, they would be positioned high in the roof to ensure no overlooking and subject to the imposition of a condition requiring them to be positioned a minimum of 1.8 metres above internal floor levels no harmful overlooking would occur. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

In terms of No.1 Grange Road, whilst the proposed scheme would be visible from the plot associated with this dwelling, particularly an elevated area of rear amenity space, it is considered that the topography of the site, separation distance and orientation of the dwelling would be sufficient to ensure that no significant impacts would be experienced that would prove detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of this dwelling by virtue of overshadowing or overbearing effects. Similarly there are no additional windows that could overlook this property.

There are not considered to be any residential impacts arising from the alterations of the access and parking arrangements and the Head of Transportation and Engineering offers no objections subject to the construction of a vehicular crossing to Highway Authority Specification and the removal of the old access and reinstatement of the footway.

In respect of the third party concerns raised those issues that are material to the determination of the application have been considered in the main body of the report above. Issues relating to the condition of retaining walls forming the boundary are covered by different legislation and an informative is recommended advising of responsibilities under the Party Wall Act.

CONCLUSION

In light of the above considerations the proposal is considered to be acceptable in respect of its impact upon the character and appearance of the existing property and will not, it is considered detract from the visual amenities of the streetscene to which it relates. The scheme will not, on balance, have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and the proposed development will therefore, it is considered comply with the requirements of Policies EV1 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008 and the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any further material planning considerations, and approval is, therefore, recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 Within 3 months of the date of this permission the boundary wall fronting West Cross Lane shall be finished with stone to match the adjoining sections of wall. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

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

3 Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved the rooflight windows in the west facing elevation orientated toward No.34 West Cross Lane shall be set a minimum of 1.8 metres above the internal floor level of the proposed accommodation in the roof space. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and privacy protection

INFORMATIVES

10 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..

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

12 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).

13 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.

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

15 PARTY WALL ETC ACT 1996 The developer is advised that the provisions of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 may be applicable to the proposal and is advised to seek appropriate advice prior to any work commencing on site.

PLANS

34aWX/01 existing floor plans and elevations received 23rd November 2009. Amended plans 34aWX/03 Rev A block plan and proposed elevations received 8th February 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 3 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0053 WARD: Gorseinon Area 2

Location: 69 High Street Gorseinon Swansea SA4 4BP Proposal: Variation of condition 1 of planning permission 2005/1901 granted on 25th January 2006 to extend the opening hours to 3.00 am on Fridays and Saturdays and 2.00 am Monday to Thursday Applicant: Mr Omer Yildirim

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EC5 Development within designated district centres will be encouraged where it is of a type and scale that maintains or improves the range and quality of shopping facilities and meets other specified criteria. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal LV/84/0532/03 NEW SHOPFRONT Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 04/12/1984

LV/84/0533/06 ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGN Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 04/12/1984

A00/0019 CHANGE OF USE FROM LINEN SHOP (CLASS A1) TO COFFEE SHOP (CLASS A3) AND ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/03/2000 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0053

2002/1751 Change of use of first floor storage area ancillary to cafe (Class A3) on ground floor, to one self contained flat (Class C3) erection of external staircase on side elevation, insertion of two windows on rear elevation, alteration to existing two windows on front elevation and addition of velux rooflight in roofspace Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/11/2002

2005/1901 Variation of conditions 03 and 04 of planning permission A00/0019 granted on 7th March 2000 to allow for the extension of the opening hours to 22.30 p.m. and to allow a take-away facility Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 25/01/2006

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and four neighbouring properties consulted. THREE INDIVIDUAL LETTERS OF OBJECTION received and ONE PETITION OF OBJECTION containing 48 signatures received. The objections are summarised as follows:

• There are already sufficient numbers of takeaways along High street operating late into the evening. • If the application is approved then the noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour already experienced will be prolonged virtually throughout the night 7 days a week. • The premises is located near a busy dangerous junction that contains zig-zag road markings. The proposal will encourage more illegal and dangerous parking.

PETITION OF OBJECTION

• Late night affrays and general disturbance • Concerns over public safety within the village with drunken revellers on the streets until the very early hours. • The proximity of the premises to Zig-zag markings and the highway safety implications of indiscriminate parking associated with visitors to the premises.

Gorseinon Town Council – OBJECT to the extension of opening hours of this facility into the early hours of the morning, because of the adverse impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining residential flats above the premises in High Street and the anti-social problems being caused by late night opening within the High Street. Concern is also expressed about the precedent created of other commercial operations locally by allowing the extended hours.

Highway Observations – This proposal to extend opening hours of the establishment to 2 and 3 am is not likely to have an adverse impact in highway safety terms. I therefore recommend that no highway objections are raised. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0053

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to committee for decision at the request of Councillor Glyn Seabourne.

Consent sought for the variation of condition 01 of planning permission 2005/1901 granted on the 25th January 2006 to extend the opening hours to 3.00am on Fridays and Saturdays and 2.00am Monday to Thursday at 69 High Street Gorseinon, Swansea, a premises currently operating as Pompeii Pizza.

Condition 01 of planning permission 2005/1901 states that the premises shall not be used by customers before 08.00 nor after 22.30 hours on any day so as to safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring residents.

The main issue for consideration in this instance relates to the impact of the proposal upon the amenities of neighbouring properties and Highway Safety Standards having regard to prevailing development plan policies. There are in this instance no additional overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the human rights act.

The application site is located along the southern side of High Street in the heart of the Gorseinon District Centre where there is a concentration of hot food outlets. Policy EC5 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan encourages a mix of uses within district centres and supports proposals that improve the range and quality of shopping facilities. The property currently operates as Pompeii Pizza specialising in pizza but offering a range of hot foods for sale and under the provisions of the existing planning permission the premises is not permitted to operate beyond 10.30pm.

In terms of residential amenity, the application property is located on High Street which is dominated by commercial activity on the ground floor. Whilst the property is therefore bound and surrounded by other commercial activity which includes hot food outlets, it is however noteworthy that the vast majority of properties within the district centre have capacity to accommodate residential uses on the upper floors.

Crime and disorder considerations are a material consideration and previous appeal inspectors’ decision have recognised this. In considering an appeal in relation to planning application 2001/1887 an inspector considered that a planning condition provided “….a marker, in terms of land use consistency, for the review of licensing …..And the presence of restrictive planning conditions would reinforce this stance towards crime control”. He also concluded that “…..hours of operation are seen as proper controls for such land uses where they serve to protect the amenity and living conditions of residents or assist in crime control.

Whilst it is accepted that the premises is situated within a recognised district centre and that a concentration of hot-food outlets are now common place within many of our district centres, such centres also provide valuable over the shop living accommodation essential to the success of district centres. It is widely recognised that the level of residential amenity afforded to district centre living is entirely different to that considered appropriate within residential areas, nevertheless, a degree of sensitivity to the amenities of nearby occupiers must be applied and reasonable measures imposed that strike a balance between maintaining the vitality and vibrancy of the commercial centre, yet not harming the amenities, however limited, of immediate residents. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0053

It is of course accepted that the occupiers of the nearby residential units already experience a degree of noise and general disturbance at antisocial hours on a regular basis given the mix of late night noise sources concentrated within the area. However condition 01 of planning permission 2005/1901 was imposed to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and it is considered that allowing the premises to open until 2am weeknights and 3am on weekends is entirely unacceptable. This would inevitably prolong the potential for nuisance through cars starting, doors slamming and general noise from people congregating in the vicinity of the take-away premises to the detriment of the residential amenities reasonably expected to be enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers.

The Head of Environmental Management and Protection has commented on the application and has expressed concern relating to the potential for a delivery service from the premises operating late in to the night and into the early hours to cause serious nuisance to neighbours, particularly if the rear lane to the premises were to be used for this purpose. Secondly it is noted that whilst the noise from the ventilation system has not generated complaints to date, this is most likely due to the premises closing by the time nearby residents go to bed. If the premises were to operate late into the night and early hours the potential for complaints under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would likely arise.

During a site visit to the premises it has also been noted that a fascia sign has been erected above the shop front. This fascia sign at first floor level is sited across the entire width of the frontage and obliterates the two first floor windows completely. There is no record of advertisement consent for the additional sign and this matter will be referred to the Enforcement Section for further investigation.

Turning to highway safety standards, the Head of Transportation and Engineering does not consider that this proposal to extend the opening hours of the establishment to 2 and 3am is likely to have an adverse impact in highway safety terms and therefore recommend that no highway objections are raised.

With regard to the objection letters and petition received, the points raised relate principally to concerns relating to late night noise nuisance and disturbance and the general negative effect upon the living conditions of nearby residents. It is noteworthy that of the 48 signatures on the petition, 20 reside in the immediate vicinity of the site. All of which reinforces the concerns expressed above in relation to the impact upon residential amenity.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material planning considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposal to increase the hours of opening to 02.00 am and 03.00 am is likely to result in an increase in late night/early morning, noise and disturbance which will have an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of existing and future residents of the properties contrary to the requirements of Policy EV2 and EV40 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason; AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 3 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0053

1 The proposal to extend the opening hours to 02.00 hrs, Monday to Thursday and 03.00 hrs on Fridays and Saturdays will have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenities of existing and future residents within the immediate vicinity of the site, by reason of late night/early morning noise and disturbance, and as such is contrary to Policies EV2 and EV40 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV2, EC5, EV40 and AS6 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan.

PLANS

Site location plan received 12th January 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 4 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1271 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Compass Coffee Shop, Reynoldston, Swansea, SA3 1AN Proposal: Change of use from coffee shop (Class A3) and first floor holiday flat (Class C3) to one detached dwelling (Class C3), front canopy, porch and two new accesses Applicant: Mr R Holloway

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED at the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 23rd February 2010 to allow photographs of the building to be shown at Committee. My report has been updated to include reference to Policy EV20 and I have omitted the second reason for refusal relating to creating a precedent but my recommendation of refusal remains unchanged.

POLICIES

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

Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design. (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 EC12 The conversion of existing buildings in the countryside to new uses that contribute to the local economy and the extensions of such buildings will be permitted subject to a defined set of criteria including the building's structural integrity, its ability to be converted without prejudicing the character of the building or its locality, the building's compatibility with its surroundings, issues of access and highway safety, and the building's past uses etc. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1271

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2005/1926 Retention of change of use from repair workshop to tea room (Class A3) with holiday flat (Class C3) at first floor and associated external alterations, new access, 12 no. space car park and formation of outside seating area (amendment to planning application 2002/1580 granted on 17th January 2003) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 24/04/2006

2002/1580 Change of use of repair workshop to a tea room (Class A3) with holiday flat (Class C3) at first floor and associated external alterations Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 17/01/2003

2006/1745 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of detached dwelling house Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 20/02/2007

2007/1604 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of detached dwelling house Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 16/10/2007

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a Departure from the Local Plan. No response.

The Gower Society – Objects:

1. It is only a short time since this coffee shop was developed from a former auto-repair garage. 2. We are advised that considerable grants were obtained for this development on the grounds that it would assist the tourist industry. 3. A previous application for a holiday flat above the shop was also granted. 4. An application for demolishing the bungalow at the rear of the property was eventually given after many changes to the original design. 5. The shop could be a viable business if operated efficiently; the area needs this sort of tourist facility. 6. If this proposal should be allowed, then the ugly fence should be replaced with a hedge as originally present.

Highways Observations - I have no objection to this proposal in principle, however the alteration of the existing access needs to be amended to maximise on the available visibility and therefore should remain as currently. The new access to serve the converted coffee shop is satisfactorily located away from the bend. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1271

I recommend no highway objection subject to the submission of amended details indicating the retention of the current access in its current position

APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING STATEMENT is summarised as follows:

The property was developed from a failed business and at the time the advice we received was that we could only convert the building into another business.

We felt we had no choice other than put another business in its place and we were informed that if it was to fall down, we would not be able to replace this with any structure. We thought long and hard about it and decided that a coffee shop and holiday let may work. The project cost us a substantial amount of money and we felt that we were forced to turn the building into another business or lose the right to redevelop altogether. The original garage was devaluing our home because of the state of disrepair and it was hazardous. A similar building in Gower was recently allowed to become a dwelling without going through the process of trying a business there first.

The coffee shop and flat has not been successful financially and although we obtained a 4 star rating from the Welsh Tourist Board, we are still unable to secure bookings for it. It still requires one of us to work full time just to pay the bills. We have put both properties for sale and have vigorously tries to sell them together and separately but have received no offers. Our instructions to the Estate Agent were to market the property together and separately and we were prepared to accept offers on the coffee shop as a separate entity but received no offers in relation to the coffee shop.

To date we have received no offers and cannot go on working 7 days a week to try and make it work. We have no option than to try and change this property to a dwelling to try and sell it to stay in our home.

The holiday let market is saturated on Gower and people who have bought houses from out of the area let their houses unofficially. Since we opened a fish shop, 4 coffee shops and a restaurant with rooms doubling as a coffee shop plus numerous holiday lets have all been granted planning permission. Meanwhile affordable community housing is declining and being replaced by second homes and expensive detached dwellings that only a few can afford.

The position of the coffee shop is on a main road and has no public footpaths or public transport servicing the business. It is not at a destination area such as one of the beaches so the only way to attract customer is by car and car parking is limited. Also planning has restricted the use of the shop to not be used as a hot food takeaway.

We would like to be given the chance to stay in our home and at the same time create a new family home perhaps for a family in the community who otherwise would not be able to afford to live in Gower.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Richard Lewis. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1271

Full planning permission is sought for a change of use of the Compass Coffee Shop with the holiday flat above in Reynoldston to a detached dwelling house with external alterations and the provision of two new vehicular accesses. The alterations include a new front porch and front canopy with the creation of a residential curtilage for the new dwelling in part of the existing car parking area, enclosed by a 1.2m high stone wall and the creation of a new access to provide a driveway to the existing dwelling to the rear, “Sunnybank”.

The application property was given planning permission to be partially rebuilt and converted to a holiday let and coffee shop from a car repair garage in 2003 (2002/1580 refers). A subsequent amended application was approved in 2006 (2005/1926 refers), which included the formation of a 12 space car park and the provision of an outside seating area. In both applications, the scheme was considered acceptable as it would contribute to the local economy and would have a positive impact upon the visual amenities of the area by removing an unsightly repair garage. There is no information on either file that shows that the applicants wanted to apply for anything else and were prevented from doing so. However, the Policies in place at that time were in favour of the re-use of the existing building to uses that supported the local economy and holiday accommodation.

The main issues to be considered are the principle of a dwelling house at this location and the resultant effect upon the character and appearance of the area, having specific regard to Swansea Unitary Development Policies EV1, EV20, EV22, EV26, EV21 and EC12 and the planning history of the site.

Policy EV1 specifies that developments should comply with the criteria of good design. 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. Policy EC12 of the Unitary Development Plan which refers to the reuse of existing buildings in the open countryside states that residential use of non- residential buildings in the open countryside will not be supported unless evidence is provided that the premises has been actively marketed without success for appropriate business use or that the residential use is ancillary to a business reuse of the premises or that the resultant residential use will contribute to an identified local need for housing or for affordable housing in the location concerned. In the event of a proposal for residential purposes being contrary to Policy EC12, such a proposal would be tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside for which Policy EV20 applies.

Policy EV20 states that in the countryside new dwellings will only be permitted where: (i) the dwelling is required to accommodate a fulltime worker solely or primarily employed in agriculture, forestry or an appropriate use to serve the rural economy who needs to live on the premises rather than a nearby settlement, and (ii) there is no alternative existing dwelling available in nearby settlements and there are no existing buildings on the farm or forestry unit suitable for conversion to residential use, and (iii) the proposed dwelling is located as close as possible to the existing farm buildings, forestry complex or place of work.

In their supporting statement, the applicants state that they have run the business for the last few years and have tried to make it a success and that the conversion is their only option for them to try and stay in their home. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1271

The applicant mentions several times in his statement that the conversion would provide an affordable dwelling for local residents, however, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate how this would be achieved.

The applicants have supplied some evidence that the premises has been marketed for sale but in the details submitted both the Coffee shop and dwelling have been marketed as one combined unit. It is considered that by not marketing the Coffee shop separately at a more affordable price, many prospective purchasers would have been put off from even enquiring about the business. The applicant has been advised to market the Coffee Shop separately but to date has failed to do so. The applicant has also been advised that if the premises were converted to one single holiday unit, then this would be supported by Policy. However, the applicant does not feel, for the reasons put forward in his supporting statement, that this would be a viable business option. It is also unclear from the evidence submitted what length of time the premises has been marketed for. Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal conflicts with Policy EC12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

On the basis that the proposal is considered contrary to Policy EC12 the proposal must be considered against Policy EV20. Given that the applicants have failed to justify the conversion to a dwelling in line with Policy EV20 as there has been no mention of providing accommodation for agricultural or other appropriate worker the proposal is tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside that is unjustified and which needs to be strictly controlled to protect the countryside for its own sake.

In terms of visual amenity, the conversion of the building would not make a visual difference to the area over and above what is on site at present apart from the addition of a front porch and canopy. However, the change to the means of enclosure would be an improvement on the current situation on site as it would be more sympathetic to the area and therefore conforms with Policy EV1 and EV26 in visual terms. Bearing this in mind, it is considered that if the premises were converted to a holiday let, which is a use supported by Policy EC12 as a use contributing to the local economy, a change to the means of enclosure would also be considered an improvement.

Turning to highway safety issues, the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection subject to an amendment to the current access proposals which could be dealt with by condition. However, as the application is being recommended for refusal, it is considered unreasonable to request the applicant to go to the expense of submitting amended plans at this stage.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposal is not considered an acceptable form of development at this location as it fails to comply with the provisions of Policies EV20, EV22 and EC12 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 4 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1271

1 The change of use of the building to a detached dwelling constitutes an unjustified and inappropriate form of development within the open countryside and contrary to Countryside Protection Policies EC12, EV20 and EV22 of the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Proposed floor plans, existing elevations, proposed elevations received 16th October 2009. Amended plans site location plan and existing block plan, proposed block plan and additional supporting statement received 1st December 2009

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 5 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0096 WARD: Bishopston Area 2

Location: 17A Wellfield Bishopston Swansea SA3 3EP Proposal: Increase in ridge height and rear roof extension with juliette balconies to provide living accommodation in roof space Applicant: Mr and Mrs R Westerholm

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This application was DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT at the Area 2 Development Control Committee meeting on the 23rd February 2010 to consider the impact of the development upon the character of the surrounding area. 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).

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2005/2588 First floor side extension, single storey rear extension, front canopy and retention of use of land as residential curtilage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/04/2006

80/0079/03 ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DWELLING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 28/02/1980

76/1422/03 ERECTION OF A DWELLING Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 27/01/1977

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0096

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The proposal was advertised via direct notification to neighbouring properties. No letters of objection have been forthcoming.

Highways – No highway objection. Adequate parking is available within the site.

APPRAISAL

The application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Keith Marsh.

Full planning permission is sought to raise the ridge height and construction of a full width rear roof extension with Juliette balconies to a detached dwelling at No.17A Wellfield, Bishopston, Swansea. The dwelling lies within the AONB where local and national policies require that a high standard of design needs to be met, this is regardless of how visible or prominent a proposed form of development is.

The proposed dormer roof extension measures approximately 9.4 m wide; 2.2m high and would occupy the majority of the rear roof plane. The existing ridge would be raised by approximately 0.55m to facilitate this.

Issues The main issues for consideration with regard to this application relate to the impact of the proposal upon visual and residential amenities having regard to the prevailing Unitary Development Plan policies and the Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled ‘A Design Guide for Householder Development’. There are in this case considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act, nor are there any highway safety issues to consider.

The adopted supplementary Planning Guidance entitled “A design Guide for Householder Development” states in paragraph 5.6 that “A dormer roof extension should not compromise the roof form or dominate the plane of the original roof. To achieve this, it should be set up from the eaves, down from the ridge and not occupy too much of the width of the roof.”

The proposal would be partially visible from a surrounding Public Rights Of Way. It is considered that the proposed extension would not relate well to the roofscape in terms of its siting, size and proportion and as such would represent a dominant and visually incongruous feature which would upset the design and proportions of the existing dwelling to the detriment of the overall character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The increase in the ridge height, however, is considered acceptable given the minimal increase and as such it would not detract from the character and appearance of the area.

In terms of residential amenity, given the nature of the development proposed and relationship with adjoining properties it would not be considered to give rise to any overbearing or overshadowing impacts. In terms of overlooking, whilst there may be some increase in overlooking due to the elevated position of the extension, views from the windows would face largely towards the applicants garden, therefore any such impact is not likely to be so harmful as to warrant a recommendation for refusal in this instance. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 5 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0096

Conclusion In conclusion, therefore and having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposed dormer roof extension represents an unsatisfactory form of development, which would have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area contrary to Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Design Guide for Householder Development. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason:

1 The proposed dormer roof extension by virtue of its size, design and siting would be out of keeping with and detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the wider AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV26 and HC7 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance document entitled 'A Design Guide for Householder Development'.

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).

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

12/09/23/1- site location plan 1:1250, 12/09/23/1- site layout plan (block plan 1:500), 12/09/23/3- existing layout, 12/09/23/4- proposed layout received 20th January 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 6 APPLICATION NO. 2009/0643 WARD: Dunvant Area 2

Location: 54 Brynaeron Dunvant Swansea SA2 7UX Proposal: Two detached split level dwellings with basement garages Applicant: Mr Garnet Wolsey

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 2007/2150 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two detached dwelling houses(outline) Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 21/07/2008

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0643

2007/1325 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 4 detached dwellings (outline) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 08/08/2007

97/0057 ERECTION OF A DWELLING HOUSE (OUTLINE) Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 15/04/1997

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

ORIGINAL PLANS

The application was advertised on site and five neighbouring properties were consulted. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION received which are summarised below.

1. Concerns for wildlife within the site. 2. The oak trees should be preserved. 3. The application does not take into account all the tree and groups of trees protected by the TPO. 4. The proposal includes the removal of a scotch pine and mature oaks. This will have an adverse effect o the landscape. 5. The sewer is private. How will surface water be disposed of? The proposal reduces the area’s ability to absorb surface water. 6. Access and highway safety issues. 7. Object to the development as it will have an adverse affect on my family’s ability to access our property. 8. Concerns over drainage and sewer capacity. 9. The house has been moved closer to our house. 10. Outline planning was granted in July 2008 and several concerns we had with the regard to the impact on our driveway were included in the condition for approval. We ask that those conditions be included in this application. 11. There should be a condition limiting hours of work to the normal week to safeguard the amenity of surrounding residents. 12. We are happy to support the planning application, but would like safeguards included in any consent.

AMENDED PLANS (re-siting of proposed dwellings) The application was re-advertised on site and the neighbouring residents and previous objectors were re-consulted.

ONE LETTER OF OBJECTION received from previous objector.

1. We note that our concerns about the position of the house closest to our land have now been addressed. 2. Concerns remain about sewers being private and unadopted. If the sewer is private, then adding two more properties to it causes concern.

Highway Observations – Amended Plans 20 Nov 09 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0643

This application follows outline approval under application 2007/2150. A number of conditions relating to the access were included at outline and these requirements are indicated on the submitted plans following requests for amendments.

I am satisfied that the proposal will comply with the earlier requirement and therefore recommend that no highway objections are raised subject to all access works being completed in accordance with the approved plans prior to beneficial occupation of the development.

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water - We would request that if you are minded to grant Planning consent for the above development that the Conditions and Advisory Notes.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Nick Tregoning and Councillor John Newbury.

Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the construction of two detached dwellings at 54 Brynaeron, Dunvant.

In terms of the planning history of this site, outline planning permission for the erection of two detached dwellings on this site was originally approved on 21st July 2008 under Application ref. 2007/2150. Matters relating to siting and access were considered as part of the application with matters relating to design and landscaping reserved for future consideration.

The application site is constrained by virtue of its topography and the location of a number of protected trees on the site. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and although the land rises up steeply from the highway, the rear of the site is relatively level and is well screened by a mixture of mature trees, hedging and planting. The rear of the application site adjoins open countryside.

In determining the outline application ref: 2007/2150, the siting of the two proposed dwellings was agreed to minimise the loss of any protected trees and to protect the remaining trees on the site. The site was considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate two dwellings with associated car parking and amenity space without detracting from the amenities of neighbouring dwellings or the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Access to the site was approved subject to conditions.

The principal of development has been firmly established on this application site and the main issues for consideration in this instance are the suitability of the design and external appearance of the proposed dwellings and the resultant impact of the development upon the visual and residential amenities of the area and highway safety having regard to Policies EV1, EV2, EV17, EV30 and HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan. There are in this instance no additional overriding issue for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0643

The application site lies within the settlement limit of the large village of Dunvant as identified on the Proposals Map of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy EV17 of the Unitary Development seeks to ensure that within the boundaries of the large villages development will be limited to existing commitments, small infill plots and small scale rounding off. Development will be required to be appropriate to its location and will only be approved where it meets the criteria of Policy EV1.

Policy EV1 seeks to ensure new development accords with the criteria of good design, in particular being appropriate to its local context in terms of scale, height, massing, elevational treatment, materials and detailing, layout, form, mix and density. Policy EV2 relates to the siting and location of new development. Policy HC2 of the Unitary Development Plan presumes in favour of housing development within the urban area unless there are overriding planning objections. Policy EV30 relates to trees, woodland and hedgerow protection.

With regard to the impact of the construction of two dwellings on the visual amenities of the area, the surrounding area in this part of Dunvant is characterised by a wide variety of house types, including terraces, detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows, set within varying plot sizes and as such a degree of individuality and variety is not considered to be detrimental to the varied character and external appearance that make up the streetscene and the immediate neighbourhood. The siting of the proposed dwellings is broadly consistent with that agreed at outline stage and access is gained via the existing driveway. Taking into account the topography of the site, the main accommodation is spread over two floors with the double garage located at lower ground level. The scale and design of the proposed dwellings are considered appropriate given the varied character of existing dwellings in the area and the external finishes are acceptable at this location.

In terms of impact upon residential amenity, there is an existing driveway serving the bungalow and outbuildings that currently occupy the site, which would be widened to 4.5m for the shared length. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed dwellings would be sited further back into the application site than the existing bungalow and the site is at a higher level than the adjoining neighbouring dwellings on either side, a separation distance of approximately 9m would be maintained between the proposed dwelling at Plot 2 and the boundary of No.56 Brynaeron, and Plot 1 would achieve a distance of approximately 19m to the boundary with No.40 Brynaeron. Having regard to the siting relationship to these properties and the natural topography of the site, the proposed dwellings incorporate a scale and design that reduces the massing of the dwelling by incorporating accommodation within the roof space and siting the garage at lower ground level. The main habitable room windows in both Plot 1 and Plot 2 overlook the residential amenity area of the proposed dwellings and no habitable room windows are proposed in the side elevation facing No.56 Brynaeron or No.40 Brynaeron. Given the existing boundary treatments combined with the existing mature trees, hedging and planting and the separation distances achieved from the boundaries of these immediate neighbouring dwellings, it is not considered that the development would have such a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenity of these neighbours in terms of overlooking/loss of privacy, overshadowing or overbearing physical impact to warrant a recommendation of refusal in this instance. There is ample private amenity space and parking provision associated with each proposed dwelling. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0643

Concerns have been expressed from neighbouring residents relating the foul and surface water disposal. Amended plans have been requested and submitted to include the proposed foul and surface water drainage within the application site. Whilst the concerns relating to a private sewer have been noted, this would be a private issue to be addressed by the developer. In addition, Welsh Water has been consulted and raised no objection to the proposed development connecting to the public sewerage system.

Turning to issues of access and highway safety, the previous outline consent (2008/2150) required by condition improvements to the width of the existing drive, an increase in visibility by trimming of the boundary hedge and the introduction of a traffic calming device to slow down vehicles exiting the site. The agent has confirmed that any works to widen the existing driveway will be to the right hand side of the drive as you enter the site and will be away from the boundary edge. Following requests for amendments these requirements have now been indicated on the amended plans submitted.

The Head of Transportation and Engineering is satisfied that the proposal will comply with the requirements of the previous outline consent and therefore recommends that no highway objection are raised subject to all access works being completed in accordance with the approved plans prior to beneficial occupation of the development.

During the determination of the outline application (ref: 2007/2150), the Principal Tree Preservation Officer agreed the siting of the proposed dwellings to address any concerns regarding the loss of protected trees. The proposal would result in the loss of one Oak Tree (T7) and on this basis the Tree Preservation Officer considered that, subject to conditions, the proposals were acceptable. All other protected trees and groups of trees are shown to be retained and any further work on these trees would be the subject of a further application. Following a further site visit for this current application, the Principal Tree Preservation Officer raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions requiring a landscaping scheme and tree protection being agreed prior to work commencing.

An ecological survey has been carried out which established that there are no protected species currently using the site. A bat and bird informative would be attached to any planning permission.

Turning to the objection letters received which relate predominantly to the impact a proposal such as this would have on access and highway safety, the loss of protected trees, disruption to wildlife and the detrimental impact of the proposal on the visual and residential amenities of the area; these issues have been addressed above. Matters that relate to any retaining walls and works within the application site are dealt under separate legislation. Reference to land drainage matters have been raised, however this is a matter largely controlled via separate legislation. Concern has also been raised about the sewer capacity to serve the dwellings, however a response received form Dwr Cymru Welsh Water confirms that subject to consultation with Welsh Water Dwr Cymru, no objection to the proposal in principle is raised. Further issues relating to connection to a private sewer prior to connection to the public sewer, land ownership and boundary issues are private matters. Finally, whilst some amount of disturbance is inevitable during construction, such issues and hours of operation are more properly controlled through environmental health legislation. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0643

In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be an acceptable form of development that would accord with Policies EV1, EV2, EV17, EV30 and HC2 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

2 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.

3 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.

4 Prior to the commencement of work on site, the drive width shall be increased to 4.5m for its shared length in accordance with the details indicated on Drawing No.1158-16C received 25th January 2010. All access works shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the beneficial occupation of the development. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0643

5 Prior to the commencement of work on site, the boundary hedge between the drive and the adjacent lane shall be reduced in height to no more than 1 metre for a distance of 2.5 metres from the access junction in accordance with the details shown on Drawing No. 1158-16C received 25th January 2010. The hedge shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway.

6 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the beneficial occupation of any dwelling a traffic calming ramp shall be installed at the entrance gateway to the site as detailed on Drawing No.1158-16C received 25th January 2010. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7 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, C, E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.

8 Details of the method of surface water drainage for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any dwelling. Reason: In the interest of ensuring a satisfactory form of surface water drainage for the site and in the interest of highway safety.

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, EV17, EV30 and HC2 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 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 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 6 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/0643

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

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

6 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.

7 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.

8 If connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on Tel:01443 331155.

PLANS

1158-4D site plan and block plan, 1158 9A plans and elevations Plot 2, 1158-11 Sections, 1158-17 plans and elevations plot, 1158-18 lower ground floor and foundation plan, tree plan received 18th May 2009. Additional plan 1158-19 drive path and patio construction received 20th November 2009. Amended plan 1158-16C site layout received 25th January 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 7 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1009 WARD: Dunvant Area 2

Location: Land off Fairwood Road, Dunvant, Swansea Proposal: 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 Applicant: Mr Andrew Sandbrook

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 HC3 Provision of affordable housing in areas where a demonstrable lack of affordable housing exists. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008) AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1009

Policy AS6 Provision of car parking in accordance with adopted standards. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2007/1487 Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 2003/1094 granted on 18th October 2004 to extend the period of time for submission of reserved matters to 18th October 2009 Decision: Approve Conditional (S73) Decision Date: 24/08/2007

2003/1094 Residential development (outline) Decision: Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 18/10/2004

2004/1536 Residential development (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 14/09/2004

2006/1320 Three detached dwelling houses with integral garages and two detached dwelling houses with detached garages, new access road and associated landscaping Decision: Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 02/03/2007

2007/1949 Three detached dwelling houses with integral garages and two detached dwelling houses with detached garages, new access road and associated landscaping Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 25/10/2007

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and eighty one individual properties were consulted. FIVE LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received, which are summarised as follows:

1. I object to any development that would involve any access via Lon Killan as it would not support any extra vehicles needed to support the proposed development. 2. In 1988 one house (outline) was refused because of the unsatisfactory access and restricted visibility with Killan Road making vehicle manoeuvring extremely hazardous. A dwelling house (outline) was also refused in February 2000. 3. Safe access to the site is impossible and the threat of further development projects should be ended. 4. The traffic on the hill is so busy and cars are always parked on the pavement which makes it very dangerous coming out of our drive. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1009

5. At the last hearing, the size of road width was disputed by myself and was agreed to be wrong on accurate site measurement. 6. We as residents of Swansea and Dunvant regard even small patches of green area to be precious as the number of times we have defended this plot of land pointed out to the developers.

Highway Observations - Outline consent was granted for this development at appeal in October 2004. An extension of time was granted in 2007 and a further extension is now sought. The details of the access have not altered and will require third party land in order to be constructed. Details of the internal layout and all other matters other than access are required to be the subject of a reserved matters application for which this extension of time is sought.

As the principle of the development has been agreed at appeal, I recommend no highway objections to an extension of time being granted as previously.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Nick Tregoning and Councillor John Newbury.

This application seeks the variation of condition 01 of planning permission 2007/1487 granted on 21st August 2007, which granted permission to extend the period for submission of reserved matters required by planning permission 2003/1094 to 18th October 2009, at land off Fairwood Road, Dunvant.

The application site has a significant planning history. Outline planning permission was first sought in 2003 for residential development (ref: 2003/1094). An appeal was made against a failure of the Local Planning Authority to give notice within the prescribed period of its decision on the application and the appeal was subsequently allowed and planning permission was granted subject to conditions in October 2004.

In 2007 (2007/1487) permission was sought to vary condition 2 of planning permission 2003/1094 in order to extend the period for submission of reserved matters to 18th October 2009, and this request was granted. The current application essentially seeks to extend the time period for submission of the reserved matters to 18th September 2011.

In light of the planning history relating to the site, in particular the appeal decision, the main issue for consideration in this instance, is whether there has been any material change in planning circumstances since planning permission was granted for this development in October 2004.

The previous application was assessed against Policies H3 of the West Glamorgan Structure Plan Review No. 2 and policies V9, H4, TRS4 and HP1 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No.1. Policies H2 and BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No.1 were also referred to, which presume in favour of residential infill subject to there being no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, residential amenity or highway safety. Since then the Unitary Development Plan has been adopted and therefore supersedes the Structure and Local Plans. Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV17, EV33, AS6, HC2 and HC3 of the UDP are considered relevant in this instance which closely reflect the aims and objectives of the Local Plan policies. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1009

Whilst under the Local Plan the site was specifically allocated for residential development this allocation has been removed although the site remains to be within the settlement limit where there the principle of residential development is still considered to be acceptable.

Whilst a condition was placed on the outline consent by the Appeal Inspector requiring the provision of 10% affordable housing, as confirmed with the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer the need in the area is considered to have changed. In submitting this planning application the applicant has indicated a willingness to negotiate the provision of affordable housing, as appropriate and it has been agreed that the development should provide 30% Affordable Housing (Tenure Neutral) designed to the Welsh Assembly Governments DQR standards. Although a condition in respect of affordable housing was imposed by the Appeal Inspector, it is normal practice to require such provision via a Section 106 Obligation and following agreement with the applicant’s agent this is recommended in this instance.

In addition, the Welsh Assembly Government requires applications for 5 or more dwellings received on or after 1st September 2009 to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and obtain 6 credits under issue Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate. Additional conditions are recommended to take account of this.

The most significant issue considered during the original application was in relation to highway safety. The Head of Transportation and Engineering has noted that the details of the access have not altered and will still require third party land in order to be constructed. Details of the internal layout and all other matters other than access are required to be the subject of a reserved matters application for which this extension of time is requested. As the principle of the development was granted on appeal the Head of Transportation and Engineering recommends no highway objection to an extension of time for the submission of the reserved matters.

With regard to the objection letters received, the issues and concerns raised were considered during the determination of the original planning application and given that the circumstances are no different in this instance there are no further matters to address.

In view of the above considerations, whilst there has been a material change in policy, the thrust of the relevant policies identified in the adopted UDP are consistent with the aims and objectives of the now superseded Local Plan. In light of this analysis, the principle of development has been firmly established at this application site and the development is considered to be acceptable in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the UDP. On this basis, it is considered that the time limit to submit the reserved matters be extended to 18th September 2011.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE, subject to the following conditions and to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation in respect of affordable housing:-

1 The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that development is begun within a reasonable period. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1009

2 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the 18th September 2011. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and to ensure that the development is determined within a reasonable period.

3 Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 2 above, relating to the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development begins and shall be carried out as approved. No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in an orderly and satisfactory manner.

4 Works to Fairwood Road as shown in the approved drawings shall be subject to an agreement made between the developers of the approved scheme and the Highways Authority under s.278 of the Highways Act 1980. The approved works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreement. No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

5 Development shall not begin until details of separate foul and surface water drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved foul and surface water drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of drainage for the site.

6 The foul water only flows from the proposed development shall be connected to the public sewer east of Voylart Road, downstream of existing manhole SS59932604. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of drainage for the site.

7 Before the development is started a scheme indicating the provision to be made for disabled people to gain access to dwellings shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented before any of the dwellings are occupied or in accordance with a phased scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure access for all.

8 Development shall not begin until details of a public open space to be provided within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The public open space shall be made available in accordance with a phased scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate provision of public open space. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1009

9 No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures, (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse ore other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc, indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

10 Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

11 All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

12 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planning and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting seasons with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

13 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1009

14 Plans and particulars submitted in accordance with the conditions above shall include; a plan showing the location of each existing tree on the site which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75mm, showing which trees are to be retained and the crown spread of each retained tree; details of the species, diameter, and the approximate height, and an assessment of the general state of health and stability of each retained tree and of each tree which is on the site; details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree (an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars); details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels, and of the position of any proposed excavation, within the crown spread of any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the site within a distance from any retained tree, or any tree on land adjacent to the site, equivalent to half the height of that tree. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

15 If within a period of two years from the date of the planting of any tree that tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written approval to any variation. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

16 No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

17 If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

18 Before the start of development a survey of badgers' setts, their foraging grounds and their access thereto shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the ecology of the area.

19 Each dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve 6 credits under category Ene1 in accordance with the requirements of Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide April 2009. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 7 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1009

20 No development shall begin until details of a 'Design Stage' assessment and related certification have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification unless the Local Planning Authority shall otherwise consent in writing. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

21 No dwelling shall be occupied until a Code for Sustainable Homes ‘Post Construction Stage’ assessment has been carried out in relation to it, a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 and 6 credits under Ene1 have been achieved and the Certificate has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV17, EV33, AS6, HC2 and HC3 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.

PLANS

Site location plan, 15039/SWA/012 original highway improvements received 8th October 2010.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 8 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1137 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Brynhyfryd, Robins Lane, Reynoldston, Swansea, SA3 1AA Proposal: Part replacement and part erection of 1.2 metre high side boundary fence. Applicant: Mr Wyn Cornelius

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 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 86/0572/03 CAR PORT. Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 31/07/1986

2008/1107 Detached summerhouse Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 11/07/2008

99/0317 TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND EXTENSION TO EXISTING FRONT PORCH Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 20/04/1999

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised by means of a press notice, a site notice and the neighbouring properties were consulted individually. TWO LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received their content is summarised below: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1137

• Given the change in levels between properties the fence would be 2.7 metres in height out of all proportion to that necessary to secure privacy in addition to reducing our available light. • The description is misleading the majority of the proposal is for new fencing • The proposal would appear nonsensical • The proposal will detract from No.1 St George’s Terrace • The proposal will be impractical to erect • Will result in damage to the existing wall and or require structural alteration to the existing wall. • The wall does not have sufficient structural integrity to support a 6ft high fence panel at this windy location. • The stone wall forming the boundary is in the ownership of No.1 St George Terrace. • No details of finish are provided in respect of the fence • The fence would result in an imposing structure that would have a significant negative visual impact upon the current pleasant street scene and the conservation area • The proposed fence would be overbearing to Nos.1 & 2 St Georges Terrace

The above comments were received in respect of the scheme as originally submitted.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the part replacement and part erection of a fence of approximately 1.2 metres in height at the property known as ‘Brynhyfryd’, Reynoldston which is located in an attractive lane within Reynoldston Conservation Area and also within Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The existing situation sees fence panels running from the boundary at the highway edge towards the property for approximately 2.0 -3.0 metres this gives way to a traditional stone wall for a further approximately 3.45 -4.0 metres, where upon fence panels of approximately 1.2 metres in height resume for a distance of approximately 3.0 meters parallel to the pine end of No.1 St Georges Terrace.

The proposed fencing will be stepped in off the wall slightly, however it will be erected on ground level to the top of the existing stone wall until it steps down to be level with the top of the wall for the final 2.0 -3.0 metres. The proposed fencing will be visible from the street fronting the property. The proposed fence will be erected on the common boundary with No.1 St Georges Terrace on the south east perimeter of the site and run from the front boundary of the property back for a distance of approximately 8.0 metres.

The initial proposal was for close boarded fencing of approximately 1.8 metres in height at this location, concerns expressed by the Local Planning Authority led to a revised scheme being submitted that saw a reduction in height of the fence panels of approximately 0.6 metres. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1137

The main issues to consider in this instance are the impact of the proposed development upon the visual amenity of the property, the street scene and Conservation Area, the wider context of Gower AONB, and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, having regard to Policies EV1, EV9 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan, and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: A Design Guide for Householder Development. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional issues.

With regard to the impact upon visual amenity, the fence has been reduced from the 1.8 metres originally proposed to a maximum height of 1.2 metres. It is noted that a section of the existing boundary wall currently has fence panels of approximately 1.2 metres in height in situ and notwithstanding the elevated position relative to the front amenity area of No.1 St Georges Terrace and the prominent position in the street scene the proposal would incorporate a scale which is considered, on balance, sympathetic to the character of the street scene and the conservation area to which it relates. The design of the fence panels has been the subject of discussion and it is recommended that a condition is placed upon the development such that prior to commencement of works the precise design and finish of the fence panels is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Subject to the finer details, the proposed works are therefore, not considered to detract from the character and appearance of the street scene to which they relate or that of Reynoldston Conservation Area or the wider natural beauty of the AONB.

Turning to residential amenity it is not considered that the siting and scale of the proposed fencing would give rise to overbearing impacts relative to the front parking area of the neighbouring property, given the nature and use of this area would ensure no harm would arise to warrant a recommendation of refusal in this respect.

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations including the Human Rights Act, the proposed fencing is considered to represent a satisfactory form of development which preserve the character and appearance of the Reynoldston Conservation Area, the character and appearance of the AONB and residential amenities of neighbouring properties. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following condition:

2 Notwithstanding the illustrative details submitted, prior to the commencement of development the precise design and finish of the fence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 8 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1137

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan, block plan received 3rd August 2009. Amended fence details and additional photos received 19th February 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 9 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1376 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Glenbryn Parkmill Swansea SA3 2EJ Proposal: 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 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Lloyd

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 93/1111 ERECTION OF STABLE BLOCK Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 16/11/1993

89/0409/03 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING 2 STOREY HOUSE + REBUILDING OF EX GARAGE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 06/06/1989

2007/2488 Extension to existing stable block Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 03/01/2008

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbouring properties were consulted on the application. No correspondence has been received in respect of the proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1376

Welsh Water – A public sewer crosses the site and advice to applicants.

Ilston Community Council – No objection.

Highways Observations – The site is sufficiently large to accommodate adequate parking. I recommend no highway objection.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for a 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 Glen Bryn, Parkmill. The site is located within Gower AONB to the west of the road running from Parkmill to Lunnon. To the north of the application site is Kia Ora a detached bungalow and to the South a property named The Bungalow.

The existing dwelling has been subject to significant modification over the years and as such little detail of architectural merit remains in respect of the original dwelling.

The main issues to consider in this instance are the impact of the proposed development upon the visual amenity of the property, the street scene, the wider context of Gower AONB, and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, having regard to the Policies EV1, HC7 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan, and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: A Design Guide for Householder Development. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional issues and there are no highway safety issues to consider.

In respect of visual amenity the front door serving the original part of the house will be removed under this proposal however this element of the scheme does not require planning permission and as such has not been considered in the determination of this planning application. The enclosure of the veranda to the front elevation of the existing side extension to create a porch will not present as a visually incongruous alteration and in addition to this the entire façade will be finished to white roughcast render resulting in the removal of the mock Tudor adornment which is considered an improvement over the current situation.

To the rear of the property the existing arched walkway will be enclosed to extend the accommodation at ground floor level, this will not result in an increase in the effective footprint of the dwelling and in design terms is considered acceptable. The proposed rear porch is of modest appearance and would not detract from the overall appearance of the dwelling unit. The proposed first floor alterations comprise three dormer roof extensions and a first floor rear facing balcony. Whilst the dormers additions are not ideal in visual terms, they would not detract from the overall appearance of the existing dwelling and as such are considered, on balance, visually acceptable.

Turning to residential amenity whilst the proposed dormer windows are orientated towards the rear amenity areas serving neighbouring properties it is not considered that any significant overlooking will arise. The property most likely impacted in respect of a loss of privacy would be Kia Ora to the north which would be overlooked by the dormer addition serving the En-Suite and bedroom No.5. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1376

As the proposed window would not be a primary window serving this room it is considered acceptable to obscure glaze this dormer by condition in order to ensure that the privacy of the adjoining occupiers is preserved.

The north facing dormer serving bedroom No.1 will also be orientated toward the rear amenity area associated with Kia Ora however given the separation distance and significant boundary treatment and a large garage in front of the boundary it is not considered that any significant overlooking would arise in this respect such that the privacy of the adjoining dwelling would be compromised.

In respect of the side dormer addition orientated to the south it is not considered that any significant overlooking will arise given the existing boundary treatment and its distance off the common boundary.

The rear balcony would given its orientation not result in any direct overlooking of adjoining properties and views from the side elevations of the proposed balcony are considered to be sufficiently distant from the common boundaries with adjoining occupiers that no unacceptable overlooking would occur.

The front and rear single storey extensions by virtue of their very modest scale would not have any undue impact on adjoining occupiers.

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 Gower AONB in accordance with Policies EV1, 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 The first floor dormer window serving the en-suite and bedroom No.5 in the North facing elevation, as indicated on Plan No: PB/3291/2 Rev A shall be obscure glazed, and unopenable except for a fan light and shall be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 9 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1376

INFORMATIVES

1 The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer. No development will be permitted within the safety zone which is measured either side of the centre line. For details of the safety zone please contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155.

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

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.

PLANS

Site location plan, PB3046/2 block plan, PB/3291/1 existing floor plans and elevations Rev A, PB/3291/2 Rev A proposed floor plans and elevations received 10th September 2009

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410 WARD: Pennard Area 2

Location: Kittle Hill Poultry Farm Kittle Swansea SA3 3JQ Proposal: Three replacement chicken sheds and one packaging shed Applicant: Stonegate

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 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)

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2002/0258 Construction of agricultural barn Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 11/03/2008

80/0358/01 ERECTION OF A BUNGALOW FOR AN AGRICULTURAL WORKER Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 25/09/1980

81/0847/03 HOUSING DAIRY COWS IN CUBICLES WITH FEED YARD AND 4 LOOSE BOXES Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 30/07/1981

82/0182/11 CHANGE OF USE OF FARM SHOP TO INCLUDE SALE OF GENERAL FARM AND DAIRY PRODUCTS Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 29/04/1982

82/0391/03 AGRICULTURAL BUILDING FOR DAIRY CATTLE, FEED AREA AND LOOSE BOXES Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 11/05/1982

82/0546/11 CHANGE OF USE OF FARM SHOP TO INCLUDE SALE OF CHICKEN, BUTTER AND CHEESE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 24/06/1982

83/1779/03 PERMISSION TO SELL FRESH VEGETABLES, POTATOES, BUTTER, CHEESE, YOGHURT, MILK + HONEY. Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 30/12/1983

84/0001/03 EXTENSION OF USE OF FARM SHOP PRESENTLY SELLING EGGS AND POULTRY TO THE PUBLIC TO INCLUDE;FRESH VEG/POTATOES, BUTTER CHEESE YOGHURT MILK ECT Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/10/1984 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

84/1240/03 USE OF SITE FOR CARAVAN RALLY FOR 5 NIGHTS FROM 9TH- 14TH APRIL 1985.(80 VANS) Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/10/1984

87/1805/03 ERECTION OF A FARM PRODUCE SHOP. Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 21/10/1993

92/0005 CHANGE OF USE OF OUTBUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 07/01/1993

93/1072 CARRYING OUT OF DEVELOPMENT (CHANGE OF USE OF OUT BUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION) GRANTED PERMISSION UNDER 92/0005 WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITION 07 OF THAT PERMISSION RELATING TO ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 16/11/1993

94/0023 ERECTION OF 6NO (8.6M HIGH) FEED SILOS, RECLADDING AND ADDITION OF RIDGE VENTS AND SIDE EXTRACTOR FANS TO 3 LAYING SHEDS AND UPGRADE INTERNAL ACCESS ROAD Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 01/03/1994

94/0783 ERECTION OF STEEL FRAMED AGRICULTURAL BUILDING FOR STORAGE OF FARM IMPLEMENTS AND CROPS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 13/09/1994

94/0889 ALTERATION TO EXTERNAL ELEVATION OF HEN HOUSE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 13/09/1994

94/1167 CHANGE OF USE OF OUTBUILDINGS TO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING APPLICATION 92/0005 APPROVED ON 7TH JANUARY 1993) Decision: *HPS106 - PERMISSION SUBJ - S106 AGREEM. Decision Date: 07/03/1995

95/0730 ERECTION OF EQUIPMENT STORE Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 08/09/1995 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

95/1172 RETENTION OF 6No. FEED SILOS & PUMPS, 42No AIR INTAKE VENTILATORS AND REPOSITIONED DOORS TO SOUTH WEST AND NORTH EAST ELEVATIONS, REVISED EXTRACTOR FANS TO SOUTH EAST ELEVATION AND REDESIGNED RIDGE VENTILATORS Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 01/12/1995

A00/0302 ERECTION OF 21 METRE HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST WITH THREE CROSS POLAR ANTENNAE, TWO MICROWAVE DISHES AND AN EQUIPMENT CABIN Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 30/08/2000

A01/0098 Erection of 15 metre high telecommunications mast with three cross polar antennae, two microwave dishes and an equipment cabin Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 22/07/2005

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: The proposed development was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice and in the press as development which may have a substantial impact on the amenity of the area in which it is situated and 24 neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted. NINE LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received which are summarised below:

1. Intention to operate a bio-fuel plant from the site producing fuel from chicken faeces. There is local speculation that the current application is for the intention that further planning will be sought for change of use to enable the sheds to be used in conjunction with a bio-fuel plant. I would object to a change of use and bio-fuel plant and as such would urge that a condition be placed on any approval that the sheds can only be used for the proposed detailed within application 2009/1410. 2. The proposed dimensions of the new sheds would represent an increase of over 100% in the volume of the old buildings and as such would constitute a serious intrusion into the surrounding area. 3. Height of sheds would increase from 8.3m to 13.7m making them visible from a wider area than at present, causing further detrimental effect. 4. Increase in size implies a substantial increase in vehicular traffic to and from the farm. 5. Any further traffic would create highway safety issues. 6. If minded to approve a condition should be attached regulating hours of access to the facility. 7. Impact upon the Gower AONB. 8. Disturbance to the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. 9. Impact of the proposal upon the small residential community. 10. Proposal would have a significant impact upon the SAC. 11. Proposed increase in size would have an immediate impact upon the local area through substantial increase in waste effluent and slurry which will need to be disposed of. 12. Increase in traffic required to dispose of the effluent and slurry. 13. Noise pollution, pollution and malodours. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

14. Size and scale of proposal is beyond the existing capacity of the road infrastructure. 15. Increase in the number of large vehicles using the site. 16. No proposal for landscaping. 17. Proposal is hideous. 18. Proposal is increasing by 100%. 19. There must be an increase in the number of birds above the current 300,000. 20. Object strongly to the size of the buildings and the increase in bird numbers. 21. Lack of consultation with neighbouring properties. 22. The applicant states the proposal is to replace the existing barns with similar barns, however an increase close to 100% is significant. 23. The farm is an environmental nuisance and it is not clear in the application how these issues will be addressed by the redevelopment. 24. Increased efficiency doesn’t always lead to further employment. 25. Contrary to Policy concerning Gower. 26. Cannot believe that the increase in size will not lead to an increase in numbers. 27. Water run off issues.

In addition to this EIGHT LETTERS OF SUPPORT were received which are summarised below:

1. The proposal would be good for existing staff and create extra staff in the near feature. 2. One of the only local employers on Gower. 3. Proposal will bring the farm up to date and will only improve the Environment.

Pennard Community Council: The Council objects to this application on the grounds that the proposed building is substantially larger than the original, the impact of this development on the local environment, disposal of roof water and the increase in road traffic.

Bishopston Community Council: The proposed increased roof height of these replacement chicken sheds would be obtrusive on the horizon to residents in the area.

Gower Society: Object on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is in a very conspicuous position within the AONB. 2. The proposed height increase to 13m would create extremely high structures situated on the highest ground in that area. 3. It is noted that there are no details regarding colours and finishes. 4. There is no justification for the huge volume increase given with the application. 5. If allowed, there should be clauses added regarding landscaping, screening with trees and bunds, as well as strict restrictions on external flood lighting. The present light contributes to excessive and harmful light pollution, visible from a huge distance away.

Environment Agency: Having reviewed the submitted information please be advised that we are of the opinion that an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) would not be required in this instance.

Thank you for referring the above application for consultation which was received 29 December 2009. Environment Agency Wales has no objection to the above proposed development but would wish to make the following comments: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

We would request that the applicant ensures that the proposed new buildings comply with BAT as set out in the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs (commonly known as the BREF, published by the European IPPC Bureau 2003). Should the applicant require further information with regard to these regulation please contact Howard Oates, Environment Management on 01792 325639. In addition, the applicant is advised to ensure that any changes to the PPC Permit required for the site are notified/applied for as required.

Following a change on the application form, EA were reconsulted and the following comments were received:

Further to our telephone conversation on 04 March 2010 detailing that the foul sewage arrangements for the site are by the means of an existing cesspit and not a septic tank as stated on the application form. We would request that the following condition is attached to any planning permission granted.

Condition The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul sewage water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason To ensure a satisfactory form of drainage

Pollution Control: In the past there have been issues over odours emanating from the site and there is still the potential for nuisance arising from the operation. I realise that the EA are the regulatory authority for the site and they have issued a permit covering the process. There is also the potential for noise nuisance from the fans serving the poultry sheds but again this should be controlled by the EA. If you are able to apply conditions to the consent covering these issues then these would reinforce the controls already in place under the permit.

Countryside Council for Wales: Under the review of consents, the chicken farm was shown to be adding emissions into the air which have the potential to affect sensitive habitats.

On the basis that the design statement for this proposal explains that the replacement sheds will reduce the emissions to air and that the improvements are compliant with permitting (IPPC) then CCW would not require any further assessments in relation to protected sites.

The SAC is protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. Plans and projects affecting a SAC should be assessed under Regulation 48 of these Regulations. We are aware that a Regulation 48 Test of Likely Significant Effect has been carried out a the permitting process by the competent authority, in this case the Environment Agency, it is our understanding that permit was issues subject to improvements being made to the farm. We would suggest you contact the Environment Agency for clarification of their views on this proposal. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

As you are aware the site is within the Gower AONB. Although these proposals are for replacements of existing buildings, your authority has a 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.

Additional Information from Applicants Agent

Further clarification from the applicant was requested from the LPA as to why the redevelopment was required and the following comments were received:-

• The cages are larger to comply with the animal welfare of the chickens with nesting areas in 2010-12, there will be a small increase in birds (about 15%) to accommodate for the number of eggs anticipated in Wales in the future and to justify the cost and expense of the new packing facility and to increase staff levels. • At present the capacity of space in the Lorry’s is under used and will therefore not require additional lorry movements in the future given the production is governed by the number of eggs produced.

Edwina Hart AM: Following comment:

• The proposed dimensions of the new sheds would represent an increase of over 100% in the volume of the old buildings and as such would constitute a serious intrusion of over 100% in the volume of the old buildings and as such would constitute a serious intrusion into the surrounding area to the detriment of the area and its inhabitants. • The height of the new sheds would be 13.7m, a substantial increase from the height of 8.3m making them visible from a wider area than at present causing further detrimental effect. • This substantial increase in size implies a substantial increase in vehicular traffic to and from the farm. Kittle Lane currently presents a serious problem for traffic and any further traffic would create major safety and access problems. • An increase in activity would cause detriment to residents of the surrounding area and if planning authority were to be granted there should be strict condition regulating hours of access to the facility e.g no early morning, late evening and weekend deliveries.

Additional Information was submitted which included photomontages, comparative plans and photos of the existing site. All previous objectors were consulted and the following letters of comment were received:

Neighbours: 8 letters of objection were received which are summarised below:

1. Highway implications with increased numbers of large container lorries. 2. No passing bays along the lane. 3. Increase in the number of birds will be inevitable and will lead to an increase in the number of vehicles which will cause major problems. 4. Increased smell of chicken excrement. 5. Increase in height is unacceptable. 6. New height would be overbearing and incongruous in an AONB. 7. Applicants should reduce the number of chickens in order to comply with EU regulations. 8. Increase in ridge height will have a serious visual impact upon the wider area. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

9. There is no clear labelling of the photographs. 10. Telephoto lenses can distort the image. 11. Cannot compare the photomontages with the existing buildings. 12. Buildings out of keeping with AONB. 13. Increase in noise.

Gower Society: Object on following grounds:

1. These proposed buildings are truly enormous. We still await justification for their size. 2. The site is elevated in the landscape. This will make them even more dominant than the present structures. 3. Anyone can take cleverly arranged photographs which appear to show minimal impact – all that is needed is for care to be taken with the elevation of the photograph. 4. These photographs paint a very distorted suggestive picture that appears to say that these sheds will have no/little impact visually. 5. This is far from the actuality. If allowed these will be hugely visible and dominate the view. 6. No mitigating colours, surface finishes, landscaping have been proposed to mitigate their effect. This shows a want of respect for the landscape in which they would be situated. 7. Present external lighting is unnecessary, intrusive and contributes to night pollution.

Additional Supporting Information from the Applicant is summarised below: • The proposed development will not encroach in to any important views or vistas will not extend in to any exposed sky-line or ridge-line locations and will not extend above any of the existing landforms. Therefore given the EU regulations to improve the site to meet with new legislation and the fact the approval of the proposal will ensure continued employment of a significant number of staff. • In respect of the number of existing and proposed birds and size of cages, the new cages are designed to provide perches, scratching areas and nest boxes to comply with the 2012 legislation. The number of birds under the PPC permit with the EA is 295680 and the new sheds have been designed to accommodate this number in the new size cages, as described in the design and access statement. Existing cages area for 80 birds is 4.4m sq, compared to 7.7m sq, a 57% increase in cage area in 2012.

Further clarification was requested by the LPA which is summarised below:

• First Floor: A first floor is not proposed within the sheds. The plans show both the existing and proposed sheds and no first floor is shown, neither does the description indicate that a first floor is proposed. The cages that are within the sheds are stacked on top of each other, and there is walkway access to some of the cages for health and safety reasons, however there is no first floor to the building.

• In terms of the existing plans, they show the accurate dimensions of the sheds, which have been checked, and we also included an accurate topographical survey which shows the levels of the site and at each end of the existing shed. The shed sits level on the site with the land sloping slightly around the sheds from one end of the site to another, as the topographical survey shows.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

We can inset a datum level on the existing elevations however I don't see why this would be required given that the total height is indicated and the accurate topographical levels are available to the Council. Therefore the Council already have the information required to determine both the existing height of the sheds, the levels of the site and the proposed height of the new shed.

• Any approved consent could be subject to levels conditions, which would relate to the topographical survey submitted, therefore I don't see why there is an issue that is holding up the validation and registration of this application.

• There is currently capacity for 295,680 laying birds within the sheds, controlled by the PPC EA licence. Therefore numbers of birds cannot be increased without application for a new licence with the EA. As confirmed previously, there will not no increase in bird numbers, the bird numbers will remain the same as the present situation.

• Currently 3 lorries carrying feed enter the site from the village direction at 6.30am Monday - Saturday but leave the site in the other direction towards the A4118 main road. This arrangement was agreed with Kittle Village in order to cause least possible disruption.

• All other lorries collecting eggs enter the site and leave the site from the A4118 main road. This consists of 2-3 times a day, and is not more than 3 times a day. During a meeting with village residents this arrangement was agreed.

• In terms of the proposal, due to no increase in numbers of birds, the commercial movements will be the same as the existing situation, however agreement has been reached that all lorry movements will be from and to the A4118 main road, therefore removing all large commercial traffic from the village - a planning gain associated with approval of this application.

Highways: This proposal is to replace the existing farm buildings. The buildings are currently part of the Kittle Hill Poultry Farm and the proposed replacement buildings are similar in size to those that they are replacing. The applicant confirms that there is no increase in production associated with this proposal merely a replacement and upgrading of the current facilities.

On that basis there is no evidence to suggest that an increase in traffic is likely and therefore I recommend that no highway objections are raised.

Addendum to Highway Report

Amended Recommendation

This proposal is to replace the existing farm buildings. The buildings are currently part of the Kittle Hill Poultry Farm and the proposed replacement buildings are similar in footprint but higher than those that they are replacing. The applicant confirms that there is no increase in production associated with this proposal merely a replacement and upgrading of the current facilities. On that basis there is no evidence to suggest that an increase in traffic is likely beyond that which could be expected with the current business. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

Vehicle movements into and out from the site, particularly commercial vehicles, would be best towards and from the A4118 as the road alignment in the other direction is narrow and tortuous. The applicant encourages access in the more appropriate direction on an informal basis, however it would be beneficial if this were formalised through an appropriate condition. This cannot be secured for deliveries to the site by third parties however the applicant could advise all third party delivery and collection services that the preferred route for commercial traffic is via the A4118. Alternatively these requirements could form the basis of a transport management plan as part of a Travel Plan. The Travel Plan would also cover the usual requirements of addressing staff and visitor travel mode to the facility and help to encourage a reduction in car travel.

I recommend no highway objection subject to the following;

Within 12 Months of consent, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for approval and the Travel Plan shall be implemented on beneficial use of the development commencing. The Travel Plan shall include details of car reduction initiatives and methods of monitoring, review and adjustment where necessary. The plan shall also include for the control of Service delivery vehicles into and out from the site including the direction of travel. Advice on Travel Plans can be obtained from Jayne Cornelius, SWWITCH Travel Plan Co-ordinator Tel 07796 275711.

APPRAISAL

This application is reported to Committee for decision at the request of Councillor Margaret Smith.

Full planning permission is sought for the demolition and replacement of three replacement chicken sheds and one packaging shed at Kittle Hill Poultry Farm, Kittle. The site has had a long history as a chicken farm and as such the proposal will not introduce a new use into the landscape. The site is situated approximately 187m to the North of village of Kittle. The applicants state that the increase in size is required in order to comply with EU Directive 1999/74/EC which enforces minimum standards for the protection of laying hens and states that, from 1 January 2012, the rearing of laying hens in conventional (known as 'unenriched') cages will be prohibited throughout the EU. From that date, laying hens will only be allowed to be reared in enriched cages or using alternative systems such as barn or free range. Enriched cages must allow at least 750 cm2 per hen, and contain a nest, litter, perch and clawing-board. All Member States have been urged to step up their efforts in the phasing out of conventional cages, so as to be in full compliance with this requirement within the deadline.

Site History

In terms of the site’s recent history relating to the chicken sheds, planning permission was granted in December 1995 (Ref: 95/1172) for the retention of 6No feed and silos and pumps, 42 No air intake ventilators and repositioned doors to southwest and northeast elevations, revised extractor fans to southeast elevation and redesigned ridge ventilators.

The farm currently has a license for 295,680 laying birds and the proposed development will not result in an increase above what is allowed by the PPC EA license. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

Issues

The main issues to be considered in this instance are the impact of the replacement sheds on the visual amenities of the surrounding landscape and environment and the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers having regard to the prevailing policies of the Development Plan and National Planning Policy Guidance which seek to protect the open countryside from inappropriate development, and conserve and enhance the character and quality of the surrounding countryside and natural beauty of the Gower AONB. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

Within the Gower AONB, Policies EV22 and EV26 of the Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) ensure that the primary objective of this designation is the protection and enhancement of the area’s natural beauty. This is supported by national planning policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 which recognises that AONBs, whilst small in area, are of such a fine landscape quality that they are on a par with National Parks and there is a national as well as a local interest in keeping them so. Furthermore UDP Policy EV21 restricts development in the open countryside except where it is essential for the rural economy, or it can be demonstrated to meet the social or economic needs of the local community. Policy EV21 in its amplification requires acceptable development to be in keeping with the landscape and character of the area and not include any new building development which would either individually or cumulatively significantly harm the landscape.

As required by the above Development Plan policies and Central Government policy guidance, it is required that new development in the open countryside has a proven rural need. Moreover, Central Government guidelines advise that Local Planning Authorities need to be satisfied that any stated agricultural intentions in the open countryside are genuine, are reasonably likely to materialize, are capable of being sustained for a reasonable period, and would be economically viable.

Justification

The Poultry Farm is a long established business and as such the proposal will not result in the introduction of a new use but the modernisation of an existing business which is beneficial to the rural economy. The applicant indicates that currently 20 people are employed full time with a further 6 part time. The proposal will result in the creation of 12 full time jobs and a further 4 part time. The proposal will therefore in compliance with Policy EV21 of the Swansea UDP be beneficial to the rural economy and rural employment and supports the viability of the existing farm unit. Therefore in principle the proposal is considered an appropriate form of development at this rural location.

Visual Impact

Policy EC14 of the Swansea UDP requires agricultural development to be sympathetically sited, design and landscaped in order to minimise their impact upon the landscape. The proposed buildings would be situated within the existing complex and in a similar position to the existing buildings. The buildings will not break above the wider sky line and as such will not, it is considered, appear dominant or visually oppressive in the wider landscape. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

The ground levels upon which the existing sheds are sited vary but the height of the three to be replaced range from approximately 8.8m to 9, above a datum level of 80m. The three new sheds, however, would have a constant ridge height of approximately 12.8m above the same datum level of 80m. The increase in ridge height above the existing sheds would therefore be approximately 4m. In terms of footprint the existing sheds have a combined width of approximately 58m and maximum length of approximately 96m, whereby the replacement sheds would have a combined width of approximately 65m and maximum length of approximately 104m. The new packaging shed will also replace some existing buildings on the site and will measure approximately 8m in height (above datum) 29.5m in width and 47.5m in length approximately.

The roofs and walls will be constructed from green box profile cladding and windows and doors from white UPVC. Whilst it is acknowledged that the new buildings would be visually more prominent from public vantage points than the existing buildings, it is considered that subject to the final levels of the buildings being agreed the increase in height of 4m is not so excessive so as to warrant refusal of this planning application or visual amenity grounds. It must be recognised that the existing extensive buildings are an established part of the Gower AONB landscape at this location and that the need for farms and rural enterprises to adopt to modern EU requirements is inevitable. The buildings proposed, whilst large would ensure that the business can continue to operate beyond 2012 and subject to the details of external finishes, finished floor levels and additional landscaping being agreed prior to commencement the proposed development would not, it is considered, have a material adverse effect on the character, appearance and natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB. Buildings of this nature are prevalent throughout the Gower and are of a size and scale that is commensurate with the size of the holding. The buildings will not capture any open countryside and is on previously developed land. As such on balance the application is considered to have an acceptable impact upon the visual character and appearance of the Gower AONB in compliance with Policies EV1, EV2, EV22, EV26, EV21 and EC14 of the Swansea UDP.

Highways

Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering it is considered that given the applicant confirms that there is no increase in production associated with this proposal, merely a replacement and upgrading of the current facilities and the fact the applicant is bound by the existing license set by the Environment Agency, it is considered that on this basis there is no evidence to suggest that an increase in traffic is likely beyond which is currently experienced with the existing business.

Vehicle movements into and out from the site, particularly commercial vehicles, would be preferred to travel towards and from the A4118 as the road alignment in the other direction is narrow and tortuous. Currently there is an informal agreement that all commercial vehicles using the Poultry Farm use the A1448 via Fariwood Common as opposed through road via Kittle. however it would be beneficial if this were formalised through an appropriate condition. The current application is an opportunity to formalise this and reinforce the informal agreement. This cannot be secured for deliveries to the site by third parties however the applicant could advise all third party delivery and collection services that the preferred route for commercial traffic is via the A4118. Alternatively these requirements could form the basis of a transport management plan as part of a Travel Plan. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

The Travel Plan would also cover the usual requirements of addressing staff and visitor travel mode to the facility and help to encourage a reduction in car travel which it is considered would ultimately improve the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties within the village of Kittle.

Given the concerns expressed by third parties and the reassurance offered by the applicant that bird numbers will not increase, in the interest of highway safety it is considered reasonable to impose a condition limiting the number of laying birds to 295,680, as stipulated by the EA license.

Pollution and Residential Amenity Implications

Turning to residential amenities, the nearest neighbouring properties are situated some 187m to the south of the Poultry Farm and as such it is not considered that the development will have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers by virtue of overbearing or overshadowing impacts.

It is acknowledged that there is a SAC approximately 270m away, however given the existing use and siting of the replacement sheds on the footprint of the existing ones combined with the distance and given the number of birds is not increasing it is not considered the proposal will have a detrimental impact upon it.

Having consulted the Council’s Pollution Control Division, it is acknowledged that in the past there have been issues over odours emanating from the site and there is still the potential for nuisance arising from the operation. However, the Environment Agency (EA) are the regulatory authority for the site and they have issued a permit covering the process. Having consulted the EA there are no objections to the proposed replacement sheds subject to a condition being attached in relation to foul drainage.

Response to Consultations

Notwithstanding the above, 21 letters of objection were received raising concerns in relation to the proposals visual impact, the size and height of the buildings, the justification for the proposed works, visual impact on the Gower AONB and on the landscape, conflict with the provisions of the development plan, traffic and highway safety implications, impact upon the SAC, noise, pollution and malodours, drainage, overbearing and incongruous nature, road infrastructure, numbers of birds, environmental implications, colours and finishes. All of these issues have, it is considered, been addressed above.

Concern has also been raised regarding the potential for a future application to combine the proposal with a bio-fuel plant. This is purely speculation and was not taken into consideration during the determination of this application. Should an application be submitted in the future, this would be determined on its own individual merit.

Landscaping the site has been mentioned a concern by a third party correspondence and as mentioned previously a landscaping condition is proposed.

The accuracy of the photomontages has been brought into question and whilst it is acknowledged they may not be 100% accurate they are for indicative purposes only. It is considered that sufficient information has been submitted to determine the application on its merits. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is considered that the scale and siting of the proposed development will have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of this rural location and subject to conditions the proposal will have an acceptable impact upon the Gower AONB the amenities of neighbouring residents and highway safety and thereby be in accordance with Policies EV1, EV2, EV3, EV22, EV26, EV21 and EC14 of the Swansea UDP. Approval is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

3 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.

4 Within 12 Months of this consent, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the Travel Plan shall be implemented prior to the commencement of work on site. The Travel Plan shall include details of car reduction initiatives and methods of monitoring, review and adjustment where necessary. The plan shall also include for the control of Service delivery vehicles into and out from the site including the direction of travel. Advice on Travel Plans can be obtained from Jayne Cornelius, SWWITCH Travel Plan Co-ordinator Tel 07796 275711. Reason: In the interest of residential and visual amenity.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

5 No lighting shall be erected to serve the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of preserving and protecting the character and appearance of the Gower AONB.

6 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 satisfactory drainage of the site.

7 The total number of laying birds to be accommodated within the buildings hereby permitted shall not exceed 295,680, as stipulated by the PPC EA License for the site. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

8 Notwithstanding the plans hereby permitted, before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of the finished floor levels of the buildings in relation to the adjoining land and highway 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 amenities of the area.

9 Each building hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Building Research Establishment (BREEAM) overall 'very good' and achieve 6 credits under category Ene1 in accordance with the requirements of BREEAM 2008. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

10 No development shall begin until details of a 'Design Stage' assessment and related certification have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification unless the Local Planning Authority shall otherwise consent in writing. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

11 Following practical completion of the final building, no building unit shall be occupied until a 'Post Construction Stage' assessment has been carried out in relation to it, a Final Certificate has been issued for it certifying that 'very good' and 6 credits under Ene1 has been achieved. Reason: In the interest of sustainability.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 10 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1410

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, EV21, EV22, EV26, EV40 and EC14 of the Swansea UDP).

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 Environment Agency request that you ensure that the proposed new buildings comply with BAT as set out in the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Intensive Rearing of Poultry and Pigs (commonly known as the BREF, published by the European IPPC Bureau 2003). Should you require further information with regard to these regulation please contact Howard Oates, Environment Management on 01792 325639.

In addition, you are advised to ensure that any changes to the PPC Permit required for the site are notified/applied for as required.

4 Please also note the following: " 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. Should planning permission be secured for this development, then all appropriate pollution control measures must be adopted on site during the construction phase. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure no contaminated water or material be allowed to enter and pollute surface or groundwaters. Pollution prevention guidance notes (PPGs) are available from www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/links/107968.aspx

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.

PLANS

Design and access statement, BREEAM, 10394/1- survey, 10394/2- proposed layout, 10394/3- packing shed, 10394/4- shed 1, 10394/5- sheds 2, 10394/6- sheds 3, 10394/7- proposed elevations, 10394/8- site location plan received 26th October 2009. Additional information maps , photographs and elevations received 17th December 2009

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Land at Oxwich Bay Hotel, Oxwich, Swansea, SA3 1LS Proposal: Extend the period of temporary permitted use for marquee and associated overspill car park to include the period commencing 1st November 2009 and ceasing on 31st March 2011 Applicant: Mr I Williams

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

Policy EV11 Development will not be permitted that would harm the character or setting of a registered Historic Park or Garden or the character of an Historic Landscape. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

Policy EV25 Development, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, which is likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European protected site (SAC, Marine SAC, SPA and Ramsar Sites) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV27 Development that significantly adversely affects the special interests of sites designated as SSSI's and NNR's will not be permitted unless the need for the development is of such significance that it outweighs the national importance of the designation. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

Policy EV31 Along the undeveloped coastline development proposals for the provision of visitor and recreation facilities and services to complement existing facilities will be permitted at specified coastal locations. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2008/2185 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from 1 February 2009 to 31 October 2009 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/01/2009

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

98/0565 ENGINEERING OPERATIONS TO REPROFILE OPEN MEADOW TO FORM A PLATEAU FOR THE TEMPORARY SITING OF A MARQUEE WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS WAY AND LAND DRAINAGE WORKS Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 14/07/1998

98/1207 RETENTION OF LAND DRAINAGE WORKS, ALTERATIONS TO FIELD ACCESS AND REPROFILING OF PLATEAU AREA Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 09/03/1999

2004/1741 Siting of temporary marquee April to September inclusive and December, and associated overspill car park Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 11/08/2005

2005/2635 Submission of details for conditions 3 and 5 of planning permission 2004/1741 granted on 11th April 2005 to show new hedge and background lighting for the marquee and overspill car park Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 28/03/2008

2006/2781 Temporary siting of marquee from April to September 2007 and December 2007, associated overspill car park and landscaping. Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 15/05/2007

2008/0064 Temporary siting of marquee and associated overspill car park from April to September 2008 and December 2008 Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 04/03/2008

81/0794/01 ERECTION OF A HOTEL Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 30/07/1981

77/0087/03 ERECTION OF A LOUNGE BAR AMD LOUNGE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 31/03/1977

84/1288/03 ADDITION OF NEW ENTRANCE PORCHES,BAY WINDOWS,EXTRA TOILET ACCOMMODATION AND GENERAL ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/11/1984

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

84/1600/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION (B) ON PREVIOUS APPROVAL 82/1383/11 REFERRING TO NO COACHES OR CHARABANCS BEING ALLOWED TO ENTER SITE. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 31/01/1985

79/0923/01 ERECTION OF A DETACHED BUNGALOW AND EXTENSION OF CARAVAN SITE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 30/08/1979

74/0476/03 CHANGE OF USE FROM BAR TO RESTAURANT AND ERECTION OF TOILETS Decision: *HGPCU - GRANT PERMISSION UNCONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/09/1974

74/0500/01 ERECTION OF A CLUBHOUSE Decision: *HRP - REFUSE PERMISSION Decision Date: 26/09/1974

85/0812/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'C' ON PREVIOUS CONSENT RELATING TO USE FOR MUSIC DANCING AND OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/07/1985

86/0082/12 RELAXATION OF CONDITION 'E' ON CONSENT FOR MUSIC AND DANCING + OUTSIDE FUNCTIONS, (2/1/85/0812/12). Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 18/03/1986

86/0359/03 USE OF BUILDING (HOTEL) FOR MUSIC AND DANCING IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE FUNCTIONS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 26/06/1986

86/1566/03 EXTENSION TO EXISTING KITCHENS. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/01/1987

75/1329/03 ENLARGEMENT OF EXISTING BAR AND CONSTRUCTION OF BEER CELLAR. ADDITION OF RECEPTION AREA AND NEW DRAINAGE SYSTEM Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/03/1976

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

89/1470/03 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO HOTEL PREMISES. Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 15/12/1989

90/0500/03 SITING OF PORTAKABIN AND FLOODLIGHTS Decision: Withdraw Decision Date: 25/03/1996

90/1260/03 ERECTION OF GARAGE, CAR PORT + SCREENING TO SERVICE AREA, HUT AND BARRIER TO EXISTING CAR PARK, HEIGHTENING OF ROOF STORE + PROVISION OF ACCESS. Decision: DEFERRAL AT AREA PLANNING CMTE Decision Date: 13/11/1990

91/0088/03 ERECTION OF WALL Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 29/04/1991

91/1506 ERECTION OF STORM PORCH WITH FIRST FLOOR CONSERVATORY Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 25/02/1992

96/0906 FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION INCORPORATING NEW BALCONY, SINGLE STOREY CONSERVATORY EXTENSION AND NEW PORCH AND BALCONY ON FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION, ALTERATIONS TO ELEVATIONS, EXTENSION TO ROOF AND CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 13/01/1998

94/1316 EXTENSION OF EXISTING PORCH, ERECTION OF NEW STAIRWELL AND FORMATION OF RAISED GARDEN Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 07/02/1995

96/0724 ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS AND FORMATION OF NEW CAR PARKING AREA Decision: *HGPC - GRANT PERMISSION CONDITIONAL Decision Date: 21/01/1998

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a Departure from the Development Plan and a development within a Conservation Area and four neighbouring properties were individually consulted. NO RESPONSE. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

The Gower Society: We object to this application as it stands.

We refer to the above application that we have examined, and also visited the site. We now have the following comments to make:

1. This latest application is very late in its submission; we note planning application 2008/2185 which expressly gave permission for the siting of the marquee from 1 April – 31 October until 2011. The date of the approval letter was 15th January 2009. 2. We accept that the Hotel is a popular venue and that the marquee adds to the local economy. However, it is extremely conspicuous addition in the landscape. 3. The facility has been allowed on a more or less 6 monthly basis since about 2001; the application if allowed, would put this structure in danger of becoming a fixed and permanent addition to the hotel. 4. We strongly suspect that as the main wedding season is not during the winter period, that this application may be angled at reduction the cost of removal and re-erection when complying with the existing planning permission. 5. The use of such a facility over the winter months poses many questions – in particular, the ones of sustainability relating to winter heating. 6. We have repeatedly commented on the conspicuous nature of this marquee and we note the applicant’s statements regarding a more suitable colour for a prominent feature in an AONB. 7. We reiterate these views – any extension of the existing permission adds to the visual impact on the AONB, where it can be seen from Cefn Bryn, Penmaen and Pennard. 8. We fully appreciate the contribution that the Hotel makes to tourism and the local economy, but these factors should not overrule planning legislation meant to protect the AONB. The owners could consider, for instance, relocating the marquee to the rear of the hotel (or further toward the village) where its visual impact would be greatly reduced.

Environment Agency – No objection to the proposed development. Standard informatives should be taken into consideration.

Highways Observations - The application is for the extension of temporary consent to site a marquee and associated overspill car parking.

There have been no reported issues as a result of the temporary permission and the temporary overspill parking area is considered to be beneficial when events are being held at the site. This ensures that no extraneous parking takes place within the village.

I recommend no highway objections be raised.

LANDMAP APPRAISAL

LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales, March 2002 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2002). LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

An analysis of the Visual and Sensory data for South Gower concludes that the application site falls within an area with the following ‘landscape receptors’: a gently rolling landscape where there is an overall high scenic quality (picturesque views of coast), with attractive views both in and out(views of coast/cliffs from some viewpoints) and high character (strong sense of place), where the open landscape and field/hedge character should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be changed. This is reinforced by the cultural landscape data for Oxwich Bay/Oxwich area, which recognises the national importance of Oxwich Bay as a “honey pot” destination for holiday makers throughout the UK and overseas. It describes the aspect area as ‘a three-mile crescent of gently-sloping white sand that culminates in the east with Great Tor. Within that area are two spectacular headlands and several castles. The village and the area is dominated by the leisure industry, though its history is still evident…the Oxwich Bay Hotel, a former 18th century rectory now utterly spoiled by modern additions’. The recommendations include the immediate improvement of the appearance of beach buildings and caravan parks.

The landscape, geological and historical layers of LANDMAP add to the above baseline data. The landscape data confirms that apart from being with the Gower AONB, the application site is close to sites of international importance and adjacent to a high value area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland ‘Woods at Oxwich Point’ which is regarded as high priority habitat supporting high levels of biodiversity within SSSI.

In conclusion, this baseline data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic quality and character, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.

Supporting Statement from applicant Mr Ian Williams, Proprietor, Oxwich Bay Hotel

In support of our planning application that is due to be placed before the planning committee I would like to bring you up to date with the present operating position.

The Marquee Venue as well as the supporting services reflect a considerable investment. This has been made out of our finances and borrowed fund, with there being no introduction of grant monies from any source either local or national.

This investment will lead to increasing number of patrons that could easily approach ten thousand people visiting the facilities from all over the world in the next twelve months. At the same time in the region of forty eight staff will be required to provide the attendant services as well as make a substantial contribution approaching £1m (one million) being injected into the local economy.

The additional generation of business is leading to up grading and modernisation of facilities in the main area of the hotel, This also has been funded without grant aid and secures twenty six jobs, creates six new jobs and three specialist posts.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

Current economic pressures are making trade difficult. Evidence would suggest that it has never been easy with some twenty hotels having ceased to operate in the South Gower / Mumbles area in the past twenty five years. As a family we have made the positive decision to invest in providing greater value for money, through enhanced services. This will hopefully keep the public “ spend “ in the locality as against the money going outside Swansea / Gower area, even South Wales, completely.

APPRAISAL

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

The application site is situated on land at Oxwich Bay Hotel. This field site (Field No. 2821) is located to the south east of the hotel at the southern end of Oxwich Bay. The site is located on the beach side of the prominent headland at Oxwich Point, both within the Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and close to the listed church of St Illtyds, and adjacent to the Gower Ash Woods Special Area of Conservation.

Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention of the existing marquee and associated overspill car park throughout the winter periods for a continuous period until 31st October, 2011.

Planning permission was previously granted on the 15th January, 2009, for the temporary siting of this marquee at this site (Ref: 2008/2185), subject to conditions including Condition 01, as follows:-

“Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, this permission is for a limited period expiring on 31st October 2011. During this period the marquee hereby approved shall only be used between the 1st April and 31st October (inclusive) in any year, and shall be removed in its entirety from the planning unit between the 1st November and 31st March in any year”.

Members are advised that notwithstanding the above conditional requirement, the marquee has not been removed and is still erected on site. In response to discussions with the case officer, the applicant has recently submitted a supporting written statement, copied in full above, to justify not removing the marquee.

In terms of its overall size and siting the marquee appears to be in line with the details submitted for temporary planning permission under the above planning application 2008/2185 with three main sections extending to approximately 54m in length, a maximum of 12m in width and a maximum of 6m in height. However, further investigation on site has revealed that the structure has a degree of permanency that was not clarified or considered during the determination of the previous approval, including hardstandings and associated paths constructed to the front entrance to the marquee and around the sides and rear of marquee, as well as fixed connections to power supplies. The marquee has an integral kitchen and toilets and as such could be considered a stand alone development that need not rely on the existing hotel for services or facilities. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

Related Planning History

Prior to the above approval last year, the application site had been used for approximately ten years to site a temporary marquee (albeit smaller than the current proposal) during the summer months. Originally in the late 1990s, planning permission was not required for the marquee because the tent was not erected for more than 28 days in any year, and as such was permitted development for the purposes of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. However, retrospective planning permission was granted in March 1999 (application ref. 98/1207) for the associated engineering and re-profiling works that had been carried out unlawfully to this former wildflower meadow.

In 2005, planning permission was granted for the retention of a temporary marquee that had been erected at that time (application ref. 2004/1741). This marquee was smaller than the current proposal but was granted temporary planning permission for the months of April to September and the month of December, and was removed in the intervening periods with the field restored to its original state. A similar application was also approved under 2006/2781 for the 2007 season.

Prior to last year, therefore, the marquee was substantially smaller than the current structure in overall size and height, and the land was restored to a green field site during the winter. Moreover, the former site was well screened by a hedgerow on the beach side along the north eastern facing boundary of the site, which helped screen this smaller structure especially during the summer months.

Policy Considerations

The main issues to be considered are whether the retention and continuous use of the current marquee throughout the winter months until 31st October 2011 (as well as the authorised summer months) would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and rural landscape of the designated Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Oxwich Village Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby listed Church of St. Illtyds, having regard to the prevailing policies of the Unitary Development Plan and National planning guidance. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations.

Recent Central Government policy guidance, provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 and its supporting Technical Advice Notes set out the overarching critical principles and objectives in respect of sustainability, biodiversity, design and tourism, which are applied to reinforce the policies of the Unitary Development Plan. Within AONBs the primary objective of this designation is the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the area. In addition, the effect of development proposals on the wildlife or landscape of any area can be a material consideration. The Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the AONB purposes and protect the landscape and scenic quality (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000).

In rural areas, PPW 2002 states that tourism is an essential element in providing for a healthy, diverse, local economy, but the scale and nature of such development must be sensitive to the local environment. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

The above National Planning Policy Guidance recognises that the Countryside Council for Wales LANDMAP provides nationally consistent data on landscape assessment in Wales. In conclusion, this baseline data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic quality and character, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.

The Unitary Development Plan for Swansea was adopted on the 10th November, 2008, and in line with the above national planning policy guidance, the relevant objectives and policies seek to protect the countryside and sensitive areas of high landscape quality in Gower AONB from development that would cause material harm, particularly where the undeveloped coastline or other areas of high landscape quality are concerned. The Local Planning Authority seeks to protect the environment and landscape of Gower AONB and Oxwich Village Conservation Area through the application of Strategic Part 1 Policies SP1, SP2, and SP3 and Part 2 Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV31, EV40 are relevant to this application. In addition, Policy EC17 regarding rural tourism has also been considered in respect of this application.

In this particular case, because the application site is located in a particularly sensitive coastal location with the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, careful consideration has to be given to the need to cater for increased visitor and tourism needs against the need to safeguard the visual character and appearance and environmental capital of the Gower landscape, so that it is preserved for the benefit of future generations. The Gower Peninsula is recognised internationally as a most important visitor attraction, however if development is not carefully controlled there is a risk of destroying the very qualities which constitute its attraction.

Visual Impact

Although the application site lies within the grounds of Oxwich Bay Hotel, it is separated from the main hotel complex by a distance of approximately 76m, and is seen in the context of the surrounding countryside setting, including the wide sweep of Oxwich beach and bay to the north, and the backcloth of the Gower Ash Woods SAC to the south. In addition the marquee has to be considered in the context of the setting of the neighbouring CADW listed St Illtyds Church situated approximately 90m to the south east of the application site.

The application field site is naturally an integral part of the surrounding highly valued landscape and an intrinsic part of the character of this edge of woodland and beach location. Whilst it is acknowledged that the current marquee facility provides an improved facility for the hotel in providing a separate venue for weddings, it must also be assessed against the need to conserve the special landscape qualities of the Gower AONB.

As referred to above, LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment, and is advocated by Planning Policy Wales, March 2002 as being an important information resource upon which local planning authorities can draw in making landscape assessments to inform local policy, guidance and decision making in the field (para. 5.3.13, PPW 2002). LANDMAP describes and evaluates aspects of landscape and provides the consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. This includes, for example, local distinctiveness, special landscape area, and design. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

An analysis of the relevant Visual and Sensory data for South Gower concludes that the application site falls within an area where there is an overall high scenic quality (picturesque views of coast), with attractive views both in and out(views of coast/cliffs from some viewpoints) and high character (strong sense of place), where the open landscape and field/hedge character should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be changed. This is reinforced by other layers of data including cultural landscape, geological and historical layers of LANDMAP that add to the above baseline data. In conclusion, this data highlights the landscape constraints, landscape value, and local landscape character of this area and underlines that the application site is in an area of high scenic quality and character, which should be retained and conserved, and tourism influence should be denied to protect these qualities.

The current marquee has an overall footprint of approx. 576m², and maximum height of approximately 6m, and is significantly larger and more visually prominent in the surrounding landscape than any of the previous marquees. The case officer’s site visit has confirmed that the current marquee can be viewed easily because of its significant height above the neighbouring hedge, and the visual impact is exacerbated by the external materials finish in a brilliant white canvas. The application site is clearly visible from numerous public vantage points in the immediate and wider surrounding area, for example the existing structure can be viewed easily from all the beaches surrounding within Oxwich Bay and is also visible long distance from Pennard Cliffs and Cefn Bryn.

It has been noted that the marquee is clearly visible in the summer months, and this is further exacerbated during the winter months, when the white marquee stands out sharply against the dark backcloth of Oxwich woods as a prominent white structure. In this context, the marquee appears as an alien and incongruous feature in relation to its surroundings with significant harm to the landscape, which is characterised by the green quality of the agricultural fields, woodland backdrop and coastal views across Oxwich Bay. This contrasts particularly with the subdued impact of the protected church that nestles discretely nearby against the backcloth of trees.

Moreover, it is not considered that screening through additional planting can help screen this structure, given its siting on a lowland coastal site which is prominently visible from higher ground in the surrounding AONB area. It is noted that the Planning Inspector appointed to determine the Appeal last year at a nearby Appeal site at Greenways Caravan Park (APP/B6855/C/08/2076849) concluded that, “The countryside should be protected for its inherent natural beauty, landscape, ecological and agricultural qualities, as well as for the view that can be obtained from within the site or from its surroundings.” Moreover he stated that screening “from public view by planting is not in itself a sound reason for allowing otherwise harmful development to proceed, because the same principle could be applied to many similar types of development in the area, thus causing great cumulative harm to the protected countryside of Gower”.

To allow the marquee to remain on the application site for a continuous period until 31st March 2011 would result in a degree of permanence to this development that is clearly in conflict with the overriding objective to preserve the character of the AONB, and is therefore contrary to National and Unitary Development Plan policies. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

In conclusion, therefore the current marquee is highly visible within the wider landscape and its retention during the winter months is considered to represent an inappropriate form of development at this location that is visually harmful to the character and appearance of the natural beauty of this part of the coastline and AONB location. In addition, due to its size, siting, and appearance, the marquee is considered to have a dominant and obtrusive impact on the immediate setting of the protected listed church and detracts from the character and appearance of Oxwich Village Conservation Area. As such the development is contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV22, and EV26.

The overspill car park is associated with the use of the marquee and again is more exposed during the winter months. The use of the overspill car park during the winter months would not be supported.

Tourism/Business Issues

The applicant has submitted additional information (copied above) in support of his application to retain the marquee during the winter months. In particular he maintains that the investment that he has made in this venture will support the local economy and provide enhanced services to the community through the injection of private funds and continued investment at this hotel location. He has not confirmed how much the marquee has actually been marketed or used during the 2009/2010 winter period. However, it has been noted that the marquee has been in used in recent weeks for functions.

The advice in National Planning Policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002 and its associated TANs is that in the interests of achieving sustainable development it is important to manage change in the tourism sector in ways which respect the integrity of the natural, built and cultural environment. Technical Advice Note (Wales) 13, October 1997:Tourism advises that such development should be compatible with neighbouring uses, and seek to protect the setting of historic buildings. In addition, the guidance emphasises that, ‘The fact that a development is intended to meet tourism needs does not mean that statutory or non statutory designations should not apply or that they should be applied less rigorously’ (para. 2.9 TAN 13).

In accordance with Policy EV26, in the AONB the main objective is the conservation and protection of the area’s natural beauty, whilst acknowledging the need to achieve a balance between the social and economic well-being of the area. UDP policy EC17 supports rural tourism, however this is subject to the development meeting specific criteria including criteria (ii) that they do not have significant adverse effects on the landscape or nature conservation interests.

Note has also been taken of the LANDMAP cultural landscape data for the Oxwich Bay/Oxwich area, which recognises the national importance of Oxwich Bay as a “honey pot” destination for holiday makers throughout the UK and overseas, and describes the aspect area as ‘a three-mile crescent of gently-sloping white sand that culminates in the east with Great Tor, with two spectacular headlands and several castles’. However the data also notes some detractors. Notably it highlights that ‘The Oxwich Bay Hotel, a former 18th century rectory now utterly spoiled by modern additions’. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

In this respect it is considered that the current marquee may provide an improved tourist/business facility at this location and help aid the socio economic well being of the area, but this has to be considered against the primary objective to protect the AONB, and substantial weight must therefore be given in favour of conserving the character of the Gower AONB from any inappropriate development. The marquee, by it’s very appearance and nature is not considered appropriate for a more permanent function facility, particularly in an area designated for its natural beauty and recognised internationally as being part of a coastal area of high scenic quality and value.

In conclusion, it is not considered that it has been demonstrated that there are sufficient grounds to allow the retention of the temporary marquee in the winter months and the development should be removed during the period 1st November to 31st March in any year as previously approved under application no. 2008/2185, in order to protect the intrinsic qualities of this high quality AONB landscape in line with national and local planning policy objectives.

Moreover, it is considered that approving this application would set a dangerous precedent for the consideration of other applications, the cumulative impact of which would erode the very qualities of the environment and natural beauty of the AONB that the Council seeks to protect.

Incremental intensification and urbanisation of this site with this more permanent structures will further undermine the objectives of national planning and local planning policy guidance which seek to protect this sensitive coastal location and ensure that the very environment that attracts tourism to this popular area is not destroyed by inappropriate development.

Highway Safety Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering, there have been no reported issues as a result of the temporary permission and the overspill car park is considered beneficial when events are being held at the site. No highway objection is raised.

Other Material Considerations

In response to public consultation, the Gower Society has objected raising concerns regarding the visual intrusiveness of the development and the impact upon the wider landscape, and concerns that the marquee could become a permanent at the site. These issues have been addressed above in the main body of the report.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations, it is considered that to allow the marquee to remain continuously on site until 31st October 2011 would result in a prominent, alien and incongruous feature within the landscape during the winter months, which would cause significant harm to the landscape and natural beauty of the Gower AONB and the Oxwich Conservation Area, and the setting of the neighbouring listed church of St. Illtyds, contrary to Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Refusal is recommended. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 11 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1599

RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE for the following reason:

1 The proposed retention of the existing temporary marquee until 31st October, 2011, by virtue of its sting, size, design and appearance, represents an inappropriate form of development at this countryside location that results in significant harm to the rural character of the landscape and high scenic quality of this coastal area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB landscape, and the character and setting of the Oxwich Village Conservation Area and listed church of St. Illtyds, contrary to national planning policy guidance and UDP policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV22, and EV26.

INFORMATIVES

1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: Policies EV1, EV2, EV9, EV11, EV21, EV22, EV25, EV26, EV27, EV31, EV40, EC17.

PLANS

Site location plan x 2, 1A proposed car park plans, 4D proposed marquee site plan, design and access statement received 23rd November 2009

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 12 APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813 WARD: Bishopston Area 2

Location: 15 The Glebe Bishopston Swansea SA3 3JP Proposal: Detached dwelling and conversion of existing dwelling to residential annexe ancillary to proposed dwelling Applicant: Mr SA Ramsey Williams

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2004/1964 Detached dwelling (outline) Decision: Withdrawn Decision Date: 01/02/2005

2005/1184 Detached dwelling (outline) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 19/07/2005

2005/1928 Detached dwelling with detached garage Resolved to approve subject to S106 Obligation. S106 not signed.

2008/0727 Detached dwelling with attached double garage Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 19/05/2008

2008/0875 Two storey side extension with rear balcony Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 13/08/2008

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: Twenty-four neighbouring dwellings were individually consulted and the application was advertised on site in the form of a Site Notice. THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION were received which are summarised below:

1. Proposal does not differ from the earlier scheme refused by Committee and also the appeal. 2. Concern relating to the dwelling being separated and reverted back to a dwelling over time. 3. Legal restrictions or conditions are very unlikely to control its use. 4. Internal alterations could be carried out without permission. 5. A separate use would generate traffic quite easily. 6. Proposal is tandem development. 7. Current semi-detached dwelling would be unacceptable under current criteria. 8. New dwelling would generate more cars. 9. Dangerous precedent. 10. Precedent for the creation of large two-storey annexes. 11. Future of No 15 is of concern as it is falling into disrepair which affects the adjoining property. 12. I would expect the annexe to be completed at the same time as the dwelling is constructed. 13. No structural walls are indicated on the proposed plans for the annexe. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

Bishopston Community Council: The proposed development does not address any of the concerns previously expressed by the Local Planning Authority and confirmed by the Inspectors Rejection of the previous application which was turned down on appeal. If however the Authority is mindful to grant this development due to outline for amalgamation 2008/1928 then this Community Council is of the opinion that a strict Section 106 should be applied to ensure that the annexe is not sublet and cannot be sold. Further work on annexe to be completed prior to new building proposed so that the construction is achieved of previous objections.

Gower Society: Object on the following grounds:

1. We cannot see any justification for allowing a new build in such a cramped plot at the rear of number 15. 2. The development would set a precedent and compromise the ambience of neighbouring properties. 3. The access is very narrow and will greatly compromise the value of Number 15. 4. We consider the extension to number 15 to be acceptable.

We strongly object to this proposal for a detached dwelling at the rear but have no objection to the extension of number 15 itself.

Highways: This site has a previous Planning history, where most recently an appeal was dismissed for the erection of an additional dwelling on the land. This was on the basis of highway safety as a new dwelling would increase use of the limited access lane leading to the site to the detriment of highway safety.

This proposal includes a new dwelling but the downgrading of one of the existing dwellings as an annexe. Plans indicate a store/study at first floor level and a garden store at ground level in the existing dwelling. The new dwelling would then be constructed (5 bedrooms) further into the site. The applicant has indicated willingness to enter into any agreement thought necessary to secure the use of the existing dwelling as an annexe to the new dwelling preventing its re-establishment as a dwelling in its own right in the future. This would seem acceptable and will ensure that no significant difference in traffic movements are generated as a result of the new dwelling as traffic associated with the existing dwelling would be removed. The previous concerns raised at appeal regarding additional traffic movements therefore would not apply.

The layout of the new dwelling is acceptable with more than adequate parking and on-site turning facilities.

I recommend no highway objection subject to;

1. Prior to beneficial occupation of the new dwelling, the on-site parking and turning facilities shall be in place and shall remain available for that use unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA.

2. Prior to works starting, the applicant shall enter into a suitable agreement to ensure that the existing dwelling is converted to an annexe to the new dwelling and shall remain as such in perpetuity. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for a detached dwelling with attached double garage at land to the rear of No 15 The Glebe, Bishopston. The plot in question is situated behind the established building line and will result in the introduction of a further dwelling off this small existing access lane. The proposal would also see the existing dwelling at No 15 converted to an annexe, that would be ancillary to the main dwelling.

Site History

In terms of planning history, outline permission was refused (Ref: 2005/1184) for a detached dwelling as it was considered that the proposed means of access would have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the occupants of the adjacent properties by reason of increased traffic generation, noise and disturbance and furthermore the development would result in additional traffic movements which would result in increased congestion and conflict with other vehicles and pedestrians to the detriment of highway safety.

Subsequently in September 2005 full planning application reference 2005/1928 was submitted for the construction of a detached dwelling with detached garage. The application was reported to the Area 2 Development Control Committee on 20th December 2005 whereby it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to the applicant entering into a S106 Legal Agreement to amalgamate the existing dwellings at No 14 and 15 The Glebe into one dwelling, prior to the beneficial occupation of the new dwelling house. The legal agreement has not been progressed due to a breakdown in negotiations between the applicant and the owner of No 14 The Glebe, therefore the application remains undetermined. Despite being a material consideration it is not considered to represent a realistic ‘fall back’ situation.

By way of clarity the main difference between these two previous applications is that in submitting the latter the applicant increased the application site to incorporate the two existing dwellings, servicing notice on the owner of No 14 The Glebe in doing so. The recommendation of approval was only progressed on the basis that a S106 Agreement would be entered into combining No 14 and 15 into one dwelling thereby ensuring that only two dwellings would be served by the shared access and drive as opposed to three.

A further application was submitted for a detached dwelling which was refused by the LPA for the following reasons:

1. The proposed means of access via the existing shared driveway would have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the occupants of the adjacent properties by reason of increased traffic congestion, noise and disturbance contrary to Policies V6, BE1 and BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No1.

2. The proposed development would result in additional traffic movements which would result in increased congestion and conflict with other vehicles and pedestrians to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No1. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

3. The proposed development would adversely affect the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of adjoining properties by reason of physical overbearance and consequent over-shadowing and loss of outlook contrary to Policy BE2 and V6 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No1.

4. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its excessive height and scale would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area, which are modest sized dwellings and would result in a visually intrusive form of infill development detrimental to the established character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy V6 and BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No1.

The application was subsequently dismissed at appeal by the Welsh Assembly as it was considered that the introduction of a further dwelling would have a detrimental impact upon highway safety and the comings and goings of an additional dwelling would have an adverse affect on the neighbours living conditions and thus a significant detrimental impact on local amenity. Furthermore the report acknowledged that the dwelling was tandem development and in line with paragraph 9.2.13 of Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement 01/2006 advises that such development may cause difficulties including disturbance and lack of privacy, and should be avoided. Critically the Inspector did not consider the proposal to be overbearing or overshadowing upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers or give rise to any overlooking. He further concluded that the dwelling would not detract from the character and appearance of the area.

Issues

In light of the planning history relating to the site, in particular the most recent appeal, the main issues for consideration in this instance are the implications of the proposed dwelling and annexe upon the visual and residential amenities of the area and highway safety having regard to relevant Policies of the Swansea UDP. There are in this instance no additional overriding issues for consideration under the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

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.

Visual Amenity

The conversion of the dwelling to an annexe will not affect the external appearance of this building significantly and as such it is considered that the creation of an annexe would have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

The previous Appeal Inspector makes reference to issues relating to visual amenity in paragraph 13 of the Appeal Decision (APP/B6855/A/08/2090454). He concluded that the site was within the settlement boundaries and not part of the Countryside and that the proposed dwelling would be attractive in its own right. Although larger than other houses in the vicinity it would be remote and partly screened from viewpoints in The Glebe, and far enough from other houses not to appear to be dominating or otherwise out of place. The Inspector concluded that there would be sufficient space around the dwelling for it to not appear as an over-intensive or cramped form of development. Therefore he did not consider that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The Local Planning Authority do not see fit to revisit these issues as part of the current application given that the impacts are exactly the same. In this respect the proposal complies with Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

Residential Amenity

Turning to the impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, the Inspector makes reference to issues relating to overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking in Paragraph 12 of the recent Appeal Decision (APP/B6855/A/08/2090454). He concluded that the proposed dwelling would not be physically overbearing or cause an unacceptable degree of overshadowing. In addition he concluded that the orientation of the windows coupled with the separation distances and existing planting would be sufficient to protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties. Therefore he did not consider that the proposed development would be harmful to the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties by virtue of overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking. The Local Planning Authority do not see fit to revisit these issues as part of the current application given that the impacts are exactly the same. In this respect the proposal complies with Policies EV1, EV2 and HC2 of the Swansea UDP.

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

In physical terms, the conversion of the No 15 to form an annexe will not alter the building and as such the proposal will not result in overbearing or overshadowing. In terms of overlooking the proposal will raise no new overlooking issues.

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. However, given that the existing dwelling is to be converted into an annexe, there will be no increase in the number of residential units using the access drive and given the drive is already in use it is not considered that there will be an increase in activity and vehicle movements that would be so great as to be significantly harmful to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers through noise and disturbance.

Highway Safety

Policy EV1 and HC2 of the UDP require new development to not result in significant harm to highway safety.

The previous proposal for a dwelling was dismissed at appeal on the basis of highway safety as a new dwelling would increase use of the limited access lane leading to the site to the detriment of highway safety. The existing driveway currently serves one dwelling. Whilst the proposal involves the conversion of the existing property into a semi-detached annex building adjacent to the proposed dwelling, it is important that the authorised use of the existing dwelling ceases prior to development of the new dwelling commencing. This can be achieved through the imposition of an appropriately worded condition, it is considered, without the need to enter into a legal agreement. Furthermore, and in order to ensure that the use of this building remains ancillary to the use of the new dwelling, the same condition shall be appropriately worded ensuring that in planning terms the proposal would result in one dwelling being served by the existing vehicle access.

Having consulted the Head of Transportation and Engineering it is considered that this would be acceptable and will ensure that no significant difference in traffic movements are generated as a result of the new dwelling as traffic associated with the existing dwelling would be removed. The previous concerns raised at appeal regarding additional traffic movements therefore would not apply. Additionally the layout of the new dwelling is acceptable with more than adequate parking and on-site turning facilities.

Other issues

The majority of third party concerns have been addressed above.

Whilst the method of conversion of the dwelling will be controlled by building regulations, it would be unreasonable to require the works for the conversion to be undertaken prior to the construction of the dwelling, given that the developer may decide not to implement the physical works. It is the cessation of its use as a dwelling that is of overriding importance and this is recommended to be achieved by condition. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

Should the existing building falling into such disrepair that it becomes a nuisance there is separate legislation available to remedy this.

Issues relating to house values are not material planning considerations and as such were not taken into consideration during the determination of this application.

Conclusion

In conclusion, having regard to all material considerations, it is considered that the proposed development of a two storey detached house at this location site, based on the conversion of the existing semi-detached property into an annexe, will represent a satisfactory form of infill development in line with Policies EV1, EV2, HC2 and EV17 of the Swansea UDP and subject to conditions restricting the use of the annexe and requiring the cessation of use of the existing property prior to the commencement of development, approval is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:

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, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 shall not apply. Reason: The development hereby approved is such that the Council wish to retain control over any future development being permitted in order to ensure that a satisfactory form of development is achieved at all times.

3 Upon commencement of the development hereby permitted the property known as No. 15 The Glebe shall cease to be used as a single dwelling house and shall thereafter only be used as an annexe, as indicated on the approved plans, for purposes wholly in conjunction with and for the enjoyment of the occupants of the new dwelling house and their family, 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 given that the site is not capable of accommodating more than one dwelling house.

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

4 Prior to the beneficial occupation of the new dwelling, the access, parking and turning facilities shall be provided on site in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

5 No external lighting shall be erected on site unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of residential 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.

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. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 12 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2009/1813

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.

PLANS

Site location plan, BBA278.100B block plan, BBA278.1.F.01 existing plans, BBA278.1.F.02A proposed plans of existing dwelling, BBA278.03 proposed plans for new dwelling, BBA278.04 proposed second floor plan, design and access statement received 9th December 2009

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 13 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Plot 1, Plenty Farm Llangennith Swansea Proposal: Detached dwelling with integral garage Applicant: Mr Gareth Howells

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

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

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

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2007/0331 Detached dwelling with detached garage Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 24/04/2007

2004/0119 Erection of two dwellings Decision: Grant Permission Conditional Decision Date: 14/09/2004

2005/0529 Detached dwelling with detached garage (amendment to planning permission 2004/0119 granted on 14th August 2004) Decision: Refuse Decision Date: 28/06/2005

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site and in the press as a development within the Llangennith Conservation Area and which may affect the setting of a Listed Building. No response.

The Gower Society – Comments as follows:

1. This application shows a design which appears to be inappropriate for its location. 2. Plenty Farm has suffered from over-development of its site. 3. The original design was preferable to this latest design.

The Society still retains its grave concerns regarding this development and wishes its comments to be taken into account when a decision is reached.

Llangennith, Llanmadoc and Cheriton Community Council – The Community Council objects on the grounds that the proposed dwelling is too large for the size of plot and the design is out of keeping with the surrounding area (especially the listed part of Plenty Farm).

Highways Observations - The amended plot layout and revised access position is acceptable. I recommend no highway objections.

APPRAISAL

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

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling with an integral garage on plot 1, on land adjoining Plenty Farm, Llangennith within the Llangennith Conservation Area. Outline planning permission was previously granted for two single dwellings with a detached garage on Plots 1 and 2 under application ref. 2004/0119. Details of siting, design, and external appearance for the dwellings were previously considered and granted planning permission at this outline stage. Members will recall that Plot 2 has already been approved and built under planning permission 2007/0331 granted in April 2007, albeit amended from that originally considered.

As outline permission has been granted for a house on this land, although now lapsed, it is considered that the principle of development has been established.

The main issues for consideration are the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Grade II Listed “Plenty Farm”, the impact on the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area and this part of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it’s impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, and on highway safety, having regard to the prevailing policies of the Development Plan, and recent national planning policy guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales 2002. It is not considered that the Human Rights Act raises any additional material considerations in this case. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

Plot 1 currently comprises an area of rough land located between Plenty Farm and the dwelling to the east known as Rosedene. As previously considered the site has a highway frontage of approximately 35 metres and has a maximum depth of approximately 40m along the eastern boundary whilst having a maximum depth of approximately 18m along its western boundary with Plenty Farm.

The proposed dwelling would be set into the north western corner of the site, set back between 17-20m from the front boundary, approximately 2m from the western boundary with Rosedene, 1m from the common boundary with the new dwelling on Plot 2 and approximately 18m from the boundary with Plenty Farm. The two storey design comprises of a series of distinct components resulting in an irregular angular footprint. External features include a front dormer window to the southern elevation and a first floor balcony to the eastern elevation. The integral garage would be located within the southern elevation. The maximum width and depth of the dwelling would be approximately 12m, with varied eaves height and a maximum overall height of 7.4m. The proposed materials would comprise of rendered walls, slate roof and timber effect or white Upvc windows and doors.

The proposed access into the site would be inserted alongside the common boundary with Rosedene, essentially handed from that previously approved, and to this the Head of Transportation and Engineering raises no highway objection.

The original design comprised a traditionally designed double fronted cottage sited centrally within the plot with a detached garage to the west of the front elevation. This design was akin to that proposed on the adjacent Plot 2 and together these designs were considered to be acceptable and not adversely impact upon the Llangennith Conservation Area or the setting of the Listed Building at Plenty Farm.

Within the Gower AONB the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area. The Council wishes to foster high standards of design in all new development, and this is reinforced by Planning Policy Wales 2002, which states that within AONBs, the primary objective of this designation is the preservation of the natural beauty of this area, and development control decisions affecting the AONB should respect this by considering the importance of traditional and local distinctiveness.

The principal relevant development plan policies are Policies EV1 and EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008. Policy EV9 requires development proposals within Conservation Areas to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of their design, scale, massing, materials and relationship to existing buildings and spaces. Policy EV16 lists similar criteria for new development within small Gower villages, and Policy EV1 seeks to preserve the setting of Listed Buildings.

In addition, Policy EV1 require that the design and layout of new development proposals should respect and be sympathetic to the character and amenity of the site and its immediate surroundings, and protect the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. As such proposals need to be carefully assimilated into the existing environment through the use of appropriate scale and detailing of buildings and use of good quality materials, and ensure that there is no unacceptable visual impact, loss of light or privacy, increased activity and traffic movements or car parking problems. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

In terms of residential amenity, the siting of the dwelling in close proximity to the boundary with Plot 2 would result in some overshadowing of their rear amenity space, albeit to the western most section. However, the plot in question is elevated above plot 2 and it is considered that as it’s siting within 1m of the common boundary, it would appear unacceptably overbearing when viewed from Plot 2. With regards to direct overlooking, a first floor bedroom window would directly look into the rear garden area of Plot 2, but this could be obscure glazed to protect their privacy. The balcony on the south-eastern elevation, which would also cause unacceptable loss of privacy, could also have a screen inserted along its northern boundary to prevent direct overlooking to these occupiers.

The distance to the boundary with Plenty Farm would be approximately 18m and as such it is not considered that the proposed balcony would result in unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupiers. There are two first floor windows that would directly overlook the amenity space of Rosedene, but as one would serve an en-suite bathroom and one would be a secondary bedroom window, these again could be obscure glazed to prevent loss of privacy. It is considered also the height of the dwelling and its siting in relation to Rosedene would dictate that it would not give rise to unacceptable physical overbearance.

The revised design and layout of the proposed dwelling would not increase the overall footprint significantly of that previously approved due to its eclectic design and the removal of the detached garage, but whilst the original two storey house was considered acceptable in the context of the neighbouring cottage and listed farmhouse, the current application proposes an unacceptable design which will introduce a large suburban style house that dominates the site, and will seriously detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding more modest buildings. This design and layout is considered alien in the immediate context of this site, and would seriously depart from the established character, form, and density of development in this sensitive setting to the detriment of the character of the Llangennith Conservation area. It is not considered that this scheme has been sensitively designed to take account of the prominent location of this site and the resultant visual impact on the immediate environs and the surrounding context of the Llangennith Conservation Area. In addition, the dwelling would be elevated above the highway by approximately 1.75m and as a result, the new development would be a visually prominent building in this landscape, unsympathetic to the character and appearance of this part of the Llangennith Conservation Area, which is to a large extent typified by more modest cottage style properties.

On this basis, the proposed development of this land at Plot 1 would result in a visually dominant and obtrusive form of infill development, which would not positively enhance the character and appearance of Llangennith Conservation Area, thus detracting from the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB, contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26.

The comments made by the objectors have been addressed above in the main body of the report.

In conclusion, having regard to the above considerations including the Human Rights Act, it is considered that the proposed amendments to the previously approved house at Plot 2 are not acceptable, and would result in a visually obtrusive and insensitive ‘suburban style’ of house development that has not been designed carefully to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area, and the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB, and would result in unacceptable harm to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 13 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0092

As such the proposal is not considered a satisfactory form of infill development in this Gower Village, and is therefore contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008 and refusal is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1 The proposed dwellinghouse, by virtue of its prominent siting and inappropriate design would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Llangennith Conservation Area, to the detriment of the natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB contrary to Policies EV1, EV9, EV16 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

2 The proposed dwelling by virtue of its scale and siting so close to the boundary with Plot 2 would result in a harmful physical overbearing impact that would be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of this property contrary to Policies EV1 and EV16 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Design and access statement, site location plan, DWG No DD.00- site layout plan as approved, DD.01- site layout plan (as proposed), DD.02- ground floor plan and first floor plan 1:100, DD.03- proposed north & north east elevation and west elevation, DD.04- east & north east elevation and, DD.05- proposed ground floor plan 1:50, DD.06- proposed first floor plan 1:50 received 20th January 2010

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 14 APPLICATION NO. 2010/0183 WARD: Gower Area 2

Location: Field 0005, Bank Farm Horton Swansea SA3 1BA Proposal: Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 50 units from 20th July to 10th August 2010 (inclusive) Applicant: R Carter

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES

Policy Policy Description Policy EC22 Control of camping and touring caravans on farms and storage of touring caravans. (City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008)

SITE HISTORY

App No. Proposal 2008/1477 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 50 units from 22nd July to 12th August 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 18/12/2008

2007/1121 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for a maximum of 50 units from 16th May 2008 to 7th June 2008 inclusive Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 31/07/2007

2007/2483 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for a maximum of 60 units from 26th August 2008 to 31st August 2008 inclusive Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 17/12/2007

AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0183

2009/1268 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 30 units from 12th to 14th March 2010 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 08/10/2009

2005/0243 Temporary use of land for siting of tents for approximately 100 units from 23rd July 2005 to 14th August 2005 (inclusive) and 26th August 2005 and 30th August 2005 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 21/03/2005

2008/1886 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 50 units from 1st to 4th May 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 05/11/2008

2009/1037 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 30 units from 21st to 23rd March 2010 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 28/08/2009

2009/1269 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 30 units from 21st to 23rd May 2010 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 08/10/2009

2007/2574 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for a maximum of 40 units from 20th June 2008 to 22nd June 2008 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 11/01/2008

2008/0543 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for a maximum of 38 units from 23rd May 2009 to 30th May 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 28/04/2008

2004/1121 Temporary use of land for siting of tents for approximately 100 units from to 30th July 2004 to 11th August 2004 (inclusive) and 27th August 2004 to 31st August 2004 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 09/07/2004

2007/2256 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for a maximum of 50 units from 18th July 2008 to 3rd August 2008 inclusive Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 31/10/2007 AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0183

2008/0904 Use of land for camping and caravan rally for a maximum of 30 units from 20th to 22nd March 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 17/06/2008

2008/1858 Use of land for a caravan rally for maximum of 50 units from 10th June to 15th June 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 11/02/2009

2008/1884 Use of land for a caravan rally for a maximum of 35 units from 10th July 2009 to 12th July 2009 (inclusive) Decision: Grant Temporary Permission Decision Date: 06/11/2008

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS

The application was advertised on site. No response.

The Gower Society – objects:

1. We are generally concerned about the number of so-called rallies on this site and request that you look most carefully at the overall effects of such number on the AONB. 2. We are particularly conscious of the fact that there is an existing rally already approved (160 units 23 July to 21 August) on an adjacent field covering a similar period with some overlap. 3. We also note that a rally for a similar period ( 5-23 Aug) app No:2009/0953 has been refused. 4. The impact on the Gower roads by so many caravans at peak season is unacceptable. We are also concerned about the impact on waste disposal and water supplies. 5. The increase in such so-called rallies is we believe a deliberate attempt to exploit the current legislation covering such events.

(The Gower Society also included two sheets from the Caravan Club in response to an enquiry made last year.)

Highway Observations - No highway objection to the renewal of this temporary consent.

APPRAISAL

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

Temporary planning permission is sought for the use of land for a caravan rally for 50 units from 20th July to 10th August 2010 at Field 0005, Bank Farm, Horton, Gower. AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0183

Bank Farm includes an established caravan and camping site comprising two static caravan parks, a touring unit field, a camping field and a small chalet development overlooking Port-Eynon Bay located to the west of the village of Horton.

The main issue for consideration in this instance is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, having regard to prevailing Development Plan policies. It is not considered that the provisions of the Human Rights Act raise any other overriding considerations. 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. Policy EC22 refers to caravan/camping rallies and to minimising significant impacts upon the environment, road network and utilities.

Bank Farm occupies a prominent area of land overlooking Horton and Port Eynon Bays. In addition to the fields used for static and touring caravans it accommodates a number of rallies each year on the remainder of the farm land. All of these rallies are organised by Exempted Organisations who apply for permission each year. The approval of caravan rallies in Gower is strictly monitored to ensure that rallies do not clash in dates or location.

Whilst it is accepted that the rally proposed in this application would be innocuous in itself when taken in isolation and rallies of this number have been approved at this location for many years, it must be noted that a rally for 160 units has already been approved on the adjacent field 7700 from 23rd July to 15th August 2010 - 2009/0624 refers, and as such both rallies would overlap. It is considered therefore, that to occupy these two fields at the same time for the period of time requested and with the cumulative high numbers involved, would dictate that more caravans spreading over more fields would significantly increase the visual impact of the operation, unduly impacting upon the natural beauty of this sensitive area within the AONB, contrary to the provisions of Policies EV22 and EV26.

In overall terms therefore, it is considered that the proposal fails to accord with the primary objectives of Policies EV22 and EV26 which are to protect the character, appearance and natural beauty of the Gower AONB and it also fails to meet the essential criteria of Policy EC22 as it is considered to significantly impact upon the visual and environmental qualities of the area.

Turning to highway safety issues, The Head of Transportation and Engineering has raised no highway objection and there has been no response from Welsh Water in relation to waster disposal or water supply issues. The other issues raised by the Gower Society have been addressed above.

In conclusion therefore and having regard to all material planning considerations, including the Human Rights Act, the proposal therefore constitutes an unacceptable form of development at this sensitive location within the open countryside, which, cumulatively with the other rally for the same farm at the same time, would have a seriously detrimental effect on the character, appearance and natural beauty of this part of the Gower AONB. Refusal is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE, for the following reason: AREA 2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 16TH MARCH 2010

ITEM 14 (CONT’D) APPLICATION NO. 2010/0183

2 The cumulative effect of the proposal in conjunction with the proposed rally for 160 units already approved on Field 7700 (Ref: 2009/0624) would have a detrimental impact upon this sensitive landscape and the character and appearance of the Gower AONB, contrary to the requirements of Policies EC22, EV22 and EV26 of the Unitary Development Plan 2008.

INFORMATIVES

PLANS

Site location plan received 3rd 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