Mynegai Ceisiadau Cynllunio/Planning Applications · PDF fileMynegai Ceisiadau Cynllunio/Planning Applications Index ... single storey building with an extended footprint, ... The

12-Oct-16Cyngor Sir Ceredigion County CouncilCYNGOR SIR CEREDIGION COUNTY COUNCIL

Rhif Eitem/Item No. Dysgrifiad/Description

Mynegai Ceisiadau Cynllunio/Planning Applications Index

Prif Eitemau /Main Items

Item No. Description

Team: North

5. A160642 - Siting of two Shipping Containers for storage purpose (Llawn/Full), Aberystwyth Boxing Club, Penparcau Road, Penparcau, Aberystwyth

Team: South

1. A160384 - Erection of a Rural Enterprise Dwelling and erection of agricultural outbuilding (Amlinellol/Outline), Land at Blaencwmerwydd Farm, Horeb, Llandysul

2. A160565 - Change of use of the ground floor from a Council District Office (B1) to a shared District Office and Library facility (mixture of B1 and D1, and a small area of the first floor from Office space to a Library facility (Llawn/Full), Council Offices, Morgan Street, Cardigan

3. A160566 - Stationing of a temporary caravan for site owners (Llawn/Full), Ty'n y Clawdd, Llanwnnen, Lampeter

4. A160577 - Extensions to dwelling and erection of garage (Llawn/Full), 23 Bro Henllys, Felinfach, Lampeter

6. A160731 - Proposed Residential Development (Outline) for 3 plots (1 affordable) (Amlinellol/Outline), Land at Ty Mawr, Lady Road, Blaenporth, Cardigan

7. A160755 - Proposed erection of a single afforable dwelling and detached garage (Llawn/Full), Plot adj Taliesin, Gogerddan, Tanygroes, Cardigan

8. A160804 - Proposed Garage/ Store Shed - B8 Use (Llawn/Full), Plot Adj to Llyn Y Felin, Gwbert, Cardigan.

9. A160809 - Erection of an afforable dwelling (Amlinellol/Outline), Plot 4, Gotrel Farm, Ferwig Road, Cardigan

10. A160812 - Erection of a dwelling (Amlinellol/Outline), Plot 5, Gotrel Farm, Ferwig Road, Cardigan

Page: 1

Agenda No: 5Prif Eitemau /Main Items

Team: North

A160642 SN59178009

Y Bwriad Proposal

Siting of two Shipping Containers for storage purpose

Lleoliad Location

Aberystwyth Boxing Club, Penparcau Road, Penparcau,

Aberystwyth

Rhif y Cais Application No

Cyfeirnod grid Grid ref.

THE SITE AND PLANNING HISTORYThe application site lies within a broadly rectangular area of green open space, measuring around 32m by 19m that connects to Penparcau Road opposite to the entrance to Heol Ystrad. The space is almost enclosed on three sides, being bounded to the south by the boxing club, bounded to the east by a mature high bushy hedgerow (which lies behind the rear gardens of the dwellings that front onto Tycam to the east), and bounded to the north by the side wall of Askew Villa and the back of the garages that front onto Dinas Terrace, which continue on the same line.

The land is open to the public and is traversed by a pathway that runs through it from Penparcau Road, passing by the Boxing Club and the houses that front onto Tycam, then across the play area to connect with the pedestrian subway that runs underneath the A4120.

The open space was once part of a larger whole that has been (and continues to be) reduced in stages by various developments, including the revised layout of the main road that was created when the roundabout was formed, the erection of the boxing club and currently by the works to provide two annexe extensions to the boxing club building granted planning permission earlier this year (see below).

There is no planning history in relation to the immediate space in which the containers are to be located, but the site of the boxing club has the following planning history:-An application for outline planning permission (980324) for the demolition of the (then) existing pavilion and the erection of a boxing club was approved subject to conditions on 13th July 1998.

An application made in 2005 for full planning permission (A050415) for the erection of a purpose built building for use by the boxing club, designed to be capable of being used for other contact sports and also serving as a drop-in centre, was granted planning permission on the 12th July 2005.

In 2006 an application (A060604) was lodged to vary the details of the building to accommodate other groups such as youth clubs and play groups who had expressed an interest in using the building, and this was approved subject to conditions on 12 October 2006.

A further application for an amended design of the approved building for the boxing club (A070704) was approved 29 March 2007. This amended scheme showed a single storey building with an extended footprint, and this is the scheme that was

Llawn/FullMath Cais Application Type

A160642 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 1


implemented.

Earlier this year an application (A160143) was approved to enlarge the existing building to transform it into a community centre serving all of Penparcau, supplementing the facilities offered by the existing building with a cafeteria, a training kitchen, a teaching area, a youth area, an office, an exhibition/waiting area plus storage spaces, toilets and plant room.

DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENTPenparcau Community Forum now wishes to site two Shipping Containers within a corner of the parcel of land that lies between ‘Askew Villa’ and the existing Boxing Club in Penparcau, in order to provide storage space for items such as carnival floats, gym equipment and ground maintenance tools including mowers etc.

The containers are to be located in the corner formed by the back of the garages that front onto Dinas Terrace and the hedge that lies on the rear boundary of the dwellings that front onto Tycam. The area will be enclosed by a timber fence erected along the other two sides.

The plans as originally submitted showed two 6.096m long by 2.438m wide shipping containers (20ft by 8ft) laid side by side, but it was clear from a site visit that this layout could not be achieved within the space that exists between the hedgerow and a small tree that sits around 4m out from the hedge, without either removing the tree or severely cutting back the hedge (or perhaps both).

To address this issue, the scheme has been amended and revised plans have been submitted. One of the two containers will still be 6.096m long by 2.438m (20ft by 8ft), but the other will be only 3.048m (10ft) i.e. half the length of the larger one; and instead of being laid side by side the two containers will be set inline, with the smaller one rotated through 90 degrees. A space of 0.75m will be provided between the rear wall of the garages and the smaller container and also in-between the two containers; and a larger space - just under 2m – will be provided between the end of the longer container and the fence. This gap is designed in part to provide room for the door openings at the end of the longer container and also to allow for a gently sloping (1in 10 gradient) concrete ramp up to the container to get over the level of the lip that it has below the container doors, to provide easy access for wheeled trolleys etc. This ramp will connect to a short new section of pathway linking it to the existing pathway that runs alongside the boxing club.

The longer side of the fencing enclosure (the western elevation) will be 12m in length and the shorter side (the southern elevation) around 4.5m. Double-door gateways in the two fences will align directly with the doors to the two containers to provide direct access to them. The gates will be kept locked so that the fence provides a degree of additional security. Both the containers will be 2.59m and the height of the fence will be a few centimetres below this at 2.55m.

Trellis is to be attached to the central section of the western length of fencing covering around 50% of the length of fencing, then ivy and honey suckle planted along it so that it will grow up through the trellis. The intention is to create a ‘green, living wall and blend in with the surroundings’.

The containers will be green. Ideally green containers will be sourced, but if this is

A160642 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 2


not possible then the containers will be painted green.

A solar powered security light will provide light when persons are entering the containers. The type proposed is described as an eco wedge light. Its location and direction of illumination will be controlled by condition to limit any ecological impacts.

A Design and Access Statement has been provided.

In response to a Direction from the Welsh Government (Highways Authority) a Transport Method Statement has been provided detailing how the applicant intends to transport and install the containers on site. These will be delivered one at a time, with the larger one necessitating a 30ft lorry. Access onto the site will be via the temporary site access road from the A4120 that is to be created to serve the building works for the extension to the boxing club approved earlier this year.

NB. The proposal is not for the temporary siting of the two containers whilst works proceed on the extension to the boxing club. The intention is that the containers should provide a low-cost permanent storage solution for the Penparcau Community Forum.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND GUIDANCE:NATIONAL POLICYPlanning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 8, January 2016

Ceredigion Local Development Plan Policy S02: Development in Urban Service CentresPolicy DM06: High Quality Design and PlacemakingLU22: Community ProvisionDM14:Nature Conservation & Ecological Connectivity

CONSULTATIONS & THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS:Statutory consultees:The Welsh Government (Highways Authority) (after consideration of the Transport Method Statement) ‘does not issue a direction’. CCC’s Assets and Transportation (Highways) – No observationsCCC’s Assets and Transportation (Flooding) – No response.CCC’s Biodiversity officer / Ecologist – No Objection Subject to a condition preventing the clearance or pruning of vegetation during the bird breeding season (provision of Bird boxes).Aberystwyth Town Council – No Objection

Non-statutory consultees: None

3rd Party Representations

One letter of objectionA resident of Tycam, whose rear garden terminates at the hedgerow/ bushes along the eastern boundary of the site, objects to high containers near her garden and to any cutting back of the hedgerow. She points out that the hedge has been there for approximately 27 to 30 years, is home to at least five species of birds that nest low and collared doves which nest high, plus hedgehogs and smaller mammals in the undergrowth. There is an objection to the cumulative effect of the development on top of the developments that have already taken place and the extension to the

A160642 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 3


boxing club recently approved; and concerns that youths will clamber all over the containers.

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONSSection 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the Local Authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. This duty has been considered in the evaluation of this application. It is considered that there would be no significant or unacceptable increase in crime and disorder as a result of the proposed decision.

Equality Act 2010The Equality Act 2010 identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation; marriage and civil partnership.Having due regard to advancing equality involves:•removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; •taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the need of other people; and •encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low. The above duty has been given due consideration in the determination of this application. It is considered that the proposed development does not have any significant implications for, or effect on, persons who share a protected characteristic, over and above any other person.

EVALUATION / CONCLUSIONSSection 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

CONCLUSIONParagraph 6.136 in the explanatory text to the LDP’s Strategic Policy S02: Development in Urban Services Centres (USCs), states that ‘The Urban Service Centres (USCs) are the primary focus for development in the Ceredigion LDP Strategy’.

In relation to Aberystwyth Policy S02 indicates that development will be permitted which a) contributes to the maintenance of its national significance and its role as a strategic centre for Mid Wales; and b) Supports current objectives and action plans relating to the Strategic Regeneration Status; and is within the defined settlement boundary, accords with the provisions of the Settlement Group Statement and satisfies all other Plan policies.

LDP Policy DM06: High Quality Design and Placemaking states:‘Development should have full regard, and positively contribute to the context of its location and surroundings. Development should reflect a clear understanding of design principles, the local, physical, social, economic and environmental context’ The policy goes on to list 10 criteria that should be met.

LDP Policy LU22: Community Provision indicates that the LDP will help sustain and

A160642 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 4


enhance community provision; and LDP Policy DM14: Nature Conservation and Ecological Connectivity, addresses the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, geodiversity and ecological connectivity.

The provision of a facility for storage in connection with the wider community use of the boxing club as approved and expanded upon by the recently permitted extension to the building accords with Policy S02 and accords with the principle of supporting community provision as set out in Policy LU22.

The revised plans submitted by the developer to avoid having to damage either the tree or the hedge, together with the condition recommended by the authority’s ecologist prohibiting any works during the bird breeding season, will together be sufficient to ensure that the ecological harm that would have been caused if the scheme as originally proposed was approved will be fully averted, so there should be no harm at all to ecology and no loss of ecological connectivity. The development is therefore acceptable in terms of Policy DM14.

The main issue is whether or not it is acceptable for two storage containers to be permanently located at the site in the context of Policy DM06: High Quality Design and Placemaking. Shipping containers are not by themselves attractive. They have a function and purpose and whilst ideally suited for storage, because of their appearance they would not normally be regarded as suitable for permanent retention. That said, there have been numerous cases of such containers being used innovatively in blocks to form interesting modern buildings (albeit not in Ceredigion), or where they have been modified, camouflaged or otherwise screened so that their appearance is acceptable.

In this instance the chosen location is completely shielded from view from the north by the high wall that runs along and forms part of the rear of the garages adjacent to the site; and the site is also significantly shielded from the east by the existing tall hedgerow behind the properties that front onto Tycam. They won’t be invisible from these properties but will be virtually so in summer and still reasonably screened throughout the winter. From the west and the south all that will be seen will be the tall fence, and the very uppermost part (less than 10cm) of the facing elevation of the container beyond. The longer side of which will have the trellis fencing over half its length and in time a covering of Ivy and Honeysuckle. In terms of its appearance I would suggest that this will perhaps not be quite as attractive as a hedgerow, but more attractive than the existing view of the blank concrete walls at the back of the garages.

To the west, the garages wall becomes the side wall of the rear garden of Askew Villa, so the containers will sit close to the curtilage of Askew Villa. However, there is an absence of windows on its southern elevation and the height of the wall between the garden and the site is such that although the containers will be very close by, they will not be visible from the house, so there should be no direct amenity impacts. Excluding the properties in Ty Cam that have rear gardens backing onto the site, no other properties overlook the site, so as a matter of judgement the proposed development will not have any unacceptable amenity impacts.

The development will result in the further loss of an area of green space that has been reduced over time, but the use proposed is intended to be one that serves the wider community so the loss of space has to be balanced against the community benefit.

A160642 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 5


Overall, as a matter of judgement, although planning permission would not normally be granted for the permanent siting of shipping containers, in this instance given that the containers will be virtually hidden behind a fence that will incorporate planting along it, and given that the existing hedgerow will be retained along with the tree growing on the other side, which will add slightly to the screening provided, I consider the design is acceptable. Accordingly, as the proposed development accords with Policies S02 and LU22 I consider that on balance planning permission should be granted.

Argymhelliad/Recommendation:

Approve: APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

A160642 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 6


A160642 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500

© Hawlfraint y Goron a hawliau cronfa ddata 2016 Arolwg Ordnans 100024419 © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100024419

A160642 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 7


Team: South

A160384 SN40134242

Y Bwriad Proposal

Erection of a Rural Enterprise Dwelling and erection of

agricultural outbuilding

Lleoliad Location

Land at Blaencwmerwydd Farm, Horeb, Llandysul



THE SITE AND RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Horeb is situated at the crossroads of the A475 Newcastle Emlyn to Lampeter road and the A486 Llandysul to Synod Inn road, some 3.2km (2 miles) north of Llandysul, which provides most of its local and major services and facilities. Development of the settlement has occurred in a linear fashion along the frontage of the A475 to the west of the crossroads. A further linear isolated cluster of dwellings and a garage lie some 400 metres north of Horeb. It is also the location for the Royal Mail Sorting Office and for the Wales Agri-Food Centre.

The existing farmhouse and agricultural buildings relating to Blaencwmerwydd Farm are situated within the settlement itself, immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Emlyn road, not far from the crossroads.

However, the site which pertains to this application is located approximately 0.3km outside the settlement of Horeb (some 0.5km from the current farm holding), in an east / south-easterly direction. The application site lies within an open countryside location and is therefore classed as an “other location” for the purposes of the Local Development Plan. More specifically, the 0.2ha site is situated within part of an agricultural field, on the northern side of the A486, some 200 metres from the roadside boundary. It is accessed via an existing agricultural track which connects onto the A486. The site is considered to be sporadically located within an open countryside location.

There is no planning history for this particular site.

DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks consent for the proposed erection of a rural enterprise worker’s dwelling under the provisions of TAN6, along with an agricultural outbuilding, in connection with the farm holding of Blaencwmerwydd.

The application has been made in outline form, with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.

The submitted upper and lower scale parameters for the proposed developments are as follows:

Dwelling: Length / Depth – Min: 6.5m – Max: 18m

Amlinellol/OutlineMath Cais Application Type

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 8


Width – Min: 8m – Max: 18mHeight from ground level to ridge – Max height: 9.5m

Agricultural Outbuilding: Width – Max: 12.2mLength – Max: 18.3mHeight (Eaves) – 4.3mHeight (Ridge) – 5.8m

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND GUIDANCE

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES

PLANNING POLICY WALES

The provisions of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8) (2016) are relevant and the following chapters are particularly applicable to the determination of the application:

-Chapter 3 – Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions-Chapter 4 – Planning for Sustainability-Chapter 7 – Economic Development-Chapter 9 – Housing

TECHNICAL ADVICE NOTES (WALES):

The following technical advice notes (TAN’s) are relevant to the consideration of the application:

-Technical Advice Note 2: Planning and Affordable Housing (2006)

-Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009)

-Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010)

-Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2014)-Technical Advice Note 18: Transport (2007)-Technical Advice Note 23: Economic Development (2014)

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – CEREDIGION LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) 2007-2022 (ADOPTED 25TH APRIL, 2013)

The following LDP policies are relevant to the consideration of the application: -S01 – Sustainable Growth-S04 – Development in “Linked Settlements and Other Locations”-S05 – Affordable Housing-LU02 – Requirements Regarding All Residential Developments-LU05 - Securing the Delivery of Housing Development-DM06 – High Quality Design and Placemaking-DM13 – Sustainable Drainage Systems-DM14 – Nature Conservation and Ecological Connectivity-DM15 – Local Biodiversity Conservation-DM17 – General Landscape-DM20 – Protection of Trees, Hedgerows and Woodland

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 9


OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Crime and Disorder Act 1998Section 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the Local Authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. This duty has been considered in the evaluation of this application. It is considered that there would be no significant or unacceptable increase in crime and disorder as a result of the proposed decision.

Equality Act 2010The Equality Act 2010 identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation; marriage and civil partnership.

Having due regard to advancing equality involves:•removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; •taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the need of other people; and •encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.

The above duty has been given due consideration in the determination of this application. It is considered that the proposed development does not have any significant implications for, or effect on, persons who share a protected characteristic, over and above any other person.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

STATUTORY CONSULTEES

-Head of Technical Services (Highways) – Objection (see further comments under conclusion section of report)-Head of Technical Services (Drainage) – No objection. Soakaways will be subject to Building Control approval. Soakaways should not be located within 6m of a road or building. -Llandysul Community Council – No response at the time of report writing. -CCC Ecologist – No objection, subject to the inclusion of certain conditions of consent. -Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – No response at the time of report writing. -Met Office – No objection.-Natural Resources Wales (NRW) -– No objection.

NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES

-No third party representations have been submitted in respect of this planning application.

CONCLUSION:

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that:

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 10


“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

WHETHER OR NOT THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE IN PRINCIPLE?

The key issue in the consideration of this application is whether or not the proposal accords with the relevant planning policies for residential development in the open countryside.

In the open countryside, proposals for new dwelling houses will be resisted, unless they fall within one of a number of specific exceptions. One of the few circumstances in which isolated residential development in the countryside may be justified is when accommodation is required to enable land-based rural enterprise workers to live at or close to their place of work. Whether this is essential in any particular case will depend on the needs of the enterprise concerned and not on the personal preference or circumstances of any of the individuals involved.

The key policy documents in the consideration of such an application are Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 6 and Policy S04 of the adopted Ceredigion LDP.

The most critical guidance is contained within TAN6, with the most relevant extracts being as follows:

Paragraph 4.4.1 of TAN 6 states as follows: “New permanent dwellings should only be allowed to support established rural enterprises providing: a. there is a clearly established existing functional need; (See paragraph 4.8.1). B. the need relates to a full-time worker, and does not relate to a part-time requirement; (See paragraph 4.7.1) (See paragraphs 4.5.1 - 4.5.3 for policy exemptions). C. the enterprise concerned has been established for at least three years, profitable for at least one of them and both the enterprise and the business need for the job, is currently financially sound, and has a clear prospect of remaining so; (See paragraphs 4.10.1 - 4.10.3). D. the functional need could not be fulfilled by another dwelling or by converting an existing suitable building already on the land holding comprising the enterprise, or any other existing accommodation in the locality which is suitable and available for occupation by the worker concerned; (See paragraphs 4.11.1 - 4.11.2),and e. other normal planning requirements, for example siting and access, are satisfied. (See paragraphs 4.12.1 - 4.12.2)”.

Furthermore, paragraph 4.7.1 of TAN 6 states that:“Planning applications for new permanent and temporary rural enterprise dwellings in the open countryside need to be supported by robust evidence. A Rural enterprise dwelling appraisal must accompany planning applications for this type of development and include information sufficient to enable the planning authority to make a full and effective assessment. The appraisal should address the following tests: • The functional test to provide evidence of whether there is a need for a resident

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 11


worker for the proper functioning of the enterprise. (See paragraph 4.8.1). • The time test to provide evidence of the labour requirement for the worker who is working on the justifying enterprise. (See paragraphs 4.9.1). • The financial test to provide evidence of the economic sustainability of the justifying enterprise and identify the size of dwelling that the enterprise can sustain, ensuring that the size of the dwelling is commensurate with its functional need and financial justification. (See paragraphs 4.10.1 - 4.10.3). • The other dwellings test to identify whether there is an existing dwelling or building suitable for conversion on the enterprise or dwelling in the locality that could meet the identified functional need. (See paragraphs 4.11.1 - 4.11.2). • Other normal planning requirements test to demonstrate that the dwelling is suitably located to fulfil its identified need and to minimise impact on the wider environment. (See paragraphs 4.12.1 - 4.12.2)".

Blaencwmerwydd Farm is a 260 acre agricultural holding, comprising of 220 owned acres, 10 acres of woodland, with a further 40 acres being rented. The owned land associated with the farm is located partly within the settlement of Horeb, but with the bulk being located immediately to the south, west, north-east, east and south-east of the settlement.

The rented land is secured via a Farm Business Tenancy Agreement and comprises of land at Gorsfach Farm & Gilfachchwith Fach, Horeb and also Ty Newydd and Pencoed at Bangor Teifi. Although, information contained within the application indicates that the end date for these 4 rental agreements was the 30th December, 2015. The Local Planning Authority therefore assumes that these rental agreements have expired as no evidence to the contrary has been received.

The application states that there are 3 full-time workers involved with the farm, consisting of Mr. & Mrs. G & R Jones (applicant’s parents) and Mr. Llyr Jones (son), although the farming accounts also make reference to a Mr. E T Jones (applicants grandfather). There is currently 1 dwellinghouse associated with the holding which comprises of the farmhouse at Blaencwmerwydd. The applicant currently lives in this property with his parents. The intention would be that his parents would continue to live at this existing property, whilst the applicant would occupy the proposed dwelling with his partner, who works as a teacher in a local school.

In terms of livestock numbers, the holding currently sustains the following:

-Dairy Cows – 180-In calf heifers – 35-Young stock 0-6 months – 30-6-12 months – 30-Over 12 months – 100-Suckler cows – 8-In calf heifers – 8-Beef cattle – 9-Store cattle – 1 (age 14 months)-Calves (beef) – 11 (age 3 -8 weeks)-Bulls – 6

There are no breeding ewes, rams, goats, pigs or poultry and apart from hay and silage, no crops such as cereals or root vegetables are grown on the land. Neither is the enterprise involved in any farm diversification such as tourism nor leisure related

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 12


activities. The main farming activity here revolves around the dairy herd.

With regards to the financial test, the certified accounts for the past four trading years have been scrutinised and confirmed that the business has achieved good profit.

It is therefore considered that the business is established, well founded and has every prospect of remaining profitable in the foreseeable future.

Additionally, it is considered that the functional and time tests have been met.

As such, it is the opinion that agricultural support is warranted in this instance.

SITING:

Notwithstanding the functional and financial justification for the development, there remains significant concern at the siting of the proposed dwelling.

Paragraph 4.12.1 of TAN 6 states that: “Rural enterprise dwellings should satisfy the usual planning requirements in terms of design, sustainability and access. The siting of the proposed dwelling should relate closely to the activities for which there is a need. In most cases this will mean that the new dwelling should be sited in close proximity to existing buildings and in the case of dwellings for agricultural enterprises, should not be isolated from the farmstead or in locations that could encourage farm fragmentation. Local planning authorities should resist planning applications for rural enterprise dwellings that are prominent in the landscape”.

In this instance, the application site is located in a sporadic position in the open countryside and is divorced from the main farm complex.

As part of the submission, the applicants have explained that the site has been chosen as currently the dairy herd have to be walked across the A486 twice a day for milking at the main farmyard, which can be disruptive to traffic.

Additionally, in 2013, the farm had a confirmed case of TB. The applicants therefore propose to develop an isolation unit at the site in order to allow the trade of healthy cattle to continue. A letter from a local veterinary practitioner outlines the benefit of such a facility which essentially states that a distinct group of animals can be kept separate from the main herd, therefore allowing trading from the isolation unit whilst the main holding is under restriction.

In response to the first reasoning, the application implies that the number of livestock crossing the road daily would reduce should the second dwelling be sited on the northern block of land. However, further details provided within the application states that the milking parlour would remain at the main farm complex, therefore livestock would still have to cross the A486 twice a day. The application also claims that the number of livestock crossings would be reduced as, for example, TB testing could take place at the application site, as opposed to within the main farm complex. However, the LPA considers this to be a minimal reduction in the number of cattle crossings, given the frequency of TB tests. Additionally, it is likely that TB tests would continue at the main farm complex where there would be crush and hold pens available adjacent to the dairy parlour. The vast majority of

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 13


cattle crossings here result from the milking of the dairy herd twice a day and this would not alter.

Whilst acknowledging and accepting the potential benefits of an isolation unit to a dairy farm with a confirmed case of TB, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that this reasoning justifies the siting of a second dwelling away from the main farm holding. Advances in agricultural technologies and CCTV now enable farmers to satisfactorily look after their stock, even in buildings which are a short distance away from the farmhouse. There are therefore no cogent reasons why the second dwelling needs to be located immediately next to the isolation unit, as this unit would be likely to only contain a small number of livestock. Furthermore, the LPA would not be able to guarantee that the outbuilding would be used as an isolation unit – there would be no means of securing this through the land use planning system. The isolation unit could be located anywhere on the holding away from the main complex – it is not crucial that it is located at this particular location.

Under the LANDMAP classifications, the site is regarded as being of high value for the historic landscape layer. It is considered that the siting of a new rural enterprise dwelling and an isolation unit at this location would result in incongruous and sporadically located developments in the open countryside, which would cause harm to the character of the local landscape. The site is elevated and prominent, with long distance views into and out of the site.

The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the relevant advice in relation to siting as found within TAN 6 and also to the provisions of policy DM17 of the LDP, which aims to prevent significant adverse effects on the qualities and special character of the visual, historic, geological, ecological or cultural landscapes and seascapes of Ceredigion

Blaencwmerwydd Farm owns other land which is better related to the farm complex itself and to the settlement of Horeb. Indeed, some of the land in the applicant’s ownership / control could be classed as forming part of the settlement.

A site meeting was held between an officer of the LPA, the applicants and agent, in an attempt to agree a more suitable location for the proposed development. However, the applicants insist that the dwelling needs to be located either at the current application site or within its immediate vicinity, as they argue that the bulk of the land is situated immediately around the application site. The applicants do not appear to be willing to give consideration to potential sites within the settlement which would be closer to the farm holding.

Additionally, there appear to be agricultural buildings at the complex which could be converted into accommodation.

Furthermore, there are currently a number of properties that are currently on the market in Horeb and which are in closer proximity to the farming enterprise.

The application offers no explanation as to why these options have not been considered and dismissed by the applicants.

To conclude, the Local Planning Authority has no objection in principle to the development of a rural enterprise dwelling in connection with Blaencwmerwydd Farm and it accepts that there is a need to house the applicant within the immediate

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 14


vicinity of the farm complex. However, it remains particularly concerned with the proposed siting of the dwelling, in that it represents an unnecessary incursion into the open countryside and no reasons have been put forward to demonstrate why the land / outbuildings and other properties within the settlement of Horeb cannot also meet the housing requirements of the worker.

The reasons put forward in support of the application in order to justify a dwelling at this location do not outweigh the policy presumption against developing at this location. An isolation unit could potentially be located anywhere on the holding – it does not necessarily have to be located at this particular location. Additionally, the applicant indicates that in the future, it is the intention to re-locate the farm holding to the area surrounding the application site, however, this proposal is not before the LPA and as such this reason can be given no weight as there would be guarantee that this would indeed happen in the future.

Such a sporadic and prominent position is likely to detrimentally affect the rural character of the area and of the surrounding landscape, contrary to the provisions of policies DM06 and DM17 of the adopted LDP.

HIGHWAYS:

The proposal conflicts with Planning Policy Wales which states that decisions should take into account whether safe and suitable access to a site can be achieved and LDP Policy DM06 which inter alia requires new development to provide a safe environment by ensuring that the design of buildings and associated access routes implement fundamental safety principles. There is a highway objection to the principle of a residential access onto the Link Road in the open countryside.

The development proposes access via a field gate that is located on the inside of a bend . Visibility at the point of access is severely restricted for emerging vehicles in the south easterly direction towards Llandysul and forward visibility for oncoming traffic on the Principal Road. In line with National Policy TAN 18 visibility for emerging vehicles should be 165m within a 50mph speed limit. Visibility at the field gate is restricted to 108m

Additional road safety concerns relate to the proximity of the access to the staggered cross roads at Horeb. The access is located on the approach to the turning lane leading to the junction of the Principal Road A486 and A475. Any additional turning movements at this location would be incompatible with through traffic interests and a potential additional source of danger to road users. The slowing down, stopping and turning of traffic would adversely affect the free flow and safety of traffic on the A486 Principal Road. Additional turning movements might have serious safety implications for Principal Road users.

A site assessment has taken place jointly by officers of the LPA and LHA and it has been concluded that all of the other candidate sites considered as part of the site meeting with the applicant, must also be discounted on road safety grounds, as they would all necessitate an access point off the A486.

However, the LHA may be in a position to support new access points which connect on to the A475 or off an unclassified road, within the settlement of Horeb. (Subject of course to the formal application process).

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 15


In light of the above assessment, the advice of officers is to refuse the application.


REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE REASONS AS SET OUT BELOW:

1.The proposed siting of the dwelling does not relate well to the existing farm

complex. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Planning

Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 6 and to policies S04, DM06 & DM17 of

the adopted Local Development Plan 2007-2022, in that the proposal is likely

to result in harm to the character and appearance of this countryside location.

Furthermore, a dwelling which is divorced from the main farm complex which

it is intended to serve, is more likely to result in farm fragmentation.

2.The proposal conflicts with LDP Policy DM06, which inter alia requires new

development to complement the site and its surroundings in terms of layout

and provide a safe environment by ensuring that the design of buildings and

associated routes consider safety principles.

A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 16


A160384 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160384 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 17


A160565 SN17934608

Y Bwriad Proposal

Change of use of the ground floor from a Council District

Office (B1) to a shared District Office and Library facility

(mixture of B1 and D1, and a small area of the first floor from

Office space to a Library facility

Lleoliad Location

Council Offices, Morgan Street, Cardigan




Cardigan is located in south west Ceredigion on the River Teifi. With a population of 4,020 at the 2001 Census (1828 dwellings as at April 2007), Cardigan is the county’s second largest settlement and is recognised as a primary service hub by the Wales Spatial Plan. It is an important cultural, heritage and tourism centre, the home of the first Welsh National Eisteddfod at Cardigan Castle, and a centre for health and further education services.

The site which pertains to this application is situated at the Council Offices which are situated at the corner of Morgan Street with Priory Street in Cardigan town centre.

There is no planning history which is directly relevant to the consideration of this current application.


This is an application for the change of use of the ground floor of the building from a Council District Office (B1) to a shared District Office and library facility and also the change of use of a small area of the first floor from office space to a library facility.

The proposal effectively would result in the change of use of the building from B1 purposes to a mixture of B1 and D1 uses.

The library would be re-located from its present location at Canolfan Teifi, Pendre.



PLANNING POLICY WALES (Edition 8, January, 2016)

The following chapters of Planning Policy Wales are relevant to the consideration of the application:

- Chapter 3 – Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions- Chapter 4 – Planning for Sustainability- Chapter 7 – Economic Development- Chapter 8 – Transport


A160565 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 18


TECHNICAL ADVICE NOTES (TAN’s):

The following Technical Advice Notes (TAN’s) are relevant to the consideration of the application:

• TAN 12 Design (2014)

• TAN 18 Transport (2007)•TAN 23 Economic Development (2014)

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – CEREDIGION LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) 2007-2022

The following LDP policies are relevant to the consideration of the application:

-Policy S01 – Sustainable Growth-Policy S02 – Development in Urban Service Centres (USC’s)-Policy LU12: Employment Proposals on Non-allocated Sites-Policy LU22: Community Provision-Policy DM06 – High Quality Design and Placemaking-Policy DM09: Design and Movement

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE (SPG):

The following SPG’s are relevant to the consideration of the application:

-CCC Ceredigion Parking Standards-CCC The Built Environment and Design




Having due regard to advancing equality involves:•Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; •Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the need of other people; and •Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.

A160565 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 19




STATUTORY CONSULTEES-Cardigan Town Council - Discussion took place regarding the relocation of the library to Morgan Street. The following points were raised by members: (a) Parking for users – It was recommended that the council car park across the road from the offices be utilised with short-term parking (1 hour) including disabled bays to be accommodated. (b) Traversing the highway – It was recommended that pedestrian crossings be considered for Morgan Street and Priory Street. A traffic impact assessment of the area would be beneficial. Discussion continued regarding the plans of the proposed layout of the premises. First floor – taking into account the ample space allocated for offices on the upper two floors, it was recommended that the meeting/interview room be deleted or reduced in size to allow more space for the library. A sliding door for the disabled toilet rather than the outward-opening door would economise on space. As Cardigan Hospital now accommodates health and social officers, members were rather bemused that this practice is not continued until the integrated health facility is built at Bath House: if this suggestion is considered, more space would be available for the library to consider placement of the eight computer stations now available at Canolfan Teifi. Members felt it to be imperative that more space be made available and are disappointed that the proposed reduction in area will not house the Castle area for young children which is now extensively used.It was also requested for a site meeting for local councillors be considered.-Head of Technical Services (Highways) – No observations. The proposed development is unlikely to be detrimental to any county highway authority interests. -Head of Technical Services (Drainage) – No objection to the proposal as outlined in the application.


Thirteen (13) letters of objection have been received in association with this planning application, with the main grounds of objection being cited as follows:

(Please note that one of the letters has been submitted by a third party on behalf of “Save Cardigan Library Campaign”. The letter refers to a petition which has been signed by over 1000 persons, opposing the closure of the current library facility, however a copy of this petition has not been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration under this particular planning application. It is understood that this petition was presented to Cabinet on the 27th September, 2016).

-The public are happy with the library’s present location and size.-The proposed new building is less accessible. -Urge the Council to reconsider downsizing and relocating the library. Can it be re-sited elsewhere?-The plan shows a greatly reduced area for books displayed and held – also for the computer stations, reading and research areas.-The current library is will used and appreciated. The proposed space at Morgan Street will not allow the level of service now being provided to continue.

A160565 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 20


-No parking next to the new building. -Access to the facilities will be difficult for pushchairs etc. No parking for pushchairs within the facility. -Childrens facility is non-existent. As a consequence, their literacy skills will decrease. -No computer facilities. -No comfort in working environment for staff. -The new venue is located on a very busy road and at a dangerous junction. This danger will be greatly increased with the larger number of able-bodied and disabled users of the library facilities. There is a blind spot on the bend. Morgan Street is an accident waiting to happen. Very dangerous for pedestrians. The junction layout makes it dangerous to cross the road safely. -The current library is ideal for the elderly, disabled users and parents with pushchairs and small children, as they can park in the car park opposite and use the lift to access the library. -Complete waste of money and time trying to move its location. -Toilets open right out onto the book area.

CONCLUSION:



Taking into account the relevant planning policy, having conducted a site inspection and in view of the consultations and representations received, it is considered that the main issues associated with the development proposal are as follows:

-Whether or not the development proposal is acceptable in principle?; And;-Transportation related objections to the proposal

Turning firstly to assess whether or not the proposal is acceptable in land use planning terms.

IS THE PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE IN LAND-USE PLANNING TERMS?

The key Ceredigion Local Development Plan (LDP) policies which pertain to the proposal are S02 and LU22.

Policy S02 states that:“Urban Service Centres provide sustainable locations where development will be permitted which:1. In relation to Aberystwyth;a. Contributes to the maintenance of its national significance and its role as a strategic centre for Mid Wales; andb. Supports current objectives and action plans relating to its Strategic Regeneration Status;OR2. In relation to Cardigan, Lampeter, Llandysul, Aberaeron and Tregaron:a. Contributes to their overall sub-regional role as set out in the Settlement Group Statements; and

A160565 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 21


b. Contributes to their regeneration strategies, where these exist;AND3. In relation to all USCs:a. Is within the defined settlement boundary (see Proposals Map), accords with the provisions of the Settlement Group Statement and satisfies all other Plan policies”.

The other key policy which pertains to the proposal is LU22, which deals with Community Provision. The policy states that:

“The LDP will help sustain and enhance community provision by:1. Supporting the development of new sustainable community provision, provided that:i. They are located within or adjoining a settlement;ii. The planning application demonstrates that the feasibility of multi-use has been considered;iii. No suitable facility exists nearby which could appropriately accommodate the proposed use; andiv. Where the proposal is for a facility being relocated, it can be demonstrated that the existing site is no longer suitable for that use.2. Resisting the loss or change of use of an existing community provision unless:i. Alternative provision of at least equivalent local community value can be provided either within or adjoining the settlement or other settlements which are part of the Settlement Group. In relation to open space specifically, the alternative should be an enhanced provision which is preferably located within close proximity to the existing provision.Ii. It can be demonstrated that existing level of community provision is inappropriate or surplus to the community needs of that settlement orSettlement Group; oriii. The current use has ceased to be viable and no other community use can be viably established.A report will need to be submitted with any planning application for the change of use or loss of facility explaining why the loss or change of use is justifiable”.

For communities to be sustainable there needs to be a range of community facilities and services available in terms of places to work, live, shop, socialise and also areas available for recreation, sporting activity, open space, education (including primary and secondary schools) and health care. New community facilities that generate a high level of travel demand should be located close to larger settlements which can be accessed by a choice of transport means and where the population base is already larger.

The proposed new replacement library which is the subject of this application will be developed within the defined settlement boundary for Cardigan Town. Development within defined service centres are regarded as being the most sustainable location for developments of this nature. The proposed site is served by public transport and will be accessible by foot for many of the town’s residents. Additionally, there is a limited amount of on-street car parking provision nearby.

The third party representations submitted have raised concerns over the closure of the existing library facility at Canolfan Teifi, Pendre. However the planning system has no control over decisions that are taken to close existing facilities. Where the planning system becomes relevant is in assessing whether new development proposals are acceptable in land-use planning terms.

A160565 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 22


In this instance, the proposal in front of the Local Planning Authority is to relocate the library within an alternative, sustainable town centre location and whilst it is acknowledged by the LPA that the new facility would be smaller in comparison with the existing facility, the Local Planning Authority is supportive of the aim to retain a library facility within the town centre, albeit on a smaller scale.

In conclusion therefore, there are no land-use planning objections to the proposal.

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES:

Whilst the third parties have raised concerns in relation to the lack of pedestrian safety at the junction immediately opposite the building, the lack of pedestrian crossing facilities and the lack of car parking in close proximity to the building, having taken the objections into account, the Local Authority’s Head of Technical Services has commented that the proposed development is unlikely to be detrimental to any county highway authority interests.

CONCLUSION:

In light of the proposal’s acceptability in land use planning terms and in light of no objections being raised by the Head of Technical Services, a favourable recommendation is presented to members of the Development Control Committee.


Approve, subject to conditions.

A160565 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 23


A160565 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160565 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 24


A160566 SN51555003

Y Bwriad Proposal

Stationing of a temporary caravan for site owners

Lleoliad Location

Ty'n y Clawdd, Llanwnnen, Lampeter




The site which pertains to this application comprises of land which is located immediately to the south / south-west of a smallholding known as Ty’n Clawdd, some 1km to the south of the settlement of Cribyn. From the application, it appears as though the site originally formed part of the Ty’n Clawdd farm but was sold off in 1995. The land has subsequently been used as hobby land in conjunction with a conservation project to preserve and enhance the site.

Planning permission was granted for a stable block on the land in 2004 (Ref: A041140) and a further grant of planning permission was given in 2010 (Ref: A090863) for the retention of a wildlife pond. The application indicates that the stable block has never been used for the stabling of horses, with the previous owners using the building for the storage of equipment used in association with the maintenance and conservation of the land.

The land is some 5 acres in size and is made up of a mixture of pasture land, marshy grassland, a pond and trees, with the stable block which was approved in 2004 being situated in the northern corner of the field. It is accessed via a gated entrance at the northern extremity of the site, off a minor country road.

Earlier this year, planning permission was granted for a glamping site (maximum 5 yurts), along with the installation of a 6kW solar PV array mounted on the existing outbuilding with a plant room extension, the provision of on-site car parking area and site storage container and refuse / recycling area. (Planning ref: A160191). The application originally sought consent for manager’s accommodation, however during the course of that application, the Local Planning Authority determined that support could not be given to the proposed conversion of the stable block into a manager’s dwelling, as it had not been demonstrated that the proposal met the tests as set out under TAN6 (Housing for Rural Enterprise Workers). Accordingly, this element was withdrawn by the applicant and amended plans reflecting the change were submitted and an amended description agreed.


This current full planning application seeks consent for the stationing of a temporary caravan for the site owners, which would be used for residential and office purposes.

The proposed caravan would be stationed at the northern extremity of the site, immediately adjacent to the existing stable block.

The caravan would be accessed via the existing vehicular access point and a


A160566 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 25


parking and turning area would be positioned immediately to the south-east of the caravan.



PLANNING POLICY WALES

The provisions of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8) (2016) is relevant and the following chapters are particularly applicable to the determination of the application:

-Chapter 3 – Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions-Chapter 4 – Planning for Sustainability-Chapter 7 – Economic Development-Chapter 9 – HousingTECHNICAL ADVICE NOTES (WALES):

The following technical advice notes (TAN’s) are relevant to the consideration of the application:

-Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009)

-Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010)

-Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2014)-Technical Advice Note 18: Transport (2007)-Technical Advice Note 23: Economic Development (2014)THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – CEREDIGION LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) 2007-2022 (ADOPTED 25TH APRIL, 2013)

The following LDP policies are relevant to the consideration of the application: -S01 – Sustainable Growth-S04 – Development in “Linked Settlements and Other Locations”-LU02 – Requirements Regarding All Residential Developments-LU05 - Securing the Delivery of Housing Development-LU10 – Temporary Residential Caravans-DM06 – High Quality Design and Placemaking-DM13 – Sustainable Drainage Systems-DM14 – Nature Conservation and Ecological Connectivity-DM15 – Local Biodiversity Conservation-DM17 – General Landscape-DM20 – Protection of Trees, Hedgerows and WoodlandsOTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS


A160566 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 26







-Head of Technical Services (Highways) – No objection, subject to conditions. -Head of Technical Services (Drainage) – No objection, subject to conditions. -CCC Minerals & Waste Officer - There are no mineral planning objections to the development proposed.


-No third party representations have been received in relation to this planning application.

CONCLUSION:



The key issue in the consideration of this application is whether or not the proposal accords with the relevant planning policies for residential development in the open countryside.

In the open countryside, proposals for new residential caravans will be resisted, unless they fall within one of a number of specific exceptions.

One of the few circumstances in which isolated residential development in the countryside may be justified is when accommodation is required to enable land-based rural enterprise workers to live at or close to their place of work. Whether this is essential in any particular case will depend on the needs of the enterprise concerned and not on the personal preference or circumstances of any of the individuals involved.

A160566 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 27


The key policy documents in the consideration of such an application are Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 6 and Policy S04 of the adopted Ceredigion LDP. Policy S04 states that; All ‘Other locations’ are inappropriate for housing development unless justified on the basis that it meets a demonstrated need for: i.Unmet affordable housing need in the locality and accords with Policy S05.ii.Need for a rural enterprise dwelling in line with TAN6.

The most critical guidance is contained within TAN6, with the most relevant extracts being as follows:

“4.6 – New dwellings on new enterprises: 4.6.1 If it is considered that a new dwelling will be essential to support a new rural enterprise, it should satisfy the following criteria: a. clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the rural enterprise concerned (significant investment in new buildings and equipment is often a good indication of intentions); b. clear evidence that the new enterprise needs to be established at the proposed location and that it cannot be accommodated at another suitable site where a dwelling is likely to be available; c. clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis; d. there is a clearly established functional need and that need relates to a full-time worker, and does not relate to a part-time requirement; e. the functional need could not be fulfilled by another dwelling or by converting an existing suitable building on the enterprise, or any other existing accommodation in the locality which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned; and f. other normal planning requirements, for example siting and access, are satisfied. 4.6.2 Where the case is not completely proven for a dwelling permission should, not be granted for it, but it may be appropriate for the planning authority to test the evidence by granting permission for temporary accommodation for a limited period. Three years will normally be appropriate to ensure that the circumstances are fully assessed. If such a permission for temporary accommodation is granted, permission for a permanent dwelling should not subsequently be given unless the criteria in paragraphs 4.4.1 or 4.6.1 are met. The planning authority should make clear in planning conditions the period for which the temporary permission is granted and that the temporary dwelling will have to be removed when that period expires. It should also include an informative attached to the planning decision notice stating the requirements that will have to be met if a permanent permission is to be granted. It will be unsatisfactory to grant successive extensions to a temporary permission if that will result in a permission having a total duration of more than three years”.

In the submission, the applicants argue that the temporary accommodation is required for site security, site office, visitor reception and general 24 hour site care and maintenance. The application further argues that the proposed temporary owner’s caravan will reduce traffic flows to / from the site as the applicants currently reside off the site and have to drive there at least twice a day and sometimes up to 4 times a day.

However, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that it is essential that a residential unit exists here, not even on a temporary basis.

A160566 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 28


The application argues that the residential caravan is required in connection with the rural enterprise business which was granted planning permission earlier this year by the Local Planning Authority. To date, this planning permission is yet to be implemented, thus the rural enterprise has not as yet been established. Indeed, at the time of the last site visit, there had been no significant investment in new buildings and equipment at the site.

In relation to site security, the use of modern technologies such as CCTV would mitigate against any security concerns. It is not accepted that a worker is required to be present at the site during the night for the proper functioning of the business.

Whilst it may not be the specific intention of the applicants to operate on a seasonal basis, the very nature of glamping is likely to naturally result in a seasonal business, as most people (albeit not all) would want to avoid such a type of holiday in the winter, particularly during very cold or wet periods as we experience here in west Wales. It is argued by the Local Planning Authority that a rural enterprise which is likely to be seasonal by its very nature, has a much reduced justification for the need for a residential unit, as there are likely to be periods when the site is closed down.

In relation to bookings, the proprietors could easily take bookings for a specific date and time which would be arranged by telephone or in writing beforehand. That way, all guests could arrive during normal working hours when a worker would be present on site.

Also, given the very remote nature of the site, it is unlikely that guests / tourists would turn up at the site without having made prior booking arrangements. Therefore it is unlikely that the business would miss out on any potential passing trade due to not being there on a permanent basis.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that any emergencies or the need for essential care would be likely to arise as part of this operation.

To conclude, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that the future business warrants a residential unit to exist on site and whilst the LPA sees some merit in the argument concerning security, this alone is not sufficient to justify a grant of permission for a residential unit and does not justify a 24 hour presence for the essential day to day running of the business. Indeed, the security of the site could be secured through other means.

This is a small scale rural enterprise comprising of a total of 5 yurts and it is felt that the argument for the need for a residential unit to accompany such an enterprise could be repeated too often, to the detriment of the rural character and sustainability of the county.


Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.The Local Planning Authority does not consider that the functional needs of

the rural enterprise warrants a residential unit at the site. The proposal is

therefore contrary to the advice contained within the Welsh Government’s

Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010)

and is contrary to policy S04 of the adopted Ceredigion Local Development

A160566 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 29


Plan 2007-2022.

A160566 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 30


A160566 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160566 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 31


A160577 SN52825556

Y Bwriad Proposal

Extensions to dwelling and erection of garage

Lleoliad Location

23 Bro Henllys, Felinfach, Lampeter



SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORYBro Henllys is branching Cul-de-sac, housing estate, situated on the western side of Felinfach. The entrance to the estate is off the A482 Aberaeron to Lampeter Road, opposite the B4343 and Felinfach Primary School.

This former council estate is largely made up of similarly styled, simple, semi-detached, gable-end dwellings, with the applicant’s dwelling being at the end of two adjacent terrace blocks of three dwellings. To the right of the applicant’s property stands another pair of semi-detached dwellings. Ground levels gently rise up behind these dwelling.

The applicant’s dwelling (23 Bro Henllys) has a modest sized front garden, a little under 7m in length, with a driveway to the side connecting to the rear garden, which extends around 21m to the rear and is around 10m wide.

There is no relevant planning history in respect of the applicant’s property. However, planning permission was granted for a front porch on the adjoining dwelling No.24) in 1984 (application reference 840747, Approved 13.09.84.

DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT The application seeks planning permission to erect a porch on the front elevation of the dwelling; a single storey ‘sun room’ extension on the rear elevation; and a garage at the back of the garden.

Some preparatory works have already been carried out and the rear garden has been levelled in preparation for the rear extension and the garage at the back of the garden. The levelling involved works in excavation and blockwork walls have been erected up against the rear boundary and the rearmost sections of the neighbours boundaries on each side. The difference in height between the excavated, levelled ground at the back of the applicant’s garden and the unexcavated land behind and adjacent is 1.35 metres. The boundary hedge between the applicant’s dwelling and the adjoining property has also been removed.

Preparatory facing works have also been carried out to the front and rear elevations. These effectively demarcate (principally by the absence of rendering) exactly where the extensions proposed in this application will attach to the dwelling (see photos).

The proposed front porch will have a 24o dual-pitch, ridged roof with slates to match existing; and will measure 3m wide by 2.83m deep, standing 3.35m at the ridge.

The proposed rear extension is to be a single storey, ‘sun room’ with gable–end and twin pitch roof. It will extend 4m back from the house and be 3.58 wide. The eaves will be around 2.6m high and the ridge around 3.5m high. The extension will be built


A160577 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 32


alongside the boundary with No 24, with no windows on that elevation. On the other side French windows will open out into the garden.

The proposed garage will be built up against the rear boundary of the curtilage, occupying the full width of the garden, with its end elevations abutting both the next door neighbours’ boundaries. It will be rectangular in form, with a shallow pitched, gable-end roof. Its footprint will be 10.48m by 6.94m, and it will be 3.25m high to the eaves and 4.9m high to the ridge. NB Because the garage will be partially built in excavation, its height relative to the land behind and to the neighbours land immediately adjacent will be 1.35m lower than if built at the pre-existing ground level i.e. the eaves will be around 1.9m above the neighbours’ adjacent ground level and the ridge will be 3.55m above the neighbours’ adjacent ground level.

The front elevation of the garage (i.e. the long side facing the applicant’s dwelling) will have a steel roller or sectional door measuring 4.71m wide by 2.8m high (intended to accommodate the height of the applicant’s van). This is positioned on the right-hand side of the frontage to align with the driveway that runs alongside the house. The frontage will also have a personal access door and a small window (measuring 1.2m wide by 1.195m high). The rear elevation will have two high level horizontally orientated windows (each 1.8m wide by 0.7m high) to provide additional natural light. There will be no windows or doors on either of the end elevations.

The finish will be roughcast render finish to match the dwelling, with all fenestration, fascias, barges and soffits being upvc. The roof will be clad in corrugated, steel panels.

Surface water drainage from will be dealt with by soakaways.


NATIONAL PLANNING POLICYPlanning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 8, January 2016.

The following chapters are particularly relevant Chapter 3 - Making and Enforcing Planning ControlChapter 4 - Planning for SustainabilityChapter 9 - Housing

Ceredigion Local Development Plan: Policy S04: Development in ‘Linked Settlements and Other Locations’Policy DM06: High Quality Design and Placemaking

The following technical advice note (TANs) is also relevant to the consideration of the application: TAN12:Design

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONSSection 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the Local Authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. This duty has been considered in the evaluation of this application. It is considered that there would be no significant or unacceptable increase in crime and disorder as a result of the proposed development.

A160577 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 33


Equality Act 2010The Equality Act 2010 identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation; marriage and civil partnership.Having due regard to advancing equality involves:•removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; •taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the need of other people; and •encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low. The above duty has been given due consideration in the determination of this application. It is considered that the proposed development does not have any significant implications for, or effect on, persons who share a protected characteristic, over and above any other person.

CONSULTATION RESPONSESSTATUTORY CONSULTEES:CCC’s Assets and Transportation (Highways) – No objection subject to surface water condition.CCC’s Assets and Transportation (Flooding) – No objection subject to surface water condition.CCC’s Biodiversity officer / Ecologist – No Objection Subject to Conditions (provision of Bird boxes).Cyngor Cymuned Llanfihangel Ystrad – No Response

NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES: None

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONSTwo letters of objection:The immediately adjacent neighbour has no objection in principle to the front porch or to the garage, but objection to the extension joined to the rear of the property up against the boundary wall. This ‘would put the only window providing light into our living room into permanent shadow, reducing the light to the living room to unacceptable levels.

Concerns were also raised over works that have already taken place, specifically in respect of the removal of the boundary hedge and the creation of a drop on the boundary making their garden unsafe. The works began in March 2015. ‘.. An extended period of works to the rear of the property will have a detrimental effect on our property, and our quality of life’. Errors on the application form were also flagged up (existing windows are brown upvc, not white as indicated).

The neighbours two doors down from the applicants have no objection to the porch or the extension to the rear, although large, but consider a huge garage will have a terrible effect on the neighbours nearby and spoil the sites appearance. It will be massive and therefore spoil the view from the back of many of the houses on the street. The need for such a large garage is questioned and concern is expressed that the intended use may be industrial or commercial – ‘a vehicle repair business?’ CONCLUSIONSection 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to

A160577 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 34


be made under the planning Acts the determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

The application comprises three elements that need to be considered separately and also as a collective whole.

The front porch. The design and materials proposed for the front porch are pretty standard and entirely acceptable in terms of its character and appearance. In addition to the dwelling having a 7m garden frontage, the estate layout provides a high degree of separation between the property and those on the opposite side of the estate road (roughly 30m between opposing windows), so the porch can be accommodated with negligible impact on the streetscape. By itself the porch is acceptable and should be approved.

The rear extension.The applicants originally proposed a rear extension that was going to be 5m in length, rather than the 4m now being considered. And without doubt, in my view such an extension would have had an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of the next door neighbours’ property through loss of outlook and overshadowing.

Arguably just reducing the length of the extension by 1m will only reduce these impacts to a very limited extent, and indeed relative to the current situation where there is no boundary present between the applicants’ dwelling and their immediate neighbour, a 4m long extension will still significantly reduce the next door neighbours outlook and increase the degree of overshadowing.

However, notwithstanding the above, the authority has to consider the fall-back position provided by permitted development rights under the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended) (the GDPO).

Under the householder permitted development rights set out in the GDPO (which permits extensions not exceeding 4m in length) the rear extension as now proposed can in fact be erected quite lawfully and without any need to submit a planning application anyway. Indeed, if they so wished they could actually build it taller within the limitations set in the GDPO. Accordingly the applicant could quite legitimately go ahead and build the rear extension (as now proposed) without awaiting the outcome of this planning permission; and indeed could still go ahead and build it even if planning permission for the proposed development as a whole gets refused.

Although the authority has got powers to remove permitted development rights, it should not do so unless there is an objective justification. Terraced rows are so commonplace that the scenario in which one householder in a row of terraced properties might wish to extend at the back has to have been given full consideration when the parameter were set in the GDPO (as amended). Accordingly, as there is nothing particularly unusual in the arrangement of doors and windows in this instance that would set these properties apart from the mass of other terraced housing, the government must have intended that in such a case extensions up to 4m should be allowed. Accordingly there is no objective justification in removing permitted development rights.

The Garage

A160577 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 35


The garage is undoubtedly large and it is the neighbours are right to question whether its size is indicative of a commercial use rather than domestic use. However, the applicant has indicated that the use will be domestic only. The applicant has indicated that; that he has a keen interest in car rallying. He owns a rally car and a van that provides mechanical support during rallying events. The applicant has indicated that the rally car interest is on a hobby basis only and that no commercial activity will take place at the premises i.e. the garage is required solely for domestic use only. The high roller shutter door is needed so that the van can be accommodated and the garage door manufacturer requires a further 450mm headroom (internally) above the door head, so these effectively dictate the height of the building.

If the intention had been to build the garage above the original ground level at the rear of the garden then I consider its impact by virtue of height in particular would have rendered it unacceptable. However, with the floor of the proposed garage being set1.35 m below the original ground levels at the back of the garden its overall height, relative to the land alongside will be reduced to 3.55m at the ridge, dropping to around 2.0 at the eaves. Accordingly I consider its overall height relative to the adjoining neighbours ground levels will not be unacceptable.

In coming to this view I am mindful of the fact that at any time the applicant or his next door neighbour could erect a boundary fence up to 2m high above the original ground levels under permitted development rights without the need for any planning permission; and that if they were to do so the only part of the garage rising above the fence height would be its roof.

The proposed development as a collective whole.The issue here essentially is whether the garage and rear extension together constitute over development of the plot – the porch adding little to no cumulative impact. As a matter of judgement I consider that the curtilage of the property is more than sufficiently large to accommodate all of the development proposed without it constituting over development. Once again I am mindful that under permitted development rights householders can cover up to 50% of their curtilage with buildings or structures under permitted development rights and that in this instance a little less than less than 50% of the rear curtilage is consumed by the garage and extension. In my view the proposed development is close to, but does not exceed the level of development that would be acceptable on the site.

Accordingly, the development should be approved


Approve: APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

A160577 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 36


A160577 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160577 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 37


A160731 SN26204866

Y Bwriad Proposal

Proposed Residential Development (Outline) for 3 plots (1

affordable)

Lleoliad Location

Land at Ty Mawr, Lady Road, Blaenporth, Cardigan




Blaenporth is situated on the A487 trunk road, 9.5km (5.9 miles) from Cardigan and 15.9km (9.9 miles) from Synod Inn. Development has primarily occurred in ribbon format along minor roads branching off the trunk road. The settlement comprises of over 80 dwellings and is situated on the Aberystwyth / Cardigan bus route which is serviced daily. There are a few services available within the settlement but residents look to Aberporth and Cardigan for most of their major services and facilities.

The application site lies between two dwellings; Ty Mawr which fronts the A487, and Brynteg which fronts Lady Road. The site area is a 0.18ha Greenfield area that falls within part of the curtilage of Ty Mawr, and is clearly visible from the trunk road. The site is bound by the curtilages of Ty Mawr and Brynteg, and agricultural land to the rear. Access would be derived from Lady Road.

There is no relevant planning history on this site to report.


This outline planning application (with all matters reserved) seeks consent for three dwellings; comprising 2 no. open market dwellings and 1 no. affordable dwelling. The proposed upper and lower limits of the dwellings are as follows; 2 no. Open market units: width 7.5m -12.75m; depth 9.0m - 17.0m; height (eaves) 2.4m -5.5m; height (ridge) 6.0m - 8.0m. 1 no. Affordable unit: width 7m - 7.5m; depth 8m - 9m; height (eaves) 2.4m - 5.5m; height (ridge) 6.0m - 8.0m. The plots would be arranged in a linear form, and orientated towards Lady Road, in common with the adjacent dwellings. The existing roadside hedge would be removed and translocated to the rear of the site; it would be replaced by a boundary fence or wall set back 2.4m from the road edge.


NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIESPLANNING POLICY WALES

Chapter 3 – Making and Enforcing Planning DecisionsChapter 4 – Planning for SustainabilityChapter 9 – Housing

TECHNICAL ADVICE NOTES (WALES)


A160731 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 38


Technical Advice Note (TAN) 2: Planning and Affordable Housing (2006) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 12: Design (2016)

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CEREDIGION LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007- 2022 (ADOPTED 25TH APRIL, 2013)

Policy S01: Sustainable GrowthPolicy S04: Development in 'Linked Settlements and Other Locations'Policy S05: Affordable HousingPolicy LU02: Requirements Regarding All Residential DevelopmentsPolicy LU05: Securing the Delivery of Housing DevelopmentPolicy DM01: Managing the Impacts of Development on Communities and the Welsh LanguagePolicy DM03: Sustainable TravelPolicy DM06: High Quality Design and PlacemakingPolicy DM09: Design and MovementPolicy DM10: Design and LandscapingPolicy DM13: Sustainable Urban Drainage SystemsPolicy DM14: Nature Conservation and Ecological ConnectivityPolicy DM15: Local Biodiversity ConservationPolicy DM17: General LandscapePolicy DM20: Protection of Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE (SPG)

Ceredigion Local Development Plan SPG - Built Environment and Design (January 2015)Ceredigion Local Development Plan SPG - Ceredigion County Council Parking Standards (January 2015)Ceredigion Local Development Plan SPG - Supplementary Planning Guidance Affordable Housing (September 2014).Ceredigion Local Development Plan SPG - Community and the Welsh Language (2015)Ceredigion Local Development Plan SPG - Nature Conservation (2015)

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONSCrime and Disorder Act 1998Section 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the LocalAuthority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. This duty has been considered in the evaluation of this application. It is considered that there would be no significant or unacceptable increase in crime and disorder as a result of the proposed decision.


Having due regard to advancing equality involves:• Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics;

A160731 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 39


• Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the need of other people; and• Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.




-Head of Assets and Transportation Services (Highways) – No objection subject to conditions -Head of Assets and Transportation Services (Drainage) – No objection-Welsh Government Department for Economy and Infrastructure (Transport) – No observations-CCC Ecologist - No objection, subject to conditions.-Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – No objections-Natural Resources Wales (NRW) – No objection


-Community Council – No response

No third party representations have been received in relation to this planning application.

CONCLUSION


“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning acts the determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

The main issue in relation to the consideration of this application is whether or not the proposal is acceptable in principle and the key LDP policy which pertains to the proposal is S04, (in association with policy S01).

In general terms, the majority of the County's housing growth should be directed towards the urban and rural service centres. The 'Linked Settlements and Other Locations' are generally regarded as less sustainable than Service Centres but as still having some limited development need, including for housing, either in acknowledgement of their settlement character and community role or as a result of specific needs such as agricultural workers dwellings.

Policy S04 sets out the forms of development that would be acceptable in meeting the strategic objectives of the future development of Linked Settlements and Other Locations, subject to meeting a set of criteria, (all of which must be met).

A160731 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 40


Below the criteria and the answers have been detailed;

Criterion 2 (a) - Is the application located in a Linked Settlement or Other Location?

For the purposes of the LDP, Blaenporth has been classified as a linked settlement to the rural service centre of Aberporth / Parcllyn. As such, both open market and affordable housing can be permitted in principle.

Criterion 2 (b) - Is there capacity remaining in the provision for the 'Linked Settlement and Other Locations' for that settlement group?

The LDP sets out a total requirement of 332 new residential units for the Aberporth / Parcllyn settlement group, of which 220 is to be provided for in the service centre itself and the remaining 112 within linked settlements and other locations.

As of September, 2016, there are 58 completions for the linked settlements and other locations category, with a further 42 units having had consent, thereby leaving a residual of 12 units to be provided for.

Therefore, whilst in theory there remains 12 units left to be provided for, (thereby ensuring compliance with criterion 2(b)), it must be noted that there still remains 42 units which have been granted planning permission but which have not as yet been developed. Arguably therefore, adequate opportunities already exist for new housing in the linked settlements and other locations category at the present time.

Criterion 2 c - Is the balance between provision in the Service Centre and the 'Linked Settlements and Other Locations' in line with that set out in column A of Appendix 2?

The balance at present is incorrect, with 61% of residential units currently committed in the linked settlements and other locations against a target of 43% at this current stage in the plan period. Permitting any more dwellings within the Linked Settlements and Other Locations at this point in time would further jeopardise the delivery of the housing strategy for the County as a whole.

Criterion 2(d) - In the 'Linked Settlements' only, growth does not cumulatively exceed 12% of the existing housing stock as at 2007 in that 'Linked Settlement' -

The 2007 housing stock for Blaenporth stood at 97 units and a 12% increase equated to a further 12 new units.

As of September 2016, 1 new property has been built (completed) within the settlement and a further 5 units have outstanding consent, thereby equating to a commitment of 6 units, thereby leaving a residual of 6 units to be provided for.

Policy S04 is also clear in that in terms of a development's physical location, (regardless of development type), in a linked settlement, development must be located within or immediately adjacent to the substantive built form.

In this case, the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the application site forms part of the settlement and as such there are no objections to the physical location of the development.

A160731 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 41


Furthermore, there are no objections in relation ecology, highways and service / infrastructure provision and the proposal is considered to be compliant with national and local planning policy in those respects.

The reason that the LDP allowed for 25% of housing development to take place within linked settlements and other locations was namely to help meet some of the needs of the existing populations, however it is important that the rate of development both overall in the "linked settlements and other locations" and in any one "linked settlement" is managed. For that reason, the LDP sets a limit to development for the "linked settlements and other locations" for each settlement group. It is important that in the "linked settlements and other locations" development does not come forward disproportionately to that in the service centre, thereby reducing the demand for development in the service centre.

This provision is seen as acceptable within the context of the improved sustainability Countywide which will result from the strengthening of the Service Centres, especially that of the RSC's. For that reason, it is important that housing development in the "Linked Settlements" is not at a higher rate than that of the service centre.

Furthermore, 8 affordable units have been granted consent in Blaenporth since 2007 as follows;

A050688 - Land on west side of Tan yr Eglwys Lane, Blaenporth (approved 2007) 2 units - Permission extant but construction of affordable dwellings themselves not commenced

A050693 - Land on east side of Tan yr Eglwys Lane, Blaenporth (approved 2007) 4 units - Permission extant but construction of affordable dwellings themselves not commenced

A060108 - Plot adj. Primary School, Lon Yr Ysgol, Blaenporth (approved 2010) 2 units - Not commenced, permission expired on 20-Apr-2015

Given that the above permissions for affordable dwellings in Blaenporth have either lapsed or are not delivering the units despite a considerable interim period since their issue, there appears to be a limited need for affordable homes in the settlement. The Local Planning Authority are therefore of the opinion that the existing commitments are sufficient to meet the needs of Blaenporth, furthermore, no evidence of unmet need for affordable homes to meet local need has been provided.

The proposal is therefore in breach of criterion 2© of policy S04 and is not compliant with the housing strategy as set out in the LDP and specified within policy S01.

The proposal is in conflict with the housing strategy for the county as set out in the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) and there appears to be no justification at the present time for permitting further units in this settlement group given the number of outstanding commitments. No evidence of unmet need for affordable homes to outweigh the strategy objection has been provided.

In light of the above comments, it is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons.

A160731 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 42



REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

The application, if permitted, will undermine the deliverability of the adopted

Ceredigion Local Development Plan (LDP) housing strategy, specifically

policies S01 and S04 (criterion 2c).

A160731 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 43


A160731 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160731 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 44


A160755 SN28144918

Y Bwriad Proposal

Proposed erection of a single afforable dwelling and

detached garage

Lleoliad Location

Plot adj Taliesin, Gogerddan, Tanygroes, Cardigan




The proposed site is located some 30m from the crossroads at Gogerddan along the B4333 towards Beulah and Newcastle Emlyn. The site does not lie within a designated linked settlement and as such is classified as a site in the open countryside.

In 2014 planning permission was granted for an open market bungalow in the same field which is the subject of this application. This bungalow has been built and is lived in.


The application seeks full planning permission for an affordable dwelling.

Details of the proposed dwelling have been submitted. The dwelling is a double fronted gable two storey house with two bay windows on the ground floor and internally comprises of an open plan kitchen/diner, lounge, study, utility room and toilet, and on the first floor four double bedrooms, one en-suite and a family bathroom.

A new access set out to Typical Layout Number 1 will be formed which will require the removal of a hedgerow.

The dwelling is set at a different orientation to that of the adjacent bungalow, 'Taliesin' and rather than being on an angle, it fronts directly onto the road, but set back by approximately 10m with parking and turning space located to the front of the property. The amenity space is provided either side and to the rear with a patio area directly outside the rear elevation.

The internal floor space comes to approximately 175 m2. The total height to ridge of the proposed dwelling is 8.5m.

PLANNING POLICIES

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8) (2016)

-Chapter 3 – Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions-Chapter 4 – Planning for Sustainability-Chapter 9 – Housing

Technical Advice Notes


A160755 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 45


- Technical Advice Note 2: Planning and Affordable Housing (2006)- Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010)- Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2014)

Ceredigion Local Development Plan 2007-2022 - S01 – Sustainable Growth- S04 – Development in “Linked Settlements and Other Locations”- S05 – Affordable Housing- LU02 – Requirements Regarding All Residential Developments- LU05 - Securing the Delivery of Housing Development- DM01 – Managing the Impacts of Development on Communities and the Welsh Language- DM06 – High Quality Design and Placemaking- DM13 – Sustainable Drainage Systems- DM14 – Nature Conservation and Ecological Connectivity- DM15 – Local Biodiversity Conservation

Supplementary Planning Guidance- Affordable Housing(2014)


No objection subject to conditions.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been received raising the following matters of concern:

- Assessment of flood risk. The lane to the rear turned into a river last winter and having to spend in excess of £3000 to install extra storm drains around our property.

- The application sets a precendent. We know a few people locally who would love to build on agricultural land and believe this would result in a few more applications citing this precedent. What we are more alarmed at is that we put in a pre-application for a low-carbon sustainable building for an extra staff member to alleviate the pressures on ourselves from the business we bring to the community and was told that it would not be worth submitting a full application as it would be unlikely to be successful and directed us to the criteria which we realized we were unable to fully achieve the substantial asset our business brings to the local community. Yet here we have a private dwelling, the size of which was granted mainly for live-in carers, asking for another dwelling to be built as a support to a building that already fulfills this criteria. What is even more alarming is this is agricultural land.

- We don’t believe this development with extra bedrooms ‘in case of visitors’ falls within the Welsh Assembly ‘One Wales one planet ‘ directives of reducing the carbon footprint of every Welsh citizen, incorporating the fact that all new buildings are supposed to be zero carbon, particularly on agricultural land.

- Are we to assume that should this be granted that the value will be capped at affordable housing levels or the additional 2 bedrooms income from any sale be

A160755 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 46


handed over to Ceredigion Council?


Section 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the Local Authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. This duty has been considered in the evaluation of this application. It is considered that there would be no significant or unacceptable increase in crime and disorder as a result of the proposed decision.

The Equality Act 2010 identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation; marriage and civil partnership.



CONCLUSION

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material consideration indicate otherwise”.

Taking into account the relevant planning policy, having conducted a site inspection and in view of the consultations and representations received, the main issue associated with the acceptability of this planning application is whether or not it complies with National Planning Policies and the Local Planning Policies as set out in the LDP in terms of development in the open countryside and its acceptability as an affordable dwelling in terms of its size.

The location of the application site lies within the Aberporth/Parcllyn Settlement Group. The site does not lie within a Linked Settlement, therefore it’s treated as being in an ‘Other Location’.

PPW Chapter 9 Housing Para 9.2.22 states that: “In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the countryside, to reduce the need to travel by car and to economise on the provision of services, new houses in the countryside, away from existing settlements recognised in development plans or from other areas allocated for development, must be strictly controlled. Many parts of the countryside have isolated groups of dwellings. Sensitive filling in of

A160755 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 47


small gaps, or minor extensions to such groups, in particular for affordable housing to meet local need, may be acceptable, but much depends upon the character of the surroundings, the pattern of development in the area and the accessibility to main towns and villages”.

Taking into account the text extract from PPW above, affordable houses can be permitted if it considered to be ‘sensitive filling in of small gaps, or minor extensions to such groups’, ‘such groups’ being defined as ‘isolated groups of dwellings’. This site is within less than a mile from the linked settlement of Gogerddan and Beulah and some 2 miles form the Rural Service Centre of Aberporth/Parcllyn, therefore it cannot be classed as an ‘isolated’ location.

The Local Development Plan sets out within Policy S01 that development in ‘other locations’ is restricted to affordable housing or TAN 6 rural enterprise dwellings only. This application has not demonstrated a need for affordable housing or what tenure of affordable housing is required in this area, if any. Without evidence of need the LPA cannot support the application.

If need has been demonstrated, PPW (para. 9.2.23) clearly states that affordable dwellings should be within or adjoining existing settlements, as explained below:‘Policies should make clear that the release of small housing sites within or adjoining existing settlements for the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs which would not otherwise be allocated in the development plan, is an exception to the policies for general housing provision. Such policies must be fully justified, setting out the type of need and the kind of development which fall within their terms. The affordable housing provided on exception sites should meet the needs of local people in perpetuity. Sites must meet all the other criteria against which a housing development would be judged. Affordable housing exception sites are not appropriate for market housing.’

The paragraph above states that “Sites must meet all the other criteria against which a housing development would be judged.” In this case the key policies in the consideration of the application are policies S04, S05 and DM06 and the application fails on all policies.

Policy S04 (which is linked to Policy S01), deals with development within “linked settlements and other locations”. Criterion 2a specifically relates to proposals for housing in ‘other locations’ and clearly states that any housing away from Service Centres and defined Linked Settlements must be for affordable housing or meet the requirements of TAN 6 only and in either case the unmet need must be demonstrated, in this application no evidence of unmet need has been received. Additional information submitted by the agent during the course of the application states that:

"I have spoken to the applicants on this one, and as explained in my submitted Planning Statement, they need this space for their children, home working, etc…, therefore we do not feel we can agree to a reduction as requested. Please therefore take this before committee as it stands."

However this is not sufficient justification to outweigh the requirements of the policy, therefore the application can be refused on against criterion 2(a)(i) of Policy S04.

If the application submission had demonstrated an overriding need for affordable

A160755 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 48


housing, then the LPA would look at whether capacity remains in the Settlement Group to allow further development at this time in the plan period.

In relation to criterion 2b Policy S04, the housing figures (as of August 2016) show that a capacity of 11 units remains to be allocated within the ‘Linked Settlements and Other Locations’ in this Settlement Group of Aberporth/Parcllyn. However, it also shows that there are 43 outstanding consents which remain available for development to meet current needs within the Linked Settlement and Other Locations in this Settlement Group.

Criterion 2c states that in the case of new housing, developments should come forward at a rate no greater than the proportionate rate of development in the relevant Service Centre (Urban or Rural) as set out in Appendix 2 (column a). Allowing further units in the Linked Settlements and Other Locations would now make achieving the strategy for this Settlement Group, and the county, extremely difficult. No justification exists for permitting further units in the Linked Settlements and Other Locations category for this Settlement Group at this point in time, particularly given that 43 outstanding consents (as of August 2016) remain available in the Linked Settlements and Other Locations.

Policy DM01 relates to managing the impacts of development on communities and the Welsh Language. This requires that all development where the scale is not in accordance with policy S04 submits a Community and Linguistic Impact Assessment. As no such assessment has been submitted and as the development is contrary to S04, the impact of the proposed development on the community and the Welsh Language cannot be assessed. As such the application would be contrary to policy DM01 criterion 2.

Moving back to the proposal for an ‘affordable dwelling’, the definition of such a dwelling set out in PPW para.9.2.14 is “housing where there are secure mechanisms in place to ensure that it is accessible to those who cannot afford market housing, both on first occupation and for subsequent occupiers.”

The adopted Ceredigion Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing (2014) sets out the Design Quality Requirement which is the Minimum space and technical standards required of all affordable homes constructed with the benefit of Social Housing Grant. These standards are set by the Welsh Government. These measurements are used by the LPA as a guide for all affordable dwellings. The document states that: “This SPG gives effect to the LDP by applying minimum internal floorspace specifications for affordable homes taken from the Welsh Government’s DQR standard: and a maximum of a 20% increase on the minimum specifications in overall internal floorspace. Affordable homes will generally be expected not to incorporate a garage but may include space for a garage to be constructed at a later date.”

For a 7 person, 4 bedroom house the minimum floorspace requirement is 114m2 and the maximum is 137m2. This dwelling proposed, which is a 4 bedroom dwelling measures approximately 37m2 greater than the maximum measurements for an affordable dwelling.

The agent has been asked to amend the size of the dwelling to reflect the DQR standards, however no changes have been made for the following reasons given:

A160755 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 49


“They need this space for their children, home working, etc…, therefore we do not feel we can agree to a reduction as requested. Please therefore take this before committee as it stands.”

Policy DM06 of the LDP relates to High Quality Design and Placemaking. The design of the proposed dwelling is typical of some of the more modern dwellings which have been designed and built within the county during the past 10 years or so. It’s not a traditional style dwelling, which might be more suited here, and might come within the parameters of an affordable dwelling. This dwelling will dominate the street scene and overshadow the bungalow adjacent. If this application is to be approved contrary to policy then the size and design of the dwelling should be revised. The agent has been approached on behalf of the applicant and has been asked to revise the design but has declined.

Building in this location does not safeguard the appearance of the countryside, does not constitute a sensitive filling of gaps but rather introduces ribboning development out into the open countryside. Moreover this proposal is contrary to the LDP strategy in terms of its location and the balance of development within the service centre. Furthermore, the size of the proposed dwelling is not in accordance with the affordable housing size guidelines from Welsh Government, therefore deemed not to be ‘affordable’ in nature to build, to maintain or for future generations to buy. The proposed dwelling fails to meet the TAN 2 definition of affordable housing to ensure that it is affordable in perpetuity. This dwelling in terms of its size and appearance should be refused.

To conclude, the application undermines the deliverability of the Ceredigion LDP housing strategy, and will specifically be in conflict with policies S01, S04 (criterion 2a, 2c and 4b), DM01 of the LDP, Planning Policy Wales and TAN 2. To reiterate, there is no need for this development to be located at this location.

DELEGATED POWERS

The application has been determined within the scope of the delegated authority granted to the Head of Lifestyle Services by the meeting of Ceredigion County Council on the 8th January 2016. Delegated Powers have not been granted for the following reasons:-This applicant is a young person wishing to build an affordable house in his local area.-Restricting the number of bedrooms in these affordable homes causes me concern as often these applicants are young people who intend to raise families in the area, which in turn helps sustain our communities. Such a restriction will only add financial burden for families in the future should they have to apply to build extensions. -I will, however, leave the actual plans and specifications to be dealt with between yourselves, the applicant and the applicants agent.


Reject: The application undermines the deliverability of the Ceredigion LDP

housing strategy, and will specifically be in conflict with policies S01, S04

(criterion 2a, 2c and 4b), DM01 of the LDP, Planning Policy Wales and TAN 2.

A160755 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 50


A160755 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160755 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 51


A160804 SN18034702

Y Bwriad Proposal

Proposed Garage/ Store Shed - B8 Use

Lleoliad Location

Plot Adj to Llyn Y Felin, Gwbert, Cardigan.




The application seeks full planning permission to erect a B8 single storey garage/store shed on a parcel of vacant land adjacent to a property known as Llyn y Felin along Gwbert Road in Cardigan. The land is not associated to any dwelling. Supporting documentation notes that the land was previously overgrown but has recently been cleared by the applicant. The site is bound to the north by the river Mwldan. Access is already present from the B4548, however the application form states that this access will be altered. The site sits partly within the C2 flood zone.

In 1990 outline planning permission was granted for a dwelling and a reserved matters application was granted in 1993 (930188). However in 1998 a planning application was refused for the erection of a house (950312) on the following grounds:“The development of the site would adversely impact on the land drainage standard and thereby place adjacent residential properties at greater risk from flooding.”


The B8 Storage or distribution shed will have a floor space of 30m2. The site area measures approximately 400m2. The garage will be positioned in the north-east corner of the site. The purpose of the shed is to store the applicants’ small inflatable boat. The shed will be finished in flood resilient materials to include masonry walls with no perishable materials to be used in case of the event of flooding. The floors will be of concrete, the electrics will be fitted 1.2m above the finished floor level and no goods will be stored below 1.2m of the finished floor level which could be damaged by water. The windows will be of UPVC or Timber, timber doors and fiberglass flat roof. The new turning area will be of permeable material which will allow space for 1 car to park. The roof will be flat with a gentle slope from the front to rear. There will be a double entrance door from the front and the plans have been amended to allow a 1.14m door opening from the rear with a canopy extending out by 1.3m to the rear. The levels of the land will change where the garage is to be positioned in order to make this area of the site level.

PLANNING POLICIES

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 8) (2016)

Technical Advice NoteTAN 15 – Development and Flood Risk (2004)

Ceredigion Local Development Plan 2007-2022 -S01 – Sustainable Growth


A160804 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 52


-S02 – Development in Urban Service Centres- LU12 – Employment Proposals on Non-allocated sites-DM06 – High Quality Design and Placemaking - DM11 – Designing for Climate Change

Policy LU12: Employment Proposals on Non-allocated Sites1.The scale of B1, B2, B8 is in line with that envisaged under Policies S02-S04;2.The density of the development is appropriate in relation to its location and proposed use; and3.It is demonstrated that re-use of redundant or underused buildings within the area has been considered.


Highways – No objection

Flooding –The Authority objects to development taking places which generates flows greater than "Greenfield Site" into a watercourse, due to an increased risk of flooding within in catchments. In order to eliminate the increased risk of flooding within the catchments it’s recommend that:• Soakaways should be provided to cater for surface water from this development, which will be subject to Building Control Approval. Soakaways should not be located within 6 metres of a road or building; or• Sustainable Drainage System should be provided to cater for surface water from this development, which will be subject to Building Control Approval.

Cardigan Town Council - The council has no objection in principle, but notes that the development is within the flood plain and will produce additional flow into the nearby Mwldan stream.

Ecologist – No objection subject to conditions. Details have been submitted showing a Heras style fencing to provide a Root Protection Area, a Pollution Prevention Statement, a light spillage scheme and a bird nest box has been added on the garage.

Natural Resources Wales - Given the location of the shed and scale, we do not consider a Flood Consequence Assessment is required in this instance. The proposal will not add to the existing flood risk or increase the risk to life. We therefore have no objections to the development but the applicant needs to be made aware of the flood risk.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Four letters of objection and 1 ‘other’ were received raising the following matters:• Flooding dangers in the area in particular in 1993 and 2012 when water entered a garage before receding.

• Amount of gravel that will be used to create the turning area due to the drop from the top level to the hedge.

• Planning permission refused in 1998 (950312) on the following grounds:“The development of the site would adversely impact on the land drainage standard

A160804 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 53


and thereby place adjacent residential properties at greater risk from flooding.”

• The application site as a whole lies within the floodplain of the Mwldan. Policy TAN 15 is specifically aimed at safeguarding existing properties subject to the continuing risk of flooding, and restricting further development in the floodplain.

• Inconsistencies on the application form.

• Inadequate provision made for the discharge of surface water run off generally.

• It does not appear practical to construct this turning head without raising the level of the site and further reducing flood storage capacity.

• There can be no justification for double access doors to both the front and rear elevations, particularly as the latter would stand within a few metres of the gardens of both 3, Llyn y Felin and 10B Maes y Coed.

• The development is not connected in any way to an adjacent dwelling or residential use. There is no specific use class for the reported use as a boat store.

• There is a risk of a shift to future commercial storage, and of expansion and intensification of the use if permitted, across the site by this owner, or a subsequent purchaser…This has serious implications for noise pollution, visual intrusion as well as flood protection, and is a matter of the utmost concern to surrounding residential occupiers.

• In the absence of a legally binding agreement attaching to the land it is not considered that planning conditions if imposed would offer sufficient sanction to control this risk.

• The applicant has already displayed a board advertising his building business on the fence by the entrance…and there would be nothing preventing him from using the site for storage of materials.

• The loss of amenity and disturbance from noise, quite apart from vehicle access and the impact upon the value of my house would be very serious indeed. I also notice that the design includes double access doors both front and rear which seems excessive for storage of a single small boat.

• The 1998 report accurately reflects eye witness reports and a levelled survey of this and adjacent land and confirms that the entire site is below the flood level experienced and that this was a vitally important storage area allowing water to escape progressively over the highway although even this caused further flooding on the opposite side of the road. The reason that the line on the plan provided by W S Atkins matches the application site exactly is that the land is on a gradient towards the bridge, and the adjacent garden (3, Llynyfelin) to the south is much higher and represents a barrier. Any loss of capacity will therefore inevitably endanger dwellings and people upstream.

• There is indeed site specific data and survey material from the time of an actual major flood which bears out each of these important factors. The loss of 300 sq ft of site storage together with the land raising will put property and lives at risk. In addition an inspection of the site and the planned development reveals that the

A160804 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 54


construction of a turning head must inevitably require further land raising as there is a drop of some 3ft running laterally across the site. This is not admitted by the applicant but any reasonable interpretation would necessitate some level platform to turn and reverse the suggested vehicle and boat for which storage is proposed.

• There is conflicting information as to drainage and run off. The application mentions specifically surface water drainage into the Mwldan, presumably across the garden of 10B, which will only add to the problem. However the plan shows a soakaway but at the lower level of the application site, the same as the garden of 10B. This sits a matter of a couple of feet above the average annual level of the stream and below ground water level in the winter months. As such I do not accept that this provides an acceptable land drainage solution, much as was criticised in the earlier application, which was refused.

Two letters of support were submitted as part of the application raising the following points: - The purchaser has turned a derelict unkempt patch of land into a much tidier site. No objection to building a store for a boat, it should have little visual impact and should not impair the view of neighbours.

- The applicants’ plans are most suitable for this site and I fully support this venture.

-I understand that there might be concerns as the plot in question is on a flood plain. However many other properties in this area, including my own area also on a floodplain. I have lived here for 16 years and have never been flooded.


Section 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the Local Authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. This duty has been considered in the evaluation of this application. It is considered that there would be no significant or unacceptable increase in crime and disorder as a result of the proposed decision.

The Equality Act 2010 identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation; marriage and civil partnership.



CONCLUSION

A160804 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 55


Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material consideration indicate otherwise”.

The scale of this B8 use, being 30m2, is not considered to be large. It’s located within the Urban Service Centre of Cardigan and in the middle of residential properties. The site is brownfield land as it was once used as a garden area, meeting the requirements of criterion 3 of Policy LU12.

The supporting statement goes on to note that ‘smaller scale developments’ are defined as follows:“B1, B2 or B8 employment development with a gross floor space of less than 1500 sq metres.”

This shed has only a fraction of the B8 floor space mentioned in the above policy.

With regards to Policy DM06 the design of the garage is not considered to be of high quality or innovative, however putting a pitched roof on this garage instead of a flat roof would further impact on the dwelling to the rear which has a window overlooking this site. Any noise omitting from the building could be an issue and this can be controlled via a condition. However a B8 storage shed would not be subject to any industrial activity. Policy DM06 states that development should:“Protect the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties from significant harm in relation to privacy, noise and outlook.”

The site lies partly within a C2 flood zone as defined by the Development Advice Map therefore the application has been assessed against the tests set out in section 6 and 7 of TAN 15. This type of development is considered to be a ‘less vulnerable development’. However, development should only be permitted within zone C2 if it’s justified in this location.

The proposal is located within the Urban Service Centre of Cardigan and will ‘sustain an existing settlement’ providing a storage and distribution building under the B8 use class. The proposal concurs with PPW in that the site was previously developed land as it was once a residential garden area for an adjacent dwelling.

The potential consequences if a flooding event for this particular type of development have been considered, there is an escape route from the front and rear of the building and along Gwbert Road, this is found to be acceptable. The proposal is considered to meet the tests outlined in section 6 of TAN 15.

Moving onto section 7 of the TAN it states that where "flooding has been identified as a material consideration development will need to be planned accordingly". In this case permeable surfaces are to be used for the parking and turning area, the site levels will only change for the shed area and flood resilient materials will be used in the construction of the shed.

TAN 15 states that:“Whether a development should proceed or not will depend upon whether the consequences of flooding of that development can be managed down to a level which is acceptable for the nature/type of development being proposed, including its

A160804 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 56


effects on existing development…before deciding whether a development can take place an assessment, which examines the likely mechanisms that cause the flooding, and the consequences on the development of those floods, must be undertaken, which is appropriate to the size and scale of the proposed development.”

Policy DM11 which has been extracted below is considered to have been conformed with by the measures put in place in the way the building will be constructed.

Policy DM11: Designing for Climate Change

The LDP will help ensure that development addresses the implications of climate change by requiring that:1.justified development in the flood zone is resilient and adaptable to the effects of flooding; and 2.the long term sustainability of the development has been taken into account.

The site is considered to be at risk of flooding in events with at least a 1% chance of occurring in any one year. A storage shed is considered to be a less vulnerable use than say a dwelling and as such it’s acceptable to build a small scale development if the site allows SUDS to be implemented and if flood resilient measures are included within the design. Natural Resources Wales have assessed the application and have stated that a Flood Consequence Assessment is not required given the location and scale of the shed. They have stated that “the proposal will not add to the existing flood risk or increase the risk of life”.

Surface water management is a key consideration and SUDS should be implemented here. The block plan shows a soakaway positioned on site which is a means of SUDS. The use of a permeable surface for the driveway is acceptable and will be conditioned. Percolation tests of the land will need to be submitted prior to commencement of development to determine whether soakaways can be accommodated here or whether an hydraulic attenuation tank will be required.

The site should not be used for storage of materials on the surrounding land as this would result in increased risk of flooding and reduce permeable land, therefore a condition will be imposed on the permission to restrict any storage of materials on the surrounding land.

Subject to conditions there is no reason not to approve this proposal, as it sits in line with Policy LU12, DM06 and DM11 of the Local Development Plan and Technical Advice Note 15 – Development and Flood Risk.

DELEGATED POWERS

Delegated Powers have not been granted to determine this application and it appears before the October planning committee for the following reasons set out by the Local Member Cllr John Adams-Lewis:- I disagree with the comments given by Natural Resources Wales – this piece of land is in the flood zone and during any flooding – which happens annually – any building on this piece of land will restrain the water flow from going under the bridge. An application to build was refused on this piece of land in 1998 for the same

A160804 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 57


reason. Aberteifi Town Council also have their concerns that any additional surface water would run to the Mwldan river.


Approve: Approve subject to conditions.

A160804 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 58


A160804 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160804 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 59


A160809 SN17734768

Y Bwriad Proposal

Erection of an afforable dwelling

Lleoliad Location

Plot 4, Gotrel Farm, Ferwig Road, Cardigan




The site which pertains to this application lies outside of the settlement boundary for Cardigan, on a parcel of land just to the north of the town.

The application site sits on a piece of agricultural land opposite a row of detached houses along Ferwig Road. It has a site area of around 659sqm. There are 17 houses along Ferwig Road and 18 houses on the Gotrel Estate. There are also two traditional farms, Llwynpiod and Gotrel within close proximity.

The road frontage of the application site is currently lined with a dense hedgerow.

A planning application was submitted earlier this year under planning reference A160236, for the development of one open market dwelling at the site. This application was refused by the County Council’s May 2016 Development Control Committee.

Three dwellings (i.e. plots 1, 2 and 3) have already been granted planning permission to the north east of the proposed site by Members of the Development Control Committee.

The first plot consists of a 4 bedroom dwelling (A120040), the principle for which was established by a Committee decision. The decision was a departure from the local plan and the emerging Local Development Plan at the time.

A further planning permission (ref: A140368) also exists on land to the north east of the site for a second dwelling. That permission was also granted by the Development Control Committee, contrary to officer’s recommendation to refuse.

A third planning application (A150287) has also been granted by Members of the Development Control Committee, again contrary to officer recommendation.


This planning application seeks outline consent for the development of one dwelling house on a parcel of land described as plot 4. The proposal has been put forward as comprising of one affordable dwelling.

The scale parameters of the proposed dwelling are as follows:

Height: 8.5-9.8m maxLength: 10-12m


A160809 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 60


Width: 8-10m



PLANNING POLICY WALES (Edition 8, January 2016)


- Chapter 3 – Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions- Chapter 4 – Planning for Sustainability- Chapter 9 – Housing

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CEREDIGION LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007 – 2022


-Policy S01 – Sustainable Growth-Policy S02 – Development in Urban Service Centres (USC’s)-Policy S04 – Development in “Linked Settlements and Other Locations”-Policy S05 – Affordable Housing-Policy LU02 – Requirements regarding all residential development-Policy DM06 – High Quality Design and Placemaking





The above duty has been given due consideration in the determination of this application. It is considered that the proposed development does not have any significant implications for, or effect on, persons who share a protected

A160809 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 61


characteristic, over and above any other person.



-Cardigan Town Council - The council supports the application indicating the following points: The development is within the 30mph speed limit; as the precedent has been set, the development will complete the row naturally and neatly; the surface water will be drained towards Nantyferwig and not the Mwldan stream; when all five properties are completed, it is a condition that a pavement be provided leading to the Gotrel estate; this section of land should have been included in the LDP but was inadvertently omitted by the inspector.

-CCC Head of Assets and Transportation Services (Drainage / Flooding) – No objections, subject to comments / conditions. It seems likely that a culverted watercourse flows under the plot.

-CCC Head of Assets and Transportation Services (Highways) – No objections, subject to comments / conditions.

-Natural Resources Wales (NRW) – No objection, comments.


-No third party representations have been received in connection with the application.

CONCLUSION:



The main issue in relation to the consideration of this application is whether or not the proposal is acceptable in principle and the key LDP policies which pertain to the proposal are S01, S02 and S04.

Cardigan is defined as an Urban Service Centre within the LDP.

Policy S02 states that:“Urban Service Centres provide sustainable locations where development will be permitted which:1. In relation to Aberystwyth;a. Contributes to the maintenance of its national significance and its role as a strategic centre for Mid Wales; andb. Supports current objectives and action plans relating to its Strategic Regeneration Status;OR2. In relation to Cardigan, Lampeter, Llandysul, Aberaeron and Tregaron:

A160809 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 62


a. Contributes to their overall sub-regional role as set out in the Settlement Group Statements; andb. Contributes to their regeneration strategies, where these exist;AND3. In relation to all USCs:a. Is within the defined settlement boundary (see Proposals Map), accords with the provisions of the Settlement Group Statement and satisfies all other Plan policies”.

The application site sits outside of the defined settlement boundary for Cardigan as defined on the Local Development Plan settlement maps.

Policy S02 - Urban Service Centre states that:“Development will be permitted which:Is within the defined settlement boundary (see Proposals Map), accords with the provisions of the Settlement Group Statement and satisfied all other plan policies.”

This site is outside of the defined settlement boundary and therefore it cannot be considered for development under the LDP. The policy’s supporting text states that:

“A settlement boundary is provided for each USC to make clear the acceptable geographical spread of development. It is expected that all development will come forward within the USC settlement boundary.”

The Rural Service Centres allow for rural expectation sites immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary in order to cater for affordable housing, however there is no such allowance for Urban Service Centres.

The application therefore fails in that it does not meet the LDP Strategy and Policy S02 for Urban Service Centre development. The application site comprises of land which is therefore classed as open countryside, where there lies a presumption against new development, unless it falls within one of a number of exceptions. There is no such exception in this case and no other material planning considerations have been advanced which have outweighed the strong policy presumption against this development.

The application is therefore recommended for refusal as the site lies outside of Cardigan’s approved settlement boundaries. Development at Cardigan must take place within the defined limits. The granting of approval on this site would represent an unsustainable form of development and an unjustified incursion into open countryside, which is contrary to the provisions of the adopted LDP. Furthermore, a precedent for other similar applications would be set, contrary to the housing strategy and policies of the LDP.

Housing is currently being delivered at a reasonable rate within the settlement of Cardigan, including the provision of affordable housing. Of the 135 outstanding consents for the town (as at 30/9/16), 44 are affordable units. Therefore, there is no need to develop on areas of land outside of the defined settlement boundaries, as there is an adequate supply of affordable houses for local needs coming forward within the town itself. Additionally, no evidence of unmet need has been submitted with the application.

Furthermore, the application suggests that should an approval of planning permission be forthcoming, that plot 5 (which is being considered as an open

A160809 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 63


market dwelling under A160812) would need to be developed first, in order to make it viable for the affordable house to come forward. However, little weight has been given to this argument in light of the fact that the landowner has already obtained planning permission for 3 dwellings previously. Therefore, the officer advice is that should planning permission be granted for this affordable home, that it must come forward first, prior to any dwelling granted for plot 5. This would be controlled via a S.106 legal agreement, in order to ensure the delivery of the affordable home.

Finally, the Affordable Housing SPG gives effect to the LDP by applying minimuminternal floorspace specifications for affordable homes taken from the WelshGovernment’s DQR standard: and a maximum of a 20% increase on the minimumspecifications in overall internal floorspace. In this case, the suggested floor area equates to around 240sqm. (Assuming a two storey property design). This is in excess of the thresholds allowable under the LDP and associated Affordable Housing SPG, which means that it would not be affordable to build or affordable for future generations to purchase and maintain.

In light of the above comments, Members are advised that the application should be refused for the reasons as set out below.



The application site lies outside of the settlement boundaries for Cardigan as

defined by the adopted Ceredigion Local Development Plan 2007-2022. The

land is therefore classed as open countryside where there lies a presumption

against new residential development, subject to a few specific exceptions.

The proposal does not fall within any such exception and no evidence of

unmet need has been provided. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy

S02.


Ceredigion LDP housing strategy, specifically policies S01, S02 and S04.

A160809 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 64


A160809 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160809 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 65


A160812 SN17734766

Y Bwriad Proposal

Erection of a dwelling

Lleoliad Location

Plot 5, Gotrel Farm, Ferwig Road, Cardigan




The site which pertains to this application lies outside of the settlement boundary for Cardigan, on a parcel of land just to the north of the town.

The application site sits on a piece of agricultural land opposite a row of detached houses along Ferwig Road. It has a site area of around 726sqm. There are 17 houses along Ferwig Road and 18 houses on the Gotrel Estate. There are also two traditional farms, Llwynpiod and Gotrel within close proximity.

The road frontage of the application site is currently lined with a dense hedgerow.

An outline planning application was submitted earlier this year for the development of a single open market dwelling on the plot (ref: A160263). The application was refused planning permission by the County Council’s May 2016 Development Control Committee.

Three dwellings (i.e. plots 1, 2 and 3) have already been granted planning permission to the north east of the proposed site by Members of the Development Control Committee, which consist of the following:

The first plot consists of a 4 bedroom dwelling (A120040), the principle for which was established by a Committee decision. The decision was a departure from the local plan and the emerging Local Development Plan at the time.

A further planning permission (ref: A140368) also exists on land to the north east of the site for a further dwelling. That permission was also granted by the Development Control Committee, contrary to officer’s recommendation to refuse.

A third planning application (A150287) has also been granted by Members of the Development Control Committee, again contrary to officer recommendation.


This planning application seeks outline consent for the development of one dwelling house on a parcel of land described as plot 5.

The dwelling house proposed is an open market house, with its scale parameters being as follows:

-Height 8.5 – 9.8m max-Length 10-12m-Width 8-10m


A160812 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 66




PLANNING POLICY WALES (Edition 8, January 2016)


- Chapter 3 – Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions- Chapter 4 – Planning for Sustainability- Chapter 9 – Housing

TECHNICAL ADVICE NOTES (TAN’S):

The following TAN’s are also relevant to the consideration of the application:

-TAN 2-TAN 6

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CEREDIGION LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2007 – 2022


-Policy S01 – Sustainable Growth-Policy S02 – Development in Urban Service Centres (USC’s)-Policy S04 – Development in “Linked Settlements and Other Locations”-Policy S05 – Affordable Housing-Policy LU02 – Requirements regarding all residential development-Policy DM06 – High Quality Design and Placemaking-Policy DM01 – Managing the Impacts of Development on Communities and the Welsh Language




Having due regard to advancing equality involves:•removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics;

A160812 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 67


•taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the need of other people; and •encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.




-Cardigan Town Council - The council supports the application indicating the following points: The development is within the 30mph speed limit; as the precedent has been set, the development will complete the row naturally and neatly; the surface water will be drained towards Nantyferwig and not the Mwldan stream; when all five properties are completed, it is a condition that a pavement be provided leading to the Gotrel estate; this section of land should have been included in the LDP but was inadvertently omitted by the inspector.

-CCC Head of Assets and Transportation Services (Drainage / Flooding) – No objections, subject to comments / conditions.

-CCC Head of Assets and Transportation Services (Highways) – No objections, subject to comments / conditions.

-Natural Resources Wales (NRW) – No objection, comments.


-No third party representations have been received in connection with the application.

CONCLUSION:



The main issue in relation to the consideration of this application is whether or not the proposal is acceptable in principle and the key LDP policies which pertain to the proposal are S01, S02 and S04.

Cardigan is defined as an Urban Service Centre within the LDP.

Policy S02 states that:“Urban Service Centres provide sustainable locations where development will be permitted which:1. In relation to Aberystwyth;

A160812 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 68


a. Contributes to the maintenance of its national significance and its role as a strategic centre for Mid Wales; andb. Supports current objectives and action plans relating to its Strategic Regeneration Status;OR2. In relation to Cardigan, Lampeter, Llandysul, Aberaeron and Tregaron:a. Contributes to their overall sub-regional role as set out in the Settlement Group Statements; andb. Contributes to their regeneration strategies, where these exist;AND3. In relation to all USCs:a. Is within the defined settlement boundary (see Proposals Map), accords with the provisions of the Settlement Group Statement and satisfies all other Plan policies”.

The application site sits outside of the defined settlement boundary for Cardigan as defined on the Local Development Plan settlement maps.

Policy S02 - Urban Service Centre states that:“Development will be permitted which:Is within the defined settlement boundary (see Proposals Map), accords with the provisions of the Settlement Group Statement and satisfied all other plan policies.”

This site is outside of the defined settlement boundary and therefore it cannot be considered for development under the LDP. The policy’s supporting text states that:

“A settlement boundary is provided for each USC to make clear the acceptable geographical spread of development. It is expected that all development will come forward within the USC settlement boundary.”

The Rural Service Centres allow for rural expectation sites immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary however there is now such allowance for Urban Service Centres.

The application therefore fails in that it does not meet the LDP Strategy and Policy S02 for Urban Service Centre development. The application site comprises of land which is therefore classed as open countryside, where there lies a presumption against new development, unless it falls within one of a number of exceptions. There is no such exception in this case and no other material planning considerations have been advanced which have outweighed the strong policy presumption against this development.

The application is therefore recommended for refusal as the site lies outside of Cardigan’s approved settlement boundaries. Development at Cardigan must take place within the defined limits. The granting of approval on this site would represent an unsustainable form of development and an unjustified incursion into open countryside, which is contrary to the provisions of the adopted LDP. Furthermore, a precedent for other similar applications would be set, contrary to the housing strategy and policies of the LDP.

Housing is currently being delivered at a reasonable rate within the settlement of Cardigan. Therefore, there is no need to develop on areas of land outside of the defined settlement boundaries as there is adequate supply coming forward within the town.

A160812 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 69


In light of the above comments, Members are advised that the application should be refused for the reasons as set out below. The Development Control Committee has already resolved back in May 2016 that the development of this site for residential development is unacceptable and contrary to LDP policies.



The application site lies outside of the settlement boundaries for Cardigan as

defined by the adopted Ceredigion Local Development Plan 2007-2022. The

land is therefore classed as open countryside where there lies a presumption

against new residential development, subject to a few specific exceptions.

The proposal does not fall within any such exception. The proposal is

therefore contrary to policy S02.


Ceredigion LDP housing strategy, specifically policies S01, S02 and S04.

A160812 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 70


A160812 Mesur / Scale = 1 : 2.500


A160812 12/10/2016 Tudalen / Page: 71

Documents

Mynegai Ceisiadau Cynllunio/Planning Applications · PDF fileMynegai Ceisiadau Cynllunio/Planning Applications Index ... single storey building with an extended footprint, ... The