blaenau gwent county borough council...

Report Date: Report Author:

BLAENAU GWENT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to

The Chair and Members of the Planning Committee

Report Subject

Planning Applications Report

Report Author

Team Manager Development Management

Report Date

20th March 2018

Directorate

Environment and Regeneration

Date of meeting

29th March 2018

Date Signed off by Monitoring Officer

Report Information Summary

1. Purpose of Report To present planning applications for consideration and determination by Members of the Planning Committee.

2. Scope of the Report Application No. Address

C/2017/0143 Land at Ashvale Sports Club, Griffiths Gardens, Tredegar

C/2017/0321 Essendene Surgery, 3-4 Worcester Street, Brynmawr

C/2017/0344 Baldwin House, The Boulevard, Victoria, Ebbw Vale

C/2018/0001 Upper Hirgan Fach Farm, Crown Avenue, Tredegar

C/2017/0338 Land adjacent to and to the north of Llys Glyncoed, College Road, Ebbw Vale

C/2018/0021 62 Alexandra Street, Ebbw Vale

C/2018/0019 Brynhyfryd, Trefil, Tredegar

C/2017/0346 37 Bennett Street, Blaina

C/2018/0029 8 Woodland Walk, Tanglewood, Blaina


3. Recommendation/s for Consideration Please refer to individual reports


Planning Report

Application No:

C/2017/0143 App Type: Outline Application

Applicant: Agent:

Mr Darren Hillman Charles Street Tredegar

Stuckey Architects Mr Ryan Stuckey 20 Dean Street Studios Dean Street Aberdare

Site Address:

Land at Ashvale Sports Club, Griffiths Gardens, Tredegar

Development:

Proposed residential development (18 Dwellings) with associated highways and parking provision for adjacent dwellings (Outline)

Case Officer: Steph Brown


1. Background, Development and Site Context

The application site is the former sports and playing field used in conjunction with Ashvale Sports Club, Griffiths Garden, Tredegar. This application seeks outline planning permission for 18 dwellings with associated highway and parking provision for adjacent dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration. The Blaenau Gwent Local Development Plan (LDP) indicates that the site lies within the settlement boundary and is not subject to any land allocations, designations or constraints. There were no substantive matters raised by consultees that could not be dealt with by planning condition with the exception of Tredegar Town Council who expressed concern over the loss of facilities and the adequacy of the access. One letter of objection was received from a resident raising similar concerns.

2. Process

The application was presented to Planning Committee in November 2017 with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions. It was deferred for a fact finding site meeting. The meeting took place on 11th January and the application was reconsidered at Planning Committee in February 2018. It was resolved, contrary to officer recommendation, that planning permission be refused. The reason was concern over the access.

3. Issuing a Decision

Following the meeting in February, I have given careful consideration to how a reason for refusal might be worded to reflect Members concerns. I offer a reason below. I have taken the opportunity to re-present this to Committee as I am concerned that the reason will not stand up to scrutiny. The suggested wording is… The access road to the site is at capacity and unsuitable to accommodate the additional vehicular and pedestrian movements associated with the development. Griffiths Gardens experiences extensive on-street parking which affects the traffic flow capability. The visibility splays at the entrance to the development site are unacceptable and are impeded by parked vehicles. As such it is considered that the proposal would endanger pedestrians and vehicle users. The issues regarding capacity and highway safety cannot be mitigated for and the proposal is contrary to Policy DM1(3a and b) of the adopted Blaenau Gwent Local Development Plan. Whilst this wording reflects the reasons for the decision at the February meeting, I have to bring to Members attention the inherent flaws in this argument. In the event of appeal, the Council will be required to provide evidence to justify its position. However, there is no evidence that the road is at capacity or that the


splays are inadequate. It is only an outline application but the applicant has already demonstrated that a scheme could be designed to comply with this Council’s highways design guide. The Highway Authority have not objected to the scheme. Planning Committee are again made aware that all of their decisions must be reasonable and defendable. The reasons for the decision must be recorded and in the event of refusal, there must be evidence to substantiate the reasons why planning permission has been refused.

4. Conclusion & Recommendation

1. Members consider the precise wording of the reason for refusal (above) and make any amendments they deem appropriate. Once confirmed, I can issue the decision notice.

2. That Planning Committee note that the decision is being taken contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation and against the advice of the Highway Authority in the absence of any evidence to justify the decision.

3. In the event of an appeal, the decision will need to be defended by Members.

4. Given the lack of evidence, the risk of an award of costs for unreasonable refusal of planning permission is high. There is no budget.

5. That the continuing concern of the % of Planning Committee decisions taken contrary to advice will be exacerbated by this decision.

5. Risk Implications

• The decision undermines confidence in our pre application service. In this case the developer paid for advice prior to the submission of the application. The advice we gave was followed, only for Planning Committee to then undermine that advice with the resolution for refusal.

• There is a risk of losing an appeal which reflects in our end of year performance returns.

• There is high a risk of an award of costs for unreasonable behaviour. • The decision undermines policies in our LDP and the Highway Design

Guide. • The decision sends the message that Blaenau Gwent is not a place in

which to invest and build at a time when housebuilding is at a low point.


Planning Report

Application No:

C/2017/0321 App Type: Full Application

Applicant: Agent:

Mr Tim Jenkins Expanding Horizons Ltd The Old Police Station Church Lane Blaenavon

Mr Paul Parsons Creation Design Wales 50 George Street Pontypool

Site Address:

Essendene Surgery 3-4 Worcester Street Brynmawr

Development:

Proposed Change of Use of former Doctors Surgery to Supported Residential Home

Case Officer: Lesley Taylor


The development site is a single storey building that was granted planning permission in 1981 for use as a doctor’s surgery. The property is set back from the highway and has a forecourt that provides off street parking. This has a wide access and is fronted by low brick walls and hedges. There is also pedestrian access to the rear of the building between 267 and 268 King Street where there is a raised tarmac area and space for parking. From here narrow steps lead down to the pathway to the side and rear of the building. The rear gardens of dwellings at King Street lie adjacent to the rear tarmac area. Additional site landscaping


includes a grassed area with mature trees between the building and the boundaries with no.’s 1 and 2 Worcester Street. The surrounding area is residential in character with dwellings generally laid out in linear terraces or pairs of semi-detached dwellings facing the highway. The exception to this form are no.’s 1 and 2 Worcester Street This application seeks planning permission to change the use of the former surgery to a residential use (C3). The dwelling will house a maximum of 5 adult residents with mental health issues and learning disabilities. Residents will each have their own bedroom but will reside as a family sharing all other living accommodation. They will be supported by staff who will work closely with each individual to provide personalised support and enable them to develop daily living skills to a point where they can live independently. One full time and two part time staff will be employed and there will be a member of staff on the premises at all times. A sixth bedroom is proposed to accommodate a ‘live in’ member of staff during the night time. The building will be reconfigured internally to provide 5 residents bedrooms, 1 staff bedroom, lounge, dining room, kitchen/utility room, wc and bathroom and storage room. No external changes are proposed other than to replace a single window in the rear side elevation where two single pane windows will be replaced by one three pane window to serve a bedroom.

2. Site History

Ref No Details Decision 3448 Construction of doctor’s surgery

& car park Approved 14/08/81

3. Consultation and Other Relevant Information

Internal BG Responses

Team Leader Building Control: Building Regulations consent required. Service Manager Infrastructure: Highways: The application complies with the Authority’s ‘Access, Car Parking and Design’ SPG. There are no objections subject to the off-street parking area being maintained as indicated on the plans. Drainage: No objections. Service Manager Public Protection: No objections.


External Consultation Responses

Brynmawr Town Council: No objections. Welsh Water: Has provided standard advice relating to surface water. Gwent Police: No response at the time of preparing this report. Public Consultation: Strikethrough to delete as appropriate

23 letters to nearby houses

3 site notices

press notice

website public register of applications

ward members by letter

all members via weekly list of applications received

other Response: I received three emails following public notification. The first email asked a number of questions relating to the operations of the applicant’s company Expanding Horizons:

the type of resident that will be housed on site, and whether this would change in the future;

how many staff will be at the property at any time;

will residents have a key or will it be a ‘safe house’;

do Expanding Horizons have issues with homes in other residential areas;

could access be given to records of complaints from neighbours in other areas.

The email also explained that the author has worked for a charity and is aware of problems that neighbours near those homes have had, witnessing anti-social behaviour, groups of people gathering, cars pulling up and causing noise. On occasions the police had to be called and arrest residents and friends. The email also makes reference to drugs being used at those sites and that some areas saw an increase in car crime. The author is concerned that such behaviour will occur at the development site and does not want small children in the neighbourhood to witness such behaviour. The second email voices similar concerns to those outlined above and request that an objection be noted on behalf of the authors.


A third email asked that if planning permission is granted could a condition be imposed that restricts building works (internal and external) to Monday to Friday 9am – 5pm. I responded to this request explaining that as the development relates primarily to a change of use and external changes are restricted to one new window, imposing such a condition would be unreasonable if permission is granted. I also explained that if in the future there is an unacceptable level of noise or disturbance as a result of works/alterations then the matter could be addressed by Environmental Health. I confirm that the author of the first email was notified of the additional information received and explained which matters are of relevance to this application and those outside the remit of the planning. I requested that any further comments be given in writing by 24th January 2018. I received an email on 5th February asking if the police had replied to consultation to which I responded but having received no instructions to the contrary have included his/her concerns in this report.

4. Planning Policy

Team Manager Development Plans: The site lies within the settlement boundary within which development is normally permitted subject to policies in the development plan and other material considerations. The land is not subject to any land allocations, designations or constraints according to the LDP Proposal and Constraints Maps. The site is located in a well-established residential area and as such there are no issues in terms of land compatibility. Policy DM11 of the LDP states that proposals that result in the loss of a community or leisure facility will not be permitted unless a replacement facility is provided by the developer on site or in an accessible location, or he/she demonstrates the facility is surplus to requirements. The property is currently vacant and the developer has explained in the revised Design and Access Statement that there is an alternative doctor’s surgery on the same street with a second surgery linked to the same practice located at Blaina Road. This addresses the requirements of Policy DM11. Planning Policy broadly supports the proposed development subject to the relevant criteria in the policies provided the relevant criteria in the LDP policies listed below are satisfied. LDP Policies: SB1 – Settlement Boundaries DM1 – New development DM2 – Design and place making


5. Planning Assessment

This application seeks permission to change the use of the building from a doctor’s surgery to a dwelling. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the proposed use falls into Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2016 and will consider the application on this basis. This proposed change of use of a vacant property to a dwelling in a residential area raises no issues in terms of compatibility of uses. It is set back from the highway and 6 parking spaces will be provided for use by residents, staff and visitors on the existing tarmac area fronting the building, although the Design and Access Statement indicates that residents will not be car owners. In any event the site provides a satisfactory level of parking which satisfies highway requirements. Correspondence received from members of the public raised concern that visitors and their vehicles may cause a nuisance or disturbance similar to that which has been experienced in other areas by similar uses. Such speculation should not prejudice the determination of this application and if planning permission is granted and incidents of nuisance or disturbance occur at or near the property, the Police should be informed at that time. Such incidents are outside the remit and control of the Local Planning Authority. Details of proposed residents and their support requirements were requested by a third party. I explained that this is not a planning consideration. Such details are personal and highly sensitive, although it has been emphasised that the property is not a residential care home nor is it a secure institution. It is beyond the remit of planning to require such a personal level of detail and to make assumptions on the personal qualities of future residents. Whilst it is proposed to reconfigure the internal layout, there is only one change proposed to the external elevations i.e. two small windows on the rear side of the building will be replaced by a three paned single window for a proposed bedroom. The new window will not overlook any of the neighbouring dwellings and is therefore an acceptable change. I have also considered the new internal layout in its entirety assessing the potential outlook from each room. In general, I can confirm that in the main, overlooking is not a potential issue given existing boundary treatments and confirmation that all existing trees and hedgerows will remain. Even if these features were to be removed, the separation distance between properties, site levels and orientation is such that overlooking would not be a cause for concern. It is important however to make reference to no.’s 1 and 2 Worcester Street as they are set back from and built at an angle to the street frontage. They face the front corner of the vacant building and the car park beyond. Approximately 1.m back


from this corner in the side elevation there is a window with an external roller shutter that was formerly a waiting room for the surgery. In converting the building to a dwelling, this room will become a lounge, and the applicant was asked to consider obscure glazing here so as to minimize any overlooking and protect the privacy of proposed residents. Revised plans were received showing this proposal. In addition the agent has provided written confirmation that the roller shutter on this, and windows in the front elevation will be removed. The view to and from the existing window in the side elevation is indirect and will be fitted with obscure glazing. I also note that an existing hedgerow and a difference in levels also help in reducing overlooking and it is my view that the potential effect of this window on residential amenity is low and not sufficient to justify a recommendation for refusal. I have also considered the impact obscure glazing may have on future residents using the lounge of the development site, but note this is a secondary window and that there are two windows in the front elevation that overlook the front garden/driveway. In changing the use of the building to a dwelling, it must be assumed that existing outside space will be used for recreational purposes, the main available space being the grassed area to the front side of the building close to no.’s 1 and 2 Worcester Street. Whilst I cannot presume to know how residents will use this space, I would suggest such use is likely to cause less disruption to nearby residents than that which resulted from traffic and pedestrian flow when the surgery was fully operational. I am also mindful that the fall-back position for the building is as a community facility (D1) which includes a vast array of uses that could potentially result in a high footfall and traffic movements on a regular basis. In my view a ‘new’ dwelling in a residential area is likely to have a lesser impact than re-introducing a community use.

6. Legislative Obligations

The Council is required to decide planning applications in accord with the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The planning function must also be exercised in accordance with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to ensure that the development and use of land contributes to improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales. The Council also has obligations under other legislation including (but not limited to) the Crime and Disorder Act, Equality Act and Human Rights Act. In presenting this report, I have had regard to relevant legislation and sought to present a balanced and reasoned recommendation.

7. Conclusion and Recommendation

It is considered that the development proposal is, subject to conditions, acceptable and complies with relevant policies contained within the LDP. Accordingly my


recommendation is that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development shall be completed in full accordance with the following approved plans and documents:

Drawing no. 17-110/P/01 – site location plan received14th November 2017;

Drawing no. 17-110/P/05 rev B – site plan as proposed received

Drawing no. 17-110/P/06 rev A– floor plan as proposed received;

Drawing no. 17-110/P/07 rev B – elevations as proposed Reason: To clearly define the scope of this permission.

2. The windows marked x – y on approved drawing no.17-110/P/07 rev B shall be fitted with obscure glazing prior to the development being brought into use and such glazing shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupants of the development site and nearby properties.

3. The area indicated for parking on the approved plans shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles at all times. Reason: To ensure the parking needs of the development are adequately met.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) order 1995 (as amended for Wales) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargements, improvements or other alterations to the dwelling shall be constructed other than those expressly authorised by this permission. Reason: In view of the restricted nature of the site and the need to retain control of the site in the interests of residential amenity considerations.

5. Prior to the development being brought into use, the external roller shutters to all existing windows shall be removed. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

6. Standard time limit (full planning permission).


None


Planning Report

Application No: C/2017/0344 App Type: Full Application

Applicant: Agent:

Mr Mitul Shah Plas Geller Care Home Ltd 2nd Floor Jebsen House 53 – 61 High Street Ruislip Middlesex

Mr Paul Ingle Porters and Richardson Architects 193 Lincoln Road Peterborough Cambridgeshire

Site Address:

Baldwin House, The Boulevard, Victoria, Ebbw Vale

Development:

Change of use from B1 business to C2 residential institution and extensions and alterations to provide special complex care home with accommodation for 20 residents.




This application seeks planning permission to change the use of a former B1 office building to a care home together with an extension and alterations to the building, site layout and car parking. The building is one and two storey with the first laid over approximately two thirds of the ground floor. The building also features an atrium style entrance hall. It occupies a corner plot off the roundabout serving The Boulevard and Victoria Avenue. Car parking is located to the rear and is accessed via Victoria Avenue. The site has an open frontage with grassed areas and low level planting, a section of hedgerow and a few mature trees. There are other planted areas at the north end of the site and within the car park. The side and rear boundaries are enclosed with a mix of close boarded timber fencing and green weld mesh fencing. The building was granted planning permission in 1991 as part of a wider scheme for the development of the National Garden Festival. The site was acquired by this Council as part of the after use of the Festival Site and used as office accommodation for Council staff but has been vacant for some time. The current application proposes a single storey extensions to the north and south wings of the building, extension and modification of the entrance lobby on the rear elevation, and a small canopy on the front elevation to provide an entrance to the proposed lounge. The car park will be reconfigured to provide a secured landscaped garden at the rear of the building. Existing landscaping at the front and at the north end of the site will be removed and fencing erected to provide a secure area at the front of the site. The development will provide a residential care home comprising 20 en suite bedrooms, shared living space and staff facilities. In addition to detailed plans the application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA).

2. Site History

Ref No Details Decision

6721/21

9201

Development and use of site for National Garden Festival Accommodation during festival

Approved 22/11/91 Approved 24/10/91



Team Leader Building Control: Building Regulations consent required. Service Manager Infrastructure: Highways: No objections in principle or concerns other than the proposed boundary treatment


fencing to the south eastern corner of the property adjacent to the junction with Howards Way. The proposed fence will restrict the required junction visibility splay and must either be reduced to 0.9m in height or realigned or amended to achieve and maintain splays of 4.5m x 43m. The plan should be revised or a condition imposed requiring this change. Drainage: No response at the time of preparing this report. Ground Stability: No objections or comments received. Landscape and Arboriculture: (Revised comments) The development includes the removal of a considerable number of high value trees with no consideration of compensatory planting elsewhere within the development area. Such loss of urban tree cover is of concern in Blaenau Gwent. A recent study by NRW highlights 10% reduction in urban tree cover the consequences of which affect the areas ability to combat climate change and support biodiversity. Any acceptable development must ensure that there is no net loss and seek to enhance tree cover on the site. There is also concern over the use of a condition (as requested by the agent) to secure compensatory planting as indicated in the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment. However the rear garden which has the opportunity for further tree planting can be dealt with by condition. The proposal is unacceptable in terms of policy DM16 Trees, Woodland and Hedgerow protection and DM16 Protection and Enhancement of the Green Infrastructure. Service Manager Public Protection: No objections to the proposal but given the close proximity of existing residential properties it is recommended that prior to the commencement of development a Construction and Environmental Management Plan that includes details of construction hours and delivery be provided for consideration and approval. It is also recommended that a condition requiring details of fume extraction in relation to proposed cooking facilities be submitted for approval of the LPA and a condition that restricts noise levels emanating from the proposed development. External Consultation Responses

Welsh Water: Has provided standard advice relating to surface water. Natural Resources Wales: Having viewed the Flood consequence Assessment, NRW does not object to the


development but points out that the planning application proposes highly vulnerable development in a Flood Zone C2 area and that it is for the Local Planning Authority to determine whether, in light of local development plan policies, and the requirements of TAN 15, the development can be justified. Public Consultation: Strikethrough to delete as appropriate


5 site notices

press notice




other Response: I confirm that no correspondence has been received as a result of public consultation.

4. Planning Policy

Team Manager Development Plans: The development site lies within the settlement boundary. It is not subject to any other designations or allocations according to the LDP, but constraints maps show that the north eastern corner of the site is located within Flood Zone C2. Policy SP7 of the LDP aims to direct new development away from those areas which are at high risk of flooding. Furthermore TAN 15: Development and Flood Risk (2004) advises that new development should be directed away from Zone C2 and that highly vulnerable development should not be permitted. Planning Policy objects to the proposed development on the grounds of flood risk. Other issue that need to be taken into account should planning permission be granted: Sustainable Design; Amenity; Accessibility; Design; Infrastructure requirements; Impact on existing trees LDP Policies: SB1 – Settlement Boundaries DM1 – New development DM2 – Design and place making


DM3 – Infrastructure provision DM16 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerow Protection SP4 Delivering Quality Housing SP5 Spatial Distribution of Housing Sites SP7 Climate Change


The application site lies within the settlement boundary and is identified within the Local Development Plan (SB1) as an area within which development would normally be permitted subject to criteria contained within the LDP. The application relates to an existing building which, subject to sympathetic modifications and extensions and compliance with relevant LDP polices would normally be considered an acceptable proposal. In this case however, part of the site lies within a C2 flood zone. This a material planning consideration must be given considerable weight in determining if planning permission should be granted. In national planning terms, this proposal to change the use of, and extend the building for use as residential accommodation is a form of development defined in the Welsh Government’s TAN 15 (5.1 fig 2) as ‘highly vulnerable’. TAN 15 states that highly vulnerable development should not be permitted in C2 flood zone areas. Furthermore LDP Strategic Policy SP7 commits the Authority to directing new development away from those areas that are at risk of flooding. As this site is partly within a C2 zone and therefore at risk from flooding, to approve this application is contrary to local and national planning policies. Members will appreciate that in considering all applications, the Authority is in the first instance bound by legislation to have regard for national and local adopted planning policies unless there are material considerations that might justify the Authority taking an alternative view. Having considered the detailed advice of the Team Manager Development Plans, the Flood Consequence Assessment submitted with the application and the detailed response received from Natural Resources Wales, I have noted a number of considerations, which in my opinion might justify granting planning permission in this case:-

the application relates to a change of use and extension of an existing building rather than a new building and it is noted that only a small section of the existing building and the proposed extension lies within Flood Zone C2. Whilst there is nothing cited in TAN 15 or LDP policies that might justify taking a different approach to an extension or change of use than to a new building, I consider due regard must be had for existing site circumstances and to the fact that no more than 20% of the building as extended will lie within the Zone C2 and deemed to be highly vulnerable;

the application is supported by a Flood Consequence Assessment that has been considered by NRW the regulatory body for flood risk and those


responsible for the preparation of flood risk maps. NRW has raised no objections to the development pointing out that the finished floor levels of the existing building is set at a higher level than the predicted flood level at this location. Based on the finished floor levels stated within the FCA the building is predicted to be flood free during the first 1% (1 in 100 year) plus 25% allowance for climate change and 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) flood event. This is in line with the acceptability criteria set out in sections A1.14 and A1.15 of TAN 15. The FCA states that a small portion of the external grass/garden area at the north eastern end of the site is predicted to flood to a depth less than 300mm with predicted velocities stated as being low. This is also in line with the acceptability criteria set out in A1.15 of TAN 15;

the Flood Consequence Assessment indicates that there is no known history of flooding during the time that the existing building has been used for offices. Given that the building thresholds are above 248.59m above AOD this is 150mm above predicted flood levels. The FCA also outlines measures which can be incorporated within the building structure and day to day functions of the proposed care home should flooding occur. I also note that whilst the main access route to the site, is within flood zone C2 there is an alternative route to the building and alternative access points should the need for evacuation or visits by emergency services be required. In my view, the fact that the building itself will not flood even in 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) event together with proposed mitigation should such an event occur, provides justification for allowing the development;

NRW has confirmed that revisions to the DAM maps are scheduled, and has indicated that Zone C2 in which the building is located may be amended with some buildings and sites being removed. At this stage such information cannot be relied on but should be borne in mind;

The development site was originally part of the Garden Festival Site and later a regeneration initiative by this Council for the redevelopment of the site. Land in the wider area also lies within Zone C2, where a mix of development has been considered favourably as part of other regeneration strategies.

Whilst the guidance in TAN 15 is clear in terms of ‘vulnerable’ development and the recommendation of the Team Manager Development Plans is for refusal, I consider the Authority has reasonable grounds for allowing the development. Whilst they only apply to less vulnerable development in C2 areas, TAN 15 sets out justification tests which development must meet for a proposal to be deemed acceptable in terms of national policy. Such tests are obviously not strictly applicable in this case. However I do feel that they give an indication of the types of issues which the Authority might justifiably consider and give weight to in determining the


acceptability or otherwise of the current proposal:

i) Its location in zone C is necessary to assist or is part of Local Authority initiative or regeneration strategy to retain an existing settlement; or

ii) its location in zone C is necessary to contribute to key employment objectives supported by the local authority; and

iii) it concurs with the aims of PPW and meets the definition of previously developed land; and

iv) the potential consequence of a flooding event for the particular type of development have been considered and in terms of criteria found in section 5 of the TAN are found to be acceptable.

The reuse of this former Local Authority building, (of which only a small part lies within in a high risk flood zone area) to provide residential accommodation offers opportunity for housing provision. Such provision meets the key objectives of LDP policies SP4 – Delivering Quality Housing, and meets the test that advocates the re-use of land, a key objective of PPW. Furthermore only a small part of the building lies in zone C2 AND the risk to that part is considered low. On this basis I am of the view that the proposal satisfies the sequential tests outlined in TAN 15 and is therefore justified. Nothwithstanding the above, all other matters relating to the development proposal must be adequately considered. In terms of scale, the extensions proposed are relatively modest and are considered acceptable in this context. The palette of materials specified will match the existing finishes and I have no concerns from a visual amenity perspective. Ground conditions have been considered and consultees are satisfied a site investigation or other intrusive investigation is not required in this case. At the time of preparing this report, no response had been received from the Council’s Drainage Engineer. However Welsh Water has advised that no surface water resulting from an increase in roof area will be allowed to discharge to the public sewerage system. There will be an increase in roof area that will create surface water run-off and non- permeable surface area will be increase, it is necessary to ensure that surface water is adequately discharged. The developer will therefore be required to provide details of disposal of surface water and will be advised to contact Welsh Water prior to submitting those details to the LPA. The site layout to the rear of the building will be reconfigured to account for the extensions to the building and the provision of gardens/recreational space for residents. This will impact on the number and arrangement of existing parking


spaces. However this has been considered by the Council’s Highway Engineer who is satisfied that parking provision proposed meets the Council’s adopted standards. In addition to a reduction in parking spaces, the development will also result in the loss or displacement of existing landscaping. Of particular significance are three trees fronting the site and four trees in the north eastern corner to the left of the existing site entrance. Para 3.4 of the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Assessment Report submitted in support of the application indicates that such loss can be mitigated with new tree planting, this has raised concerns from the Council’s Landscape and Arboriculture Officer. The agent was made aware of these concerns and I suggested that a robust landscape scheme with compensatory planting be provided for consideration at the application stage. The agent responded with a request for the matter to be addressed by condition. In my view this is reasonable. The report also makes reference to tree protection measures being put in place for retained trees. Such provision can be secured by condition. Existing boundary treatments will be retained to the south, west and part of the northern boundary. The remainder of the northern boundary and eastern boundary will be enclosed by a 1.5m high bow top railing. This will provide a level of security and safety for residents but not an enclosure that will give the site a contained, hostile appearance when viewed from the public realm. The Council’s Highway Engineer has highlighted that the addition of fencing at the southern end of the site will affect visibility in a northerly direction at the junction with Howards Way. The developer will be required by condition to either reduce the height of the fence to 0.9m or splay it accordingly. As the site lies in a residential area and given the nature of the development, it is necessary should permission be granted to ensure that minimal disruption and nuisance is caused to residents during the development process. For this reason, it is considered appropriate to request the developer to provide a Construction Management Plan for approval prior to the commencement of works. This would give details of hours of operation, delivery times, method of noise and dust mitigation. As a residential unit, food will be prepared and served on site. To ensure that the resultant fumes from cooking and extraction will not adversely affect amenity in the long term, the developer will be required to provide details of extraction and odour attenuation for the approval of the LPA. The developer will also be required by condition to ensure that noise levels emanating from fixed plant and equipment will not exceed acceptable levels outlined in BS4142: 2014. On balance, I feel that the factors highlighted above and the fact that the proposed development would meet the justification criteria outlined in TAN 15 offers sufficient support for a favorable recommendation. The FCA confirms that floor levels are


above predicted flood levels and that additional measures can be incorporated into the development proposal to ensure the risk of flooding at the site can be mitigated to safeguard occupants in the case of any future flood event. In instances where highly vulnerable development is proposed on a site that falls entirely within a C2 Flood Zone and a Planning Authority is minded to approve such development, the Town and Country Planning (Notification) Wales Direction 2012 (para 12) requires the relevant Planning Authority to refer such application details to the Welsh Minister to enable them to consider whether the application should be ‘called in’. The guidance issued in conjunction with that Direction (Circular 07/12) makes it clear that ‘it should not be assumed that the development of sites which are only partially within Flood Zone C2 is acceptable and TAN: 15 Development and Flood Risk, advises that in such cases it will be for the Planning Authority to judge whether the development can be justified.’ The application site in this instance falls partially within a Flood Zone C2, hence there is no requirement to refer the application to Welsh Ministers. Having regard to the arguments presented in this report, the advice contained in TAN 15 and my assessment of site circumstances, on balance I consider there is sufficient justification to recommend that this application be favourably considered.




I have fully considered and addressed the main issue that would influence the determination of this application, and am satisfied that the overall design principles of the development satisfy the criteria outlined in relevant Local Development Plan Policies, and that those matters raised by consultees can be addressed by appropriately worded conditions. Recommendation: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions listed below: 1. The development shall be completed in full accordance with the following


approved plans and documents

Drawing no. LP-01 – Proposed site location plan (scale 1:1250) received 20th October 2017;

Drawing no. P-01 – Proposed site plan (scale 1:400) received 10th October 2017;

Drawing P-02 – Proposed ground and first floor plan received 10th October 2017;

Drawing no. P-03 – Proposed roof plan received 10th October 2017;

Drawing no. P-04 – Proposed elevation1 of 7 received 10th October 2017;

Drawing no. P-05 – Proposed elevations 2 of 7 received 10th October 2017;



Drawing no.P-08 - Proposed elevations 5 of 7 received 10th October 2017;


Drawing no. P-10 Proposed elevations 7 of 7 received 10th October 2017;

Drawing no. P-11 Proposed boundary treatment received 10th October 2017; Unless otherwise specified or required by conditions 2 – 10 listed below. Reason: To clearly define the scope of this permission.

2. No development shall commence on site until a Construction Method

Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall provide details of:

Hours of working;

The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

Delivery of materials;

Wheel washing facilities;

Storage of plant and materials used during construction;

The erection and maintenance of security hoarding;

Measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction;

A scheme for the recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction works;

The siting details and construction of any compound. Such details and measures as contained in a statement that is approved shall

be adhered to throughout the construction period. Reason: To safeguard local amenity interests and to ensure that the impact of

the construction phase of the development are appropriately and adequately addressed.

3. No development shall take place until a scheme for the discharge of surface


water run-off resulting from an increase in roof area or impermeable surfaces within the curtilage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with such details as may be approved.

Reason: To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system.

4. No development shall take place until the tree protection measures as outlined

in the Tree survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Mackley Davies Associates – 27th October 2017) have been put in place for retained trees. Such protective measures shall be retained for the duration of works unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure that the trees are not harmed as a result of the development.

5. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the LPA a scheme of landscaping. The submitted details shall include:

Details of all trees proposed to mitigate for the loss of existing trees as indicated in the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Mackley Davies Associates Ltd – 27th October 2017);

Details of ground preparation, planting plans, number and details of species;

Maintenance details for a minimum period of 5 years. Such details as may be approved shall be implemented in full in the first

planting season immediately following the completion of the development. Reason: To ensure submission and implementation of an appropriate

landscape scheme and to secure a development that makes a positive contribution to the landscape and visual amenities of the area.

6. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details shall be

submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority of equipment required to control the emission of fumes and odour from the premises. All required equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the premises is used for the cooking of food and such equipment shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the approved details as long as the use continues.

Reason: To protect the amenities of occupants of nearby properties. 7. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with

the ‘Actions and Mitigation’ outline in Section 7.0 of the Flood Consequence


Assessment (Inspire Design & Development - December 2017) before being brought into beneficial use and shall be adhered to thereafter. Reason: To ensure that any risk of flooding is effectively managed and mitigated.

8. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access/driveway, parking and turning areas have been constructed, surfaced and drained in full accordance with the details shown on the approved plans. Such areas shall be retained for their designated purposes at all times.

Reason: To ensure that that access parking and turning needs of the development are adequately met at all times.

9. Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing no. P-01 the proposed boundary

fence ‘A’ shall be set back or reduced in height to 0.9m so as to achieve visibility splays of 4.5m x 43.0m at the adjacent highway junction. These splays shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.9 metres in height at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 10. The rating level of noise emitted from fixed plant and equipment (mechanical

and electrical) located at the site shall not exceed the existing background level at any premises used for residential purposes when measured and corrected in accordance with BS 4142:2014.

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.

11. Standard time limit (full planning permission). Informative Advice 1. The site is crossed by a public sewer, its position being shown on the

consultation document attached to this permission. Welsh Water has advised that no operational development shall take place within 3 metres either side of the centre line of that sewer. The developer should therefore contact Welsh Water prior to works taking place for advice on this matter – 0800 917 2652. It must be noted that this permission does not over ride or negate the need for any consent that may be required from Welsh Water to build over or divert a public sewer.

2. In satisfying condition 3 of this permission, the developer is advised to contact

Welsh Water for advice regarding the discharge of any surface water to the public sewerage system – 0800 917 2652.

3. In satisfying condition 3 of this permission the developer is advised that the


details provided in relation to any proposed soakaway drainage must accord with BRE:365.


None

Report Date: 16th February 2018 Report Author: Justin Waite

Planning Report

Application No:


Applicant: Agent:

Mr Chris Evans Crown Avenue Tredegar

Adrian Drew 14 Thornhill Close Brynmawr

Site Address:

Upper Hirgan Fach Farm Crown Avenue Tredegar

Development:

Partial demolition and rebuild of existing dwelling, raising of the main roof and two storey rear extension.

Case Officer: Justin Waite


This application seeks planning permission to partially demolish and rebuild a former stone cottage in order to bring it back into beneficial use at Upper Hirgan Fach Farm, Crown Avenue, Tredegar. The proposal will also involve the raising of


the cottage’s ridge height by approximately 1.1 metres and incorporating a two storey rear extension in order to create a 4 bedroom dwelling. The application site will be accessed off an existing lane and 4 off-street car parking spaces will be provided. An existing lean-to structure adjoining the eastern gable elevation will be removed in order to accommodate 2 of these car parking spaces. The residential curtilage will be redefined by a mixture of 1 metre high steel railing and timber posts with wire mesh. The existing stone wall along the rear boundary will also be retained and topped with wire. It was initially proposed to finish both gable elevations and the rear elevation in a painted rough cast render. However, the applicant has revised the proposed plans and details within the application form in order to replace the rough cast render with stone. The revised plans also confirm that the windows and doors will be wooden and painted grey. The former cottage has not been in residential use for a considerable period of time and is in an advanced state of disrepair. It was originally a two storey, split level, random rubble stone built cottage. A single storey annex, which is possibly a later extension to the main building, adjoins the northern (rear) elevation and an existing open fronted lean-to structure adjoins the eastern gable elevation. The application site is associated with Upper Hirgan Fach Farm and forms part of what appears to be the farmyard curtilage. It is not however clear to what extent the farmstead remains in operation as there was little evidence of an active agricultural use when I visited the site. The former cottage lies on the northern edge of the farmyard, adjacent to open countryside to the north. There are three dwellings to the south of the former cottage and other farm buildings in the vicinity which form a small cluster of development. Dukestown Cemetery lies to the southwest of the application site and the A465 road, which lies a little further to the south, physically and visually separates the area from the main Dukestown settlement. The site, cemetery and surrounding dwellings are all accessed via Crown Avenue which crosses over the A465 road.

2. Site History


PA/2016/0015 Restoration of derelict cottage with rear extension

Preliminary advice given indicating that the principle of development is acceptable at the time of writing.

C/2004/0422 Detached bungalow and garage Planning permission granted 16th September 2005.




Team Leader Building Control: Building Regulations required. Service Manager Infrastructure: Highways: No objection subject to areas indicated for off-street parking to be fully constructed prior to occupation and maintained thereafter. Drainage: No objection in relation to surface water drainage. Structures: Principal Engineer agrees with the findings of the Structural Report that there isn’t a great deal of this building that can be rehabilitated. Also notes that the building has only been externally inspected and that the majority of the rear elevation is obscured by the single storey annex. It is therefore possible that the rear elevation is also beyond repair, potentially resulting in the further need for demolition and rebuilding. Landscape: No objection subject to an increase in the use of stone for the façade rather than render and the use of appropriate boundary treatments, such as stone walling, native hedgerow or rail timber fencing. Ecology: No objection to the proposed development. The submitted bat roost assessment is considered sufficient and the Ecologist does not consider a bat activity survey necessary due to the conclusions within the assessment. The applicant should, however, be made aware of the need to cease work and consult a suitably licenced ecologist if roosting bats are discovered or flying bats observed within the building during any works. The Ecologist also highlights the need to provide two prefabricated bat tubes on the east and west gable walls of the building as stated within section 6.2 of the bat roost assessment. External Consultation Responses

Town / Community Council: No objection and fully support application. However, it is preferred if the stonework can be retained wherever possible.


Natural Resources Wales: Object to the proposed development unless a bat activity survey is undertaken prior to the determination of the application in order to confirm the presence or absence of bats utilising crevice roosting features on the interior of the building. If bats are found on site, appropriate mitigation measures will be required. Welsh Water: No objection to the proposed development as the building will connect to an existing septic tank rather than the public sewerage system/public sewage treatment works. Apparatus in the vicinity of the application site are also highlighted. Welsh Government (Highways): No objection. Public Consultation: Strikethrough to delete as appropriate


1 site notice

press notice




other Response: A response was received from Ward Councillor Smith requesting that this application go before Planning Committee for consideration. The reason given was that it is important that residential properties are brought back into use and that he would like to understand more about this specific application.

4. Planning Policy

Team Manager Development Plans: Object to the proposed development and consider that the building has fallen into a worse state of disrepair and the owner has not sought to halt the building’s deterioration. Therefore the development fails to meet tests 1 and 4 of the abandonment assessment and as such, the building is considered to be abandoned. In addition, the building does not appear capable of refurbishment without the need for the major reconstruction and concerns are raised over the proposed use of rough cast render on the side and rear elevations of building. The proposal is therefore contrary to national planning policy.


LDP Policies: SP4 Delivering Quality Housing SP5 Spatial Distribution of Housing Sites SP10 Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment DM1 New Development DM2 Design and Placemaking DM14 Biodiversity and Protection DM15 Protection and Enhancement of the Green Infrastructure DM19 Mineral Safeguarding SB1 Settlement Boundaries ENV2 Special Landscape Areas ENV3 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation M1 Safeguarding of Minerals M3 Areas where Coal Working will not be Acceptable PPW & TANs:

Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (Edition 9, November 2016) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (September 2009) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6: Planning for Rural Communities (July 2010) Access, Car Parking and Design Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) March (2014)


Principle of Development The Blaenau Gwent Local Development Plan (LDP) indicates that the application site is located outside the settlement boundary (Policy SB1) where the aim is to prevent inappropriate development in the countryside. Planning applications for development in the countryside are dealt with in accordance with national planning policy. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (Edition 9, November 2016) clearly indicates that new housing building in the open countryside away from existing settlements must be strictly controlled (See paragraphs 4.7.8, 9.2.22 and 9.3.6). A key consideration in determining whether the proposal is acceptable in principle is therefore whether there is a subsisting and lawful residential use or whether the original residential use of the building has been abandoned. If the latter is found to be the case, the proposed development should be treated as a new house in the open countryside, which would conflict with the requirements of PPW. In addition, PPW also indicates that the reuse of buildings in a Green Belt or green


wedge is not inappropriate provided that, amongst other things, the original building is substantial, permanent and capable of conversion without major reconstruction (See paragraph 4.8.17). Whilst this element of policy is specific to developments within a Green Belt or green wedge, these designations only occur outside settlement limits within a countryside location and, in my opinion, parallels can be drawn with the proposed development. Turning firstly to the matter of abandonment, there are four established tests in case law that can be applied to ascertain whether the original residential use of a building has been abandoned. The four tests are: 1. The physical condition of the building; 2. The length of time for which the building has not been used; 3. Whether it has been used for any other purposes; and 4. The owner’s intention. These criteria are of equal relevance and are tested by considering whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the circumstances would conclude that the building had been abandoned. With regard to physical condition, the building shows visible signs of being in an advanced state of dereliction with evidence of roof and wall collapse, most notably on the western half of the building. The Structural Report submitted with the application confirms that the building is in a critical state of disrepair and that all walls, roofing components and first floor internal structures show evidence of significant deterioration or distress. Moreover, the report states that only the building’s easternmost section of the front elevation, the eastern gable elevation and the rear elevation are potentially capable of being restored without partial demolition and rebuilding. In respect of the length of time for which the building has not been used, the application form states that the residential use ended in 2004. No direct planning history has been identified for the application building, but the Council Tax department has confirmed that there is no record of this property being registered for council tax purposes. The Council’s records go back as far as 1983. Even if it is taken at face value that the application property has not been used as a residential dwelling for 14 years, I still consider this to be a significant period of time. In terms of whether the proposed building has been used for any other purposes, it does not appear that the building has been put to any alternative uses in the intervening period since it was last used as a dwelling. In relation to the owner’s intention, there appears to be no evidence of any active intervention to protect and/or repair the building to halt its decline. The Structural


Report also states that “it is obvious that the detriment observed to the building is the result of a lack of maintenance and exposure to the elements”. Whilst the owner stated an intention to reuse the building for residential purposes in 2016 (12 years after the residential use is claimed to have ceased), the owner’s commitment to reusing the building appears questionable given that no steps have been taken to protect and/or repair the building even after the Local Planning Authority (LPA) highlighted the necessity of these measures when written preliminary planning advice was previously given on 16th April 2016. Having regard to the above tests and my knowledge of the application site, I consider that, on balance, a reasonable person would conclude that the previous residential use has been abandoned. I have reached this judgement based on the building’s derelict state, the significant length of time the building has not been used and the lack of intervention by the owner to preserve the building for its continued residential use. I note that the aforementioned preliminary planning advice dated 16th April 2016 indicated that, at the time of writing, it appeared that a residential use continued to subsist. However, the advice was also explicit in that appropriate steps urgently needed to be taken by the owner to halt further deterioration of the building, either by carrying out repairs or protecting the building. No positive measures had been undertaken by the owner at the time of my recent site visit and photographic evidence reveals that the building has deteriorated further over the last 20 months between issuing the preliminary planning advice and the submission of the planning application. Moreover, I also now have the benefit of the findings of the Structural Report in reaching my judgement on the matter of abandonment, which was not available when the preliminary planning advice was provided in 2016. Turning to the second matter of whether the building is capable of reuse without major reconstruction, it is clear from the Structural Report that this is not the case given the extent of deterioration that has occurred since the building was last occupied. In order to construct the proposed development varying degrees of demolition and rebuilding would be required to numerous elements of the building, including the western (gable) elevation, the northern (rear) annex, the internal masonry spine wall, the majority of the southern (front) elevation and all roof and first floor flooring components. I also note that the Structural Report is only based on visual observations to the external elevations and limited access to the ground floor of the building. This limited assessment may have resulted in an underestimate of the extent of deterioration in the physical condition of the building and in turn the extent of the demolition and rebuilding works required. As the existing building is incapable being reused without, at least, major reconstruction, the proposal constitutes inappropriate development within this


countryside location. Moreover, I consider the previous residential use to have been abandoned and, accordingly, the proposed development should be treated as a new house within the countryside. I therefore consider the proposed development to be unacceptable in principle and in conflict with the requirements of national planning policy. Visual Impact The application site is located within a countryside location and falls within the Special Landscape Area (SLA) of Trefil and Garnlydan Surrounds (Policy ENV2.7). It is therefore important that the proposed development respects the rural landscape and uses building styles and materials that are in keeping with the character of the existing cottage (See paragraph 3.2.3 of TAN 6). Developments within SLAs are also required to conform to the highest standards of design, siting and layout and materials. The proposed development will raise the building’s ridge height by approximately 1.1 meters and incorporate a two storey rear extension into the main body of the building so that it will have the appearance of an enlarged detached dwelling. The existing footprint of the cottage and rear annex will not however be increased as a result of the proposal. PPW indicates that, amongst of things, limited extensions and alterations of existing dwellings can be appropriate within a Green Belt or green wedge (See paragraph 4.8.16) and I am of the opinion that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the scale and height of the existing residential buildings within the vicinity of the application site. Whilst extensions are normally expected to be designed as subordinate additions to the main building, the circumstances are unusual in this instance given the physical condition of the building. I am also of the opinion that the proposal will result in a coherently designed detached dwelling that retains the overall character and appearance of the existing building and respects the rural landscape character. I initially had concerns over the appropriateness of the use of rough cast render on both gable walls and the rear elevation, and the applicant was informed that the use of stone would be more in keeping with the rural location. As a consequence, the applicant has submitted revised details which indicate that stone will now be used on all elevations. The revised details also confirm that the windows and doors will be wooden and painted grey. I am therefore now of the opinion that the proposed materials will complement the rural character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding landscape. The applicant has also submitted additional details of the boundary treatments, comprising of a mixture of 1 metre high steel railing, timber posts with wire mesh


and the retention of the existing stone wall along the rear boundary with wire topping. Whilst I consider post and rail timber fencing to be more appropriate than steel railing within this rural location, I have not requested that these details be revised by the applicant given that the proposed development is considered unacceptable in principle. Moreover, I am aware that if Planning Committee were minded to approve the application, this issue could be resolved via an appropriately worded condition. I acknowledge that the impact of proposed development on the character of the surrounding area is limited to some extent by the location of the application building within an existing farmyard and its relationship with the small cluster of buildings within the immediate vicinity. However, the proposed development should be treated as a new house within the countryside, which needs to be strictly controlled. PPW clearly states that “the fact that a single house on a particular site would be unobtrusive is not, by itself, a good argument in favour of granting planning permission (See paragraph 9.3.6). Amenity The closest residential dwelling to the application building is Upper Hirgan Fach Farm. There is an adequate separation distance of approximately 11 and 19.5 metres between the front elevation of the application building and this neighouring property’s rear boundary and rear elevation respectively. The increase in scale and height of the proposed development would not therefore have an unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing impact on the occupiers of this neighbouring property. Whilst there is an acceptable separation distance between the elevations of the application property and Upper Hirgan Fach Farm to prevent any direct overlooking of habitable room windows, the application building would partially overlook this neighbour’s rear garden, due the open nature of the existing boundary treatment. However, this neighbouring property has quite a large curtilage with amenity space also available to the side and front of the dwelling. As such, I do not consider the overlooking impact to be unacceptable. The separation distance between the application building and the remaining residential properties within the vicinity of application site is such that there would not be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of these properties. Ecology Hirgan Fields Grassland SINC (Policy ENV3.43) is located adjacent to the northern stone wall boundary of the application site. The curtilage of the application building


will not encroach into the adjoining land and the existing stone wall boundary will be retained and topped with wire, restricting access to the SINC. I am therefore of the opinion that the ecological importance of the SINC will not be adversely affected. A Bat Roost Assessment has been submitted alongside the planning application with the purpose of surveying the site for bats and/or evidence of bats and to assess the overall potential of the building to support roosting bats. The assessment states that no bats or evidence of bats were found at the site and it is considered unlikely that the building has any significant conservation value as a roost resource for bats. However, the building’s interior and upper reaches of the exterior walls could not be examined closely due to health and safety reasons. The presence of single/small numbers of non-breeding crevice-dwelling bats cannot therefore be entirely ruled out and, accordingly, the Assessment recommends that a further bat activity survey is undertaken. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) agree with this recommendation and have raised an objection to the proposed development unless a bat activity survey is undertaken prior to the determination of the application. I note that the Authority’s Ecologist considers the submitted Bat Roost Assessment to be sufficient and does not consider a further bat activity survey to be necessary. However, I am mindful of the advice contained within TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (September 2009) which states that: “it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision” (See section 6.2.2). The advice goes on to state that whilst developers should not be required to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of them being present, the level of likelihood should be low for the purpose of triggering the requirement for developers to undertake surveys. The applicant’s Ecologist and NRW appear to be of the opinion that this trigger level has been met with regards to the likelihood of bats being present within the application site. Although I agree that a bat activity survey should be undertaken prior to the determination of this application, I have not requested the applicant to address this issue at this stage given that, in my opinion, the proposal is unacceptable in principle and therefore in conflict with national planning policy. It also should also be noted that the survey can only be undertaken during the bat breeding season between late May and August.


Access and Parking The application site will be accessed off the existing lane and 4 off-street car parking spaces are proposed. The level of parking provision is above the maximum requirement of 3 spaces for a dwelling and the Team Leader – Highways and Development has raised no objection to the proposal on highway grounds. Other Matters With regard to drainage, the application building will connect to an existing septic tank and the Drainage Engineer has raised no objection to the proposal in terms of surface water drainage. The application site is located within a coal safeguarding area within which development proposals are not permitted where they would permanently sterilise the coal resource (Policies M1 and DM19). However, the application site is located within the existing farmyard area and the proposed development would be within the same footprint of the existing cottage and rear annex. Therefore, in my opinion, the scale and location of the proposal would not have a significant impact on the possible working of the resource. I also note that the application site falls within an area where coal working will not normally be acceptable (Policy M3).




Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason(s): The existing building is incapable of reuse without major reconstruction and the original residential use has been abandoned. The proposed development therefore constitutes the inappropriate building of a new house within the countryside. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to LDP Policy SB1 and paragraphs 4.7.8, 9.2.22 and 9.3.6 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 9, November 2016).


The presence of a protected species (such as bats) is a material consideration where it is likely that a development proposal would result in disturbance or harm to the species. A bat activity survey is required in order to confirm the presence or absence of bats utilising the crevice roosting features on the interior of the building. Without undertaking and submitting the findings of a bat activity survey, there is insufficient information to determine the impact of the development proposal on these protected species.


Planning Committee Members should note that if this development proposal is approved contrary to officer recommendation, there is a risk that if bat(s) are subsequently found to be present within the application site, the Authority could be in breach of its statutory duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) (as amended) and the Environment Act (Wales) 2016.


Planning Report

Application No:


Applicant: Agent:

Keri Harding-Jones Linc-Cymru Cardiff

Mr Andrew Tansill Quattro Design Architects Ltd Matthews Warehouse High Orchard Street Gloucester Quays, Glos

Site Address:

Land adjacent and to the north of Llys Glyncoed College Road Ebbw Vale

Development:

Independent elderly accommodation for the over 55's to include 27 no. 1 bed apartments (four storey) and 6 no. 1 bed bungalows and associated infrastructure

Case Officer: Joanne White



This application seeks permission for 27 x 1 bed apartments and 6 x 1 bed bungalows for the over 55’s on land adjacent to Llys Glyncoed Extra Care Home, College Road, Ebbw Vale. The site is in a prominent position along one of the main roads into Ebbw Vale from the Heads of the Valleys. The apartments will be set over 4 storeys. The proposed density of 33 units is intended to go some way to complement that of the adjacent extra care home, which accommodates 44 units. The proposed units are intended for social rental purposes and will be allocated by the applicants (housing association) on a needs basis. The combination of bungalows and apartments are intended to provide accommodation for independent living leading to the minimum of care. Following on from this, residents would be given the opportunity to move into the adjacent existing extra care home, to the south. Whilst the apartments and bungalows are fully independent, there is an intention for residents to have full access to the facilities offered at the existing extra care home, encouraging a sense of community or small ‘village’ for the elderly. The site measures approximately 0.69 ha, albeit not all this area is developable due to the topography. The site has a level plateau which then slopes down significantly to the north and east. Emlyn Avenue is some 90m to the east and is largely screened from the site by trees and vegetation. The main road (College Road) runs parallel to the western boundary, with a roundabout being located to the north-west corner. Access into the site will be via the existing access serving the extra care home. Site constraints include a gas main and an overhead high voltage electricity cable which is to be rerouted along the northern boundary. A 6m wide easement zone is required in relation to the electricity line which prevents any built development in this zone. The four storey apartments will be located to the rear of the site, in line with the existing three storey extra care home. The building features two front gables and varying ridge heights with the highest being no more than 750mm higher than the extra care home. A refuse collection area is located to the south-west of the apartments for ease of access for both residents and collection operators. A small communal garden area is also provided to the south of the apartments incorporating landscaping, benches and communal washing lines. 23 parking spaces are provided for residents, together with 4 new visitor spaces.


Materials to the apartment building comprise concrete tiles in slate grey to the roofs, grey upvc windows with a combination of reconstructed random stone, buff brickwork and vertical boarding to the walls. Coloured glass panels will feature to the stairwell. 6 Bungalows comprising of two small terraces (3 bungalows in each) are proposed to the front of the site. The bungalows will face into the site, with modest rear gardens fronting College Road. To protect residents of these properties from excessive noise a 1.8m high acoustic fence is proposed along the sites western boundary. A ‘buffer’ hedge and trees are proposed to be planted in front of the fence to provide a degree of screening from College Road. The existing railings will be retained forward of the hedging. Proposed materials to the bungalows consist of buff brickwork with a band of Bradstone stonework and slate grey roofs. Due to the topography of the site, a gabion wall is proposed to the northern boundary to support the car park. The plans indicate a 1.2m high close boarded fence on top of the gabion wall. Climbing plants are also proposed along the length of the wall in a bid to provide a degree of soft screening. A green plastic coated chain link fence approximately 2.1m high is proposed to the rear (east). The application was supported with a suite of plans, a Pre-Application Consultation Report, Design and Access Statement (DAS), Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Drainage Strategy, Tree Survey, Noise Survey, Planting Schedule and Site Investigation.

2. Site History


PA/2017/0147 Enquiry regarding 27 Independent apartments and 6 bungalows

Acceptable in principle, some design comments made

C/2013/0198 Construction of a 48 bed Care Home for elderly people with dementia comprising 48 single rooms with en-suite facilities, car parking and associated landscaping

Approved 03.10.13


Internal BG Responses Team Leader Building Control: Building Regulations Required


Service Manager Infrastructure: Highways: The submitted Transport Statement demonstrates that both the existing and proposed car parking provisions can be adequately served by this facility and the additional traffic movements associated to the scheme can be safely accommodated on the highway network. In view of this information it is confirmed that the proposed car parking and access arrangements are acceptable to the Highway Authority and the submitted planning application complies with the Authority’s ‘Access, Car Parking and Design’ SPG and Policy DM1(3)a,b,c and d. There are no objections subject to the following:

The access road, turning areas and car parking areas are to be fully constructed prior to occupation of the dwellings and are to be maintained thereafter.

Having regard to reduced car parking provision in accordance with the SPG ‘Access, Car Parking and Design’ (special purpose housing), the development shall only be occupied by those aged 55 or over.

Drainage: Acknowledged that whilst he would normally require surface water to be released into the ground via soakaway drainage, in this instance, he is concerned that water introduced into the ground would have an impact on the houses in Emlyn Avenue and Badminton Grove. He is therefore prepared to accept attenuation as the method for this site, as proposed by the applicant. However, details of calculations to prove the storage volumes and discharge rates are correct are required prior to commencement of development. Ground Stability: The Site Investigation is acceptable. Requires that recommendations of the report are adhered to. Landscape/Arboriculture: No objection to principle of development. The tree survey information provided is a fair reflection of the trees present on site. Significant areas of native woodland cover, which despite being identified as ‘low value’ in terms of their arboricultural value, should be retained where possible to provide a visual screen to the rear of adjacent properties and for micro-climate, air quality and hydrological benefits. Any loss of trees should be minimised and additional planting introduced to enhance the green infrastructure on site. Protective fencing should be installed prior to development.


Ecology: The recommendations of the Ecological Method Statement contained within the Preliminary Ecological Assessment should be followed, excluding the first point which has been explored further and satisfactorily concluded that there are no reptiles on site. no external artificial lighting of the site Service Manager Public Protection: No objection subject to conditions requiring development to be in accordance with recommendations of acoustic report (Hunter Acoustics). It is noted that the predicted noise levels within the gardens of the bungalows exceed recognised limits. However, satisfied that all possible options have been explored to ensure the lowest practicable levels are achieved. A Construction and Environmental Management (detailing means of noise and dust mitigation) is required prior to commencement. In respect of land contamination, remedial measures in the Geo-environmental report produced by Terra Firma dated November 2017 should be carried out, including further information to clarify any risk posed to public health in respect of the gas monitoring. External Consultation Responses

Welsh Water: All options of sustainable surface water disposal must be considered before a connection to the existing surface water sewer is considered. The applicant should also be aware that the water sewer they refer to on plan is not mapped on Welsh Water sewer records and therefore recommend a sewer location survey is undertaken to accurately locate the asset to establish its status as either public or private. Request condition restricting discharge rate of water flows. Western Power: Identified high voltage overhead line crossing the site. W&W Utilities: Identified a pressurised gas plant on the site. Fire Authority The developer should consider the need for the provision of adequate water supplies on the site for firefighting purposes and access for emergency firefighting appliances.


Public Consultation: Strikethrough to delete as appropriate

56 x letters to nearby residential properties

2x site notice(s)

1 x press notice




other Response: No responses received.

4. Planning Policy

Team Manager Development Plans: Broadly support the proposed development. The proposal is the second phase of the Llys Glyncoed extra care home scheme and part of the site falls within Housing Commitment HC1.6 which has already been delivered. The mass of the apartments at 4 stories in height is generally consistent with the existing care home and design and materials are appropriate to the local context and will complement the existing facility. Due to the location, on a major route, public art should be encouraged. Concerns over proposed 2m high close boarded timber fence along western boundary in terms of its visual impact. Planting a new hedgerow will take some time to mature and therefore will not appropriately screen the fence. The applicant should consider an alternative boundary such as a stone wall. Requires 10% affordable housing in line with the requirements of Policy DM7. The following issues will need to be taken into account:

Construction waste and pollution

Recycled and sustainable resources are used

Biodiversity

Visual impact

Impact on amenity

Amenity issues; noise, vibration, odour and light

Contamination

Highway Safety

Special Access and mobility requirements

Parking, servicing and operational space


Secured by Design

Provision of artwork

Boundary treatments

Infrastructure requirements

Affordable Housing requirements

Impact on existing trees LDP Policies: SB1 – Settlement Boundaries SP4 – Delivering Quality Housing SP5 – Spatial Distribution of Housing Sites DM1 – New Development DM2 – Design and Placemaking DM3 – Infrastructure Provision DM7 – Affordable Housing DM16 – Trees, Woodland and Hedgerow Protection HC1 – Housing Commitments PPW & TANs: Access, Car Parking and Design (March 2014)


Principle of development The site lies within the settlement boundary (Policy SB1) within which the principle of development is acceptable provided the proposals meet the relevant criteria of the adopted Blaenau Gwent Local Development Plan and material planning considerations. Planning permission was previously granted on the site in 2013 for a three storey, 48-bed care home on this site but this was not built. As such, it is considered that the principle of development has already been established. A small part of the site falls within Housing allocation area HC1.6 as identified in the LDP. The construction of the adjacent extra care facility has already delivered the majority of this allocation, for which this is the second phase of development. Consequently, there are no concerns in terms of land compatibility, in line with LDP Policy DM1(2)a. Policy SP4 of the LDP seeks to deliver a mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenure, including at least 335 affordable dwellings. This proposal seeks to provide 33 dwellings consisting of 6 x 1-bed bungalows and 27 x 1-bed apartments for the over 55’s. The development makes a positive contribution towards this target.


Layout, Scale, Design and Visual Impact Prior to the submission of this application the applicant sought pre-application advice. They were advised of concerns regarding the proposed layout. Alternative proposals were suggested. Concern was also expressed regarding the siting of the six bungalows which results in their rear elevations, gardens and boundaries fronting the main road. It was argued however that the diversion of the overhead power line, resulting in a ‘no-build zone’ and a gas main running through the site limit the potential positioning of the buildings on the site, particularly the bungalows. As such, the apartment block is located to the rear of the site, in line with the rear building line of the existing extra care home. The bungalows have been positioned to the front of the site with the rear gardens fronting College Road. The applicant’s rationale for positioning the apartment block to the rear of the site is to minimise overshadowing of the bungalows in the late morning to late afternoon and to align with the three-storey extra care home. Whilst there is disparity in the scale between the bungalows and apartments, which may result in some overshadowing of the bungalows, the rooms affected are non-habitable rooms i.e. bathrooms or kitchens. Furthermore, the layout is intended to create safe routes to access the car park area, buggy store and refuse store. The applicant also states that the relationship of the buildings seeks to create a small community for the elderly between the bungalows, apartments and the adjacent existing extra care home. Indeed, the Design and Access Statement confirms that residents will have full access to the facilities offered at the existing extra care facility. Having regard to these matters I am content to support the details. The proposed palette of materials for the buildings echo those of the existing care home without replicating it and are therefore considered acceptable and in accordance with LDP Policy DM2a and b, subject to specific details. Boundary Treatments A mixture of boundary treatments are proposed, as described in Section 1 of this report. Whilst the proposals are generally acceptable I am concerned with the proposed boundary treatments to the northern and western boundaries which will be visible on the approach into Ebbw Vale from the north and along College Road, fronting the site. To accommodate the change in levels at the northern end of the site and retain the proposed car parking area the applicants propose to provide 2m high gabion baskets with a 1.2m high close boarded fence. From the car park 450mm of the gabion wall and a 1.2m high fence would be visible.


The lower part of the wall will be largely screened when approaching the site from the north due to the topography and band of trees along the northern boundary. Climbing plants are proposed to gabions which will provide additional soft screening. I consider the gabion wall to be acceptable, subject to design calculations and appropriate landscaping. However, the construction of close boarded fencing along this boundary is visually obtrusive and an alternative material should be considered. This can be addressed via a condition requiring alternative details. The garden boundary to the rear of the six bungalows which runs along the western boundary will be a prominent feature along the main approach into Ebbw Vale. It is to be set back and separated from the public footpath by a grass verge. The proposed boundary treatment consists of three-parts; an existing 1.6m high black metal mesh fence; a hedgerow will then be planted behind the mesh fence (where not already existing) and behind that will be a 1.8m high acoustic fence serving the rear gardens of the bungalows. The planting schedule identifies new hedgerow when first planted would be 50cm high. Despite the concerns expressed at pre application stage regarding the potential visual impact of a fence in this prominent location the acoustic report submitted in support of the application notes an intention to erect a 1.8m high timber fence along the College Road frontage to minimise noise within the gardens of the bungalows. The Environmental Health Officer has advised that the predicted noise levels identified within the acoustic report will exceed the recognised limits. He has confirmed however that from a noise perspective that he is satisfied that the lowest practicable levels are achieved in the external amenity space. In acknowledging the advice of the Environmental Health Officer I remain concerned from a visual perspective regarding the potential visual impact of the fence in such a prominent location and am keen to explore any alternatives and/or mitigation measures. Members will note that the mitigation currently proposed i.e. hedgerow planted at 50cm high against a 1.8m timber fence is not considered acceptable. I am also content that such concern does not warrant refusing or delaying the determination of the application. The applicant has been made aware of the concerns and has agreed to a condition requiring the submission of suitably revised boundary and noise mitigation proposals. Landscaping It is important to retain the existing trees along the northern and eastern boundary in terms of their screening benefits and their landscape value. The agent has acknowledged the benefit of the trees for screening purposes and provided revised


landscaping details to demonstrate how the majority of the trees can be retained. The revised plan confirms that only 4 trees will be removed; 2 to the north-east boundary and 2 to the rear (east) of the site. Existing trees in the location of the new underground electrical line will have hand dug trenches to bypass the tree routes. Root protection areas have been identified to the northern and eastern boundary together with a root protection zone around the existing hedgerow along part of the western boundary. A condition can be imposed to ensure these areas are adequately fenced off to protect them during the construction process. A number of new trees are proposed as compensatory planting to the northern and eastern boundary together with climbing plants to the gabion wall along the northern boundary to reduce its potential visual impact. A revised planting schedule has been provided and is considered acceptable, with the exception of planting to the western boundary which will be considered and determined by means of a condition in conjunction with issues raised in relation to boundary treatments. Drainage Whilst current practice is to advocate that surface water be released into the ground via soakaway drainage the Council’s Drainage Engineer has confirmed that he would have concerns regarding such an approach on this site given that Emlyn Avenue and Badminton Grove already have an issue with ground water. Rather than soakaway drainage, the applicant proposes to use an underground storage tank to deal with ground water. The Council’s Drainage Engineer has confirmed he is satisfied in principle with this alternative method, albeit calculations and storage volume details are required via condition. Welsh Water have requested that a condition be imposed requiring the attenuation rate to not exceed 5 litres per second. Highways The Highway Authority have confirmed their satisfaction with the proposed access and parking provision for the scheme, subject to the infrastructure being constructed prior to occupation. I note however that the level of parking provision which has been agreed in this instance is lower than that which would normally be required for open market hosing due to the intended age of future occupants. In order to ensure that the units are occupied by persons of the specified age group it is considered appropriate to require the applicants to enter a Section 106 agreement that will commit them to ensuring that the properties will only be occupied by persons of 55 years or over (and/or their spouses or civic partners). The applicants have agreed in principle to this approach. I am therefore satisfied that the development accords with LDP Policy DM1(3)a, b, c and d. Public Art Given the prominent location of the development it was highlighted to the applicant


at pre-application stage that the provision of public art would enhance the quality of the development. The applicant has welcomed the idea and has identified potential opportunity to the north west corner of the site. To ensure that this objective is met I suggest that the applicants commitment to commission and provide an appropriate artistic feature within a specified timescale should be covered by a clause to be included in the required Section 106 Agreement. There may be opportunities to incorporate such a feature into the screening that required along the western boundary. This again is an approach that has been agreed in principle by the applicants Removal of PD Rights The plans indicate that each bungalow will feature a shed to the rear garden, albeit details of such have not been submitted with the application. A condition is therefore proposed to require the necessary details. Given the nature of the development and its prominent location I also have concerns that the introduction of additional outbuildings or enclosures along this road frontage could have an adverse visual impact upon the main College Road and surrounding area. Furthermore, as the rear gardens are modest in size they could become overdeveloped. A condition is therefore proposed to remove permitted development rights for the bungalows thus allowing the Local Planning Authority to retain control over any future development in these gardens. Planning Obligations Policy DM7 of the LDP seeks 10% affordable housing (subject to viability) on all sites that:

a) Contain 10 or more dwellings; or b) Exceeds 0.28ha in gross site area; or c) Exceeds the thresholds in (a) or (b) above for adjacent sites.

The applicant has been advised of this requirement and that any planning permission would only be issued subject to the applicant entering into a S106 agreement to ensure provision and retention of 10% affordable housing. The applicant fully accepts the need for this and is prepared to enter such an agreement. Policy DM3 of the LDP also requires developers, where applicable, to contribute towards infrastructure provision. I have consulted Education and Leisure in this regard but they have not responded. It is therefore assumed that they do not consider that there are any specific impacts for this development that might warrant such requirements. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the application i.e. that the proposed properties are intended for persons over 55 years and the scale of the development and its prominent location, I also consider it appropriate to require the


applicant to agree to the Section 106 Agreement containing two further clauses. These will commit the applicants to :- (i) ensure that the properties will only be occupied by persons of the specified

age group (and their spouses or civil partners); and (ii) provide a public art feature on the site of a form and design to be approved

by the Local Planning Authority within a specified timescale.




It is considered that the development proposal is, subject to conditions and a S106 agreement, acceptable. It complies in principle with relevant policies contained within the LDP. Accordingly I would recommend as follows :- Recommendation 1: The applicant is required to enter into S106 agreement that will commit them to (i) the provision of affordable housing, (ii) ensuring the properties are occupied by persons of a specified age and their spouses/civil partners and (iii) providing a public art feature on the site. Recommendation 2: Once the S106 agreement is completed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives listed below. Recommendation 3: In the event that the applicant fails to make meaningful progress or enter into the agreement required by Recommendation 1 within 6 months of the date of this Committee Members give delegated authority to the Service Manager Development to refuse the application based on reason(s) associated with the need for the agreement required by Recommendation 1. Conditions: 1. The development shall be completed in full accordance with the following

approved plans and documents:


Site Location Plan, dwg 5518-P-0002, Rev A, stamped received 07/12/2017;

Proposed Soft Landscaping Plan, dwg 5518-T-0111 Rev A, stamped received 05/02/2018;

Soft Landscaping Areas, dwg no. 5518-T-0112 Rev A, stamped received 05/02/2018;

Proposed Elevations, dwg no. 5518-T-0700, Rev A, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Ground Floor Plan, dwg no. 5518-T-0200, Rev A, stamped received 29/11/2017;

First Floor Plan, dwg no. 5518-T-0201, Rev A, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Second Floor Plan, dwg no. 5518-T-0202, Rev A, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Third Floor Plan, dwg no. 5518-T-0203, Rev A, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Roof Plan, dwg no. 5518-T-0204, Rev A, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Bungalow Plans, dwg no. 5518-T-0300, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Typical Bungalow Section, dwg no. 5518-T-0650, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Elevations (Bungalows), dwg no. 5518-T-0750, stamped received 29/11/2017

Flat Type A Plan, dwg no. 5518-T-2000, Rev A, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Site Section 1, dwg no. 5518-T-0641, stamped received 07/12/2017;

Site Section 2, dwg no. 5518-T-0640, Rev B, stamped received 07/12/2017

Section A-A, dwg no. 5518-T-0600, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Drainage Strategy, Project C17176, dwg no.500 stamped received 29/11/2017;

Transport Statement, Lime Transport, September 2017, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Terrafirma Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Report, Job no: 14335 November 2017, stamped received 07/12/2017;

Environmental Noise Survey by Hunter Acoustics, ref 4655/ENS1 dated 27th September 2017, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Tree Survey, by Treescene Arboricultural Consultants, 31st August 2017, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by Abbey Sanders Ecology carried out September 2017, stamped received 29/11/2017;

Reptile Survey Addendum, by Abbey Sanders Ecology, carried out


October 2017, stamped received 08/01/2018;

Revised Planting Schedule, ref 5518-P-3700, stamped received 05/02/2018

unless otherwise specified or required by conditions listed below. Reason: To clearly define the scope of this permission.

2. No work shall commence on site until all tree protection measures identified in the submitted Tree Survey (Mackley Davies Associates, August 2016) are implemented. Such protection measure works shall be overseen by a qualified arborist undertaken in accordance with an arboricultural watching brief. Details of the arborist and the watching brief shall be submitted in writing for approval for approval to the Local Planning Authority at least five working days before works commence on site. The approved protection measures shall be maintained during the course of development and retained until all works are completed and materials are removed from site (or an alternative timescale otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority).

Reason: To ensure that the protected and retained trees on the site are suitably safeguarded during the construction stage of the development.

3. Notwithstanding any details indicated on the approved plans no development

shall commence on site until calculations to prove the storage volumes and discharge rates in relation to the proposed drainage attenuation device are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. None of the buildings hereby approved shall be occupied until all drainage works relating to that building and its connection to the wider drainage network are completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system.

4. No development shall take place until

a) written confirmation is submitted to the Local Planning Authority which is signed by a suitably qualified person confirming that the drilling and grouting works referred to in paragraph 8.1 of the Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Report (Terra Firma, job no.14335 dated November 2017) have been completed; and;

b) details are submitted to the Local Planning Authority of the findings of the gas monitoring exercise referred to in paragraph 4.4 of the Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Report (Terra Firma, job no.14335 dated November 2017) and any necessary remediation measures required to deal with such findings have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority or the Local Planning Authority have confirmed in writing that no measures are required.


Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in a manner that gives full regard to both ground stability and contamination issues.

5. All works undertaken shall be implemented in full accordance with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Report (paragraphs 6.3 and Section 8 of Terra Firma, job no. 14335 dated November 2017) and any other remediation works as identified under condition 5 above. The development shall not be brought into use until the Local Planning Authority is provided with a validation report, signed by a suitably qualified person that confirms that such recommendations, measures and/or works have been fully implemented.

Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in a manner that gives due regard to ground stability and contamination issues.

6. No development shall commence on site until a Construction Method

Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by The Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall provide details of (but not limited to) :-

hours of working;

the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

delivery of materials.

wheel washing facilities;

storage of plant and materials used during construction;

the erection and maintenance of security hoarding ;

measures to control the emissions of dust and dirt during construction;

a scheme for the recycling/disposing of waste resulting from the construction works; and

the siting and details of any construction compound. Such details and measures as contained in a Statement that is approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

Reason: To safeguard local amenity interests and to ensure that the impacts of the construction phase of the development are appropriately and adequately addressed.

7. Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, before works commence

on site, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the finishes and construction details of any retaining wall or works required in association with the development hereby approved that are either abutting a highway or would exceed 1.5 metres in height. Such details must also include a certificate signed by a suitably qualified engineer that shall verify the structural integrity of the proposed works. All works implemented shall be completed in full accordance with such details and specifications as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority


before the development hereby approved is brought into beneficial use. Reason: To safeguard the integrity of any retaining works required in

association with the approved development and to safeguard visual amenity interests.

8. Notwithstanding details on the approved plans, no part of the development

hereby approved shall progress beyond the laying of foundations until details of the proposed external finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The buildings shall then be constructed in full accordance with such details as may be approved before they are beneficially occupied.

Reason: To safeguard visual amenity interests. 9. No dwelling/flat hereby approved shall be occupied until the access road,

parking and turning areas have been constructed, surfaced and drained in full accordance with the details shown on the approved plans. Such areas shall be retained for their designated purposes at all times. Reason: To ensure that that access parking and turning needs of the development are adequately met at all times.

10. Notwithstanding any details on the approved plans, approval of the following

details shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development: a) details of the position, height, materials and colour of all the proposed boundary treatments to the north and west boundary of the site; b) details of the proposed hedgerow along the western boundary c) details of the proposed sheds and any other minor structures within the curtilage of the bungalows

Such details as may be approved shall be implemented prior to occupation of the first dwelling/flat hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable form of development. 11. Excluding those landscaping details relating to the western frontage of the

site, all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following occupation of the building, the completion of the development (whichever is the sooner), or any alternative timescale that may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before works commence on site. Any trees, shrubs or plants which within a period of 5 years from implementation of the planting scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced by one of the same species and size in the next available planting season.

Reason: To ensure timely implementation of an appropriate landscaping scheme.


12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no other outbuildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the bungalows other than those expressly authorised by this permission.

Reason: In view of the restricted nature of the site and the need to retain effective planning control of the site in the interests of amenity.

13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be erected within the site.

Reason: In view of the restricted nature of the site and the need to retain effective planning control of the site in the interests of amenity.

14. The development shall begin not later than five years from the date of this

decision notice. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990.

Informatives: 1. The developer is reminded of his/her obligation under the Town and Country

Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2016 to give notification of commencement of development to the Local Planning Authority and to display a notice at all times when the development is being carried out.

2. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water recommend a sewer location survey is undertaken

to accurately locate the water sewer to establish if its status is public or private. To request any further information the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water on 0800 085 3968.

3. In satisfying condition 3 above, the developer is advised that the surface water

flows from the development via an attenuation device should not exceed discharge rates of 5 l/s.

4. The developer should consider the need for the provision of adequate water

supplies on the site for firefighting purposes and access for emergency firefighting appliances.

5. All site clearance should be undertaken between September and February

(outside of the breeding bird season) as all wild birds, their nests and their


eggs are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

6. The Council advocates Secure by Design. The applicants are therefore encouraged to liaise with the Architectural Liaison Officer from Gwent Police in relation to site and property security issues.


None.


Planning Report

Application No:


Applicant: Agent:

Ms Wood Foresight Training Management Group Limited Covent Garden London

Mr Robert James Beacon Architectural Services Ty Mondas Trecastle Brecon

Site Address:

62 Alexandra Street Ebbw Vale

Development:

Change of use from 3 bedroom dwelling (C3) to 5 person HMO (C4)



The development site is a mid-terrace dwelling that has two storeys at the front and three at the rear. At present, the entrance, hallway living room, dining room and kitchen are located on the ground floor and there are three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor. The basement contains a utility room. At the front, the


dwelling has a narrow forecourt and at the rear there is a yard with steps leading down to the rear lane. On one side of the steps there is a garage and on the other a greenhouse enclosed by a high boundary wall. In addition there is a shed positioned at the side of the dwelling. This application seeks planning permission to change the use of the dwelling as a single occupancy (C3) to a house in multiple occupation (referred to as ‘HMO’) falling into Class C4. The dwelling will be reconfigured to provide the following:

Ground floor - one bedroom, living room and kitchen;

First floor – four bedrooms, bathroom and shower room;

Basement – utility room. The living room, kitchen, bathroom and shower room will be shared by all residents. The plans show that the garage in the rear garden will be retained but the greenhouse will be removed. The shed will also remain in situ, providing storage for up to five bicycles. The yard will provide communal amenity space with drying facilities and bin storage.

2. Site History

Ref No Details Decision None


Internal BG Responses Team Leader Building Control: Building Regulations consent required. Service Manager Infrastructure: Highways: In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s adopted SPG ‘Access, Car Parking and Design’, the conversion of the dwelling requires the provision of 1 parking space per bedroom up to a maximum of 3 spaces. The plans indicate one off-street parking space. Kerbside parking is extensive at this location and the approval of development without adequate off-street parking, would exacerbate this situation and would create a precedent for future proposals of this nature. The Highway Authority therefore objects to the development on the basis that it does not comply with the SPG or adopted LDP policies. Service Manager Public Protection: No response at the time of preparing this report. External Consultation Responses


Welsh Water: No objections. Public Consultation: Strikethrough to delete as appropriate


2 site notices

press notice




other Response: Ward Members, one of whom is a Member of the Planning Committee, have made a request in writing that the application be presented to the Planning Committee. The letter states that the development has raised concern amongst existing residents who feel their own properties may be ‘devalued as a result of the area being dragged down in standard due to noise nuisance and serious parking issues’. Members also raise concern over the following:

the impact of additional vehicles in a narrow terraced street would cause ‘mayhem’;

this type of property raises the possibility of squalid living conditions in the shared facilities;

risk of poor waste management which may result in court cases and legal cost to the Council;

poor management and insufficient vetting of occupants may result in ‘undesirable’ tenants being housed at the premises.

Public consultation has resulted in 48 objections – 2 received by email, 2 by letter and 44 standard letters signed by individual occupants. All correspondence is detailed and reflects some issues raised by members. To avoid duplication I have summarised the details of all letters/emails below:

Insufficient parking provision to meet current needs. A house in multiple occupation is likely to generate additional cars/parking requirements in an already over-crowded street. Nearby properties such as the Institute at Church Street, frequently generate additional traffic as a result of functions. These vehicles seek parking at nearby streets, a situation that is stressful for residents at Alexandra Street;

The street has been adversely affected by those dwellings that have been


converted to flats in so much as residents have experienced anti-social behaviour from some occupants of the flats. Residents do not want friction in the community.

Allowing the growth of private rented accommodation or houses in multiple occupation at the expense of owner-occupiers will diminish community cohesions and identity. Accommodation of this type may result in a high turnover of residents who have no regard for the community or views of long term residents;

Poor management of property by absent landlords.

4. Planning Policy

Team Manager Development Plans: The site lies within the settlement boundary where, subject to consideration of other LDP policies, development will normally be permitted. It is not subject to any land allocations, designations or constraints. It is located in a residential area and as such there are no issues of land compatibility. A key consideration with the subdivision of dwellings is that resulting units must be of an appropriate size to provide satisfactory levels of amenity. The conversion of the front bedroom to two bedrooms and the conversion of a middle bedroom to a bedroom and shower raises concern that the resultant rooms will be small single bedrooms and the shower room is very small. The proposal includes one parking space. Given that the proposal is to provide five bedrooms, there is need in accordance with the adopted SPG to provide additional spaces. However the only option for car parking is through on street which is already extensive in this location. A view from Highways is required. Planning Policy broadly supports the proposal subject to the following issues being taken into account:

recovery and recycling of waste;

impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers;

accommodation must be of an appropriate size to provide satisfactory levels of amenity;

no harm to amenity in terms of noise, vibration, odour or light pollution;

safe, effective and efficient use of the transportation network;

designed to prioritise the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport before that of the private car;

provision for people with special access and mobility requirements;

parking in accordance with the adopted SPG. LDP Policies: SB1 – Settlement boundaries


DM1 – New development


The Blaenau Gwent LDP indicates the development site lies within the settlement boundary within which development is normally permitted subject to the criteria outlined in relevant policies being satisfied and other material considerations. The development proposal seeks to change the use of a terraced dwelling (C3) to a house in multiple occupation that falls into Class C4. Alexandra Street is a residential area where dwellings generally have a mix of two and three storeys. To the best of my knowledge the majority of dwellings have a single occupancy, although planning records confirm that planning permission has been granted to convert a small number of dwellings to flats. I also confirm that at the north end of Alexandra Street there is a multi-storey building containing flats (Llys Ebwy). The proposed use of the property for residential purposes is therefore compatible in land use terms (Policy DM1 2a). The sub-division and proposed use of the property has been described in some detail at the beginning of my report and the description of development specifies a 5 person facility and must be determined on this basis. What cannot be specified at this stage is who will occupy the property should permission be granted. There is no indication that the change of use is intended to provide sheltered accommodation or facilities for supported living. As such the nature and type of residents and their behaviour is speculative and must not form the basis for consideration of this application. Additionally families can generate a high level of activity at a property e.g. multiple school runs, extra activities, working patterns, outdoor play, and it should not be assumed that the proposed HMO would generate more or less activity or that future residents would cause nuisance or disturbance that would affect the amenity of neighbours. My concerns in this case relate primarily to potential number of vehicles and lack of parking facilities at and around the property. Whilst it should not be assumed that all tenants would have access to a car, with five bedrooms the potential exists for each occupant to own a vehicle and adequate provision should be made to meet parking requirements should permission be granted. The Council’s adopted SPG requires development of this type to provide one parking space per bedroom up to a maximum number of three spaces, and 1 visitor space per 5 units (total 4). The development therefore falls short of adopted guidance as it is proposed only to provide one space in the existing garage at the rear. The Council’s Highways Engineer has therefore objected to the development on this basis. He has confirmed that kerb side parking in this location is extensive and is of the view that granting permission for the development would exacerbate the situation. There is also concern that granting permission would set a precedent for future similar


proposals which would further compound highway and parking problems. Policy DM1 3 a) and d) require development proposal to have regard for the safe, effective and efficient use of the transportation network and to provide appropriate parking. Given that the proposed development fails to meet adopted parking standards and will potentially give rise to additional on street parking in an area that already experiences high levels of vehicle congestion, the development is contrary to the above LDP policy. I am mindful of the fall-back position for the development site i.e. that the property could resume use as a family home whereby a number occupants may own or have access to a number of vehicles. Current parking would not necessarily meet the needs of those occupants but given its established use as a dwelling planning could not exercise control over existing parking provision. I have also considered whether there is scope to provide additional parking, a matter which has been discussed with both the Council’s Highways Engineer and the agent. The only place where this may have been possible is on the site of the existing green house which it to be removed. However I have measured the resultant area on plan (4.55m x 1.75m) and noted that it falls short of the space required to provide adequate parking and movement in and out of a vehicle (2.4m x 4.8m). The agent indicated that the existing disabled space could be re-designated for general use, however such provision falls outside the remit or control of the applicant and therefore cannot be taken into account in meeting the parking needs of the property. Thirdly I have, in discussion with the Council’s Highways Engineer, considered whether a reduction in parking spaces might be acceptable in this location. Appendix 5 to the Council’s SPG identifies the sustainability criteria and point system which may justify such reduction. Such factors include walking distance to local facilities, public transport and cycle routes and the frequency of local public transport services. Taking these factors into account, the Highways Engineer and I have concluded that a reduction of one space could be justified, bringing the shortfall in parking to two spaces. In a residential street that experiences high levels of kerb side parking and vehicle congestion, such a shortfall is unsustainable and will only exacerbate the current situation. Policy DM1 3 b of the adopted LDP states that development proposals should be designed to a standard that prioritises the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport before that of the private car. I note that provision is made for the storage of cycles within the rear garden and that the site offers easy access to local facilities and public transport for pedestrians. As it cannot be assumed that all residents will have cars so it cannot be assumed that all residents will be cyclists or


non-drivers. A balance must therefore be achieved to ensure the transport needs of all potential residents are met and the amenity of existing residents and highway safety are not prejudiced by the development.




Having had due regard for existing and proposed site circumstances and the requirements of LDP Policy DM1 3. I consider on balance that there is insufficient justification for allowing a development which fails to provide adequate parking facilities to meet the potential needs of the proposed development in an area where the public highway is already congested. I therefore recommend that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The development proposal has insufficient on site parking provision to meet the needs of the development. This is likely to result in an increase in on street parking which would exacerbate existing congestion to the detriment of the highway network in the vicinity. As such the proposal contravenes Policy DM1 (3) a and d of the Council’s adopted Local Development Plan and the parking requirements outlined in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘access, Car Parking and Design’.


None

Report Date: 16/03/18 Report Author: Justin Waite

Planning Report

Application No:

C/2018/0019 App Type: Retention Application

Applicant: Agent:

Miss Carol Frowen 13 Pen-y-Bont Tredegar

Mr Greg Williams 5 Rowan Way Blaenavon

Site Address:

Brynhyfryd, Trefil,Tredegar

Development:

Retention of earthworks to re-profile land



This application seeks planning permission for the retention earthworks that have been undertaken in order to re-profile land at Brynhyfryd, Trefil Tredegar. The purpose of the earthworks is to create a more usable space. The earthworks have primarily comprised of a cut and fill operation, involving the removal of an existing mound covering an area of approximately 138 m2 and the infill of an existing basin covering an area of approximately 258 m2. Topsoil has also been imported on to the site covering an area of approximately 996 m2. The level


plateau created sits approximately 5 metres above the access road at Railway Terrace. The majority of earthwork operations were complete at the time of my site visit, with only minor spreading of topsoil still to be undertaken. The application site is located to the north east of the semi-detached, residential properties of Brynhyfryd and Bryn Glas. The site is accessed off an un-adopted road which follows on from the highway at railway terrace. An access track also runs from the un-adopted road up on to the earthworks at its northern edge. The adjoining land falls to the south and west towards residential properties and the access road respectively. In contrast, the adjoining land rises to the north towards the concrete plant and beyond to Trefil Quarry and to the east towards open upland.

2. Site History

No relevant planning history.



Team Leader Building Control: Building regulations approval not required. Team Manager Development Management Enforcement: Planning Compliance Officer has stated that a complaint was raising concerns as to earthworks and the importation of soil. A site visit confirmed that engineering earthworks were ongoing which required planning permission and that the works are currently in breach. Vegetation had been removed and the profile of the hillslope back battered. Soil had also been imported from a nearby field in order infill depressions and re-profile the plateau on top of the hillslope. Service Manager Infrastructure: Highways: No objection to the application. Drainage: No objection to the application. Ground Stability: No objection subject to the developer ensuring that earthworks have no detrimental effect on local drainage points and all fill material is suitable and does not contain any hazardous material. Landscape: Object in its current form due to the loss of green infrastructure on the site.


However, the concerns can be overcome through the preparation of a compensatory landscape strategy for the site, including a 10 year management plan. Ecology: Holding objection subject to the submission of landscaping plan which includes replanting of native species, particularly along the road edge. Service Manager Public Protection: Specialist Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection. External Consultation Responses

Town / Community Council: Tredegar Town Council highlights the loss of mature trees as result of the earthworks and questions whether they will be replanted. The material imported on to the site should also be returned to its original site at Ty Teulu and reformed as part of the historical landscape. Natural Resources Wales: No objection to the application. Welsh Water: Standard advice provided relating to possibility of unrecorded public sewers and lateral drains. Public Consultation: Strikethrough to delete as appropriate


2 site notice(s)

1 press notice




other Response: No comments received.

4. Planning Policy

Team Manager Development Plans: Planning Policy broadly support the development as it is not considered to be


inappropriate in this countryside location. Further consideration should however be given to the impact on visual and residential amenity, landscape and ecological compensation measures, land stability, land contamination, surface water runoff, risk to the quality of controlled waters, and waste matters. LDP Policies: SP10 Protection and Enhancement SP12 Securing an Adequate Supply of Minerals DM1 New Development DM2 Design and Placemaking DM15 Protection and Enhancement of the Green Infrastructure. DM16 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerow Protection DM19 Mineral Safeguarding SB1 Settlement Boundaries ENV2 Special Landscape Areas M1 Mineral Safeguarding M2 Mineral Buffer Zones PPW & TANs: Planning Policy Wales (Edition 9, November 2016) Technical Advice Note: Waste 21 (February, 2014)


Principle of development The application site is located outside the settlement boundary (Policy SB1) where the aim is to prevent inappropriate development. No change of use of the land has been undertaken to date and earthwork operations are not uncommon within countryside locations. I therefore consider the earthworks to be acceptable in principle. Waste As part of the earthwork operation, soil has been imported from a nearby site at Ty Teulu, Trefil. The material was derived from an existing earth mound and was transported a short distance to the application site. The material is considered to meet the definition of waste taken from Article 3(1) of the Waste Framework Directive. This states that “waste means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”. Technical Advice Note (TAN) 21: Waste (February, 2014) sets out the requirement for a Waste Planning Assessment to accompany waste related applications and one has duly been submitted. TAN 21 also stipulates that the Waste Planning Assessment should be appropriate and proportionate to the nature, size and scale of the development proposed (paragraph 4.2).


The submitted Waste Management Statement states that the imported material has been spread out across the site to provide a layer of topsoil that will facilitate the regrowth of vegetation and create a more natural appearance within the landscape. As a waste management option, this falls within the category of disposal, which is the least favoured option within the waste hierarchy. Planning Policy Wales (Edition 9, November 2016) identifies the waste hierarchy a key starting point for all types of waste management proposals and TAN 21 states that the waste hierarchy demonstrates that the disposal of inert waste (which includes soil/earth) is not acceptable in most circumstances and will require exceptional justification (paragraph 4.23). However, the latter also lists potential exceptional circumstances, which includes, amongst other things, the use of inert material to address landscape issues and to enable the land to be used for an appropriate end use. As indicated above, the purpose of the earthwork operation is to create a more useable space and the imported material will facilitate the regrowth of vegetation and allow the new landform to better integrate with the surrounding landscape. The amount of waste disposal undertaken was limited to the material taken from the earth mound Ty Teulu and I note that Natural Resources Wales (NRW), who advise on matters relating to the waste hierarchy, have raised no objection to the earthwork operation. I therefore consider the disposal of waste material as part of the earthworks operation to be justified, in this instance. TAN 21 also states that waste management must be carried out without endangering human health and causing harm to the environment (paragraph 2.11). In terms of the risk posed by the disposal of inert waste, the imported material is unlikely to be contaminated or hazardous as it has originated from land associated with agriculture. The Specialist Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the earthworks and NRW is also satisfied that the development does not pose a risk to the principal aquifer and source protection zone that underlies the site. Visual and Landscape The application site is located within Trefil and Garnlydan Surrounds Special Landscape Area where development is expected to conform to the highest standards of design, siting and layout and materials appropriate to the character of the area (Policy ENV2.7). As the application is for the retention of the earthworks, it is not possible to comprehensively assess the visual and landscape impacts of the development. However, aerial imagery reveals that the application site and adjoining land within the ownership of the applicant, was previously characterised by a more natural landform with extensive vegetation cover, including a significant number of trees. Much of the vegetation and trees have now been removed and the earthwork operation has created a utilitarian landform with a more ‘man-made’ appearance. As such, I am opinion that the development has had a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.


However, I also acknowledge that much of the harm caused by the removal of green infrastructure (vegetation, trees etc.) was done without the need for planning permission. Moreover, the surrounding land to the north and east has previously been disturbed by the extraction of minerals and tipping of overburden material which has blended, to some extent, into the landscape over time. As, such, I do not consider the earthworks to be wholly out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. However, I also agree with the advice of the Team Manager – Green Infrastructure that a compensatory landscape scheme is required to allow important green infrastructure features to be replaced and enable the earthworks to blend more appropriately into the landscape. An appropriate landscape scheme and management plan can be secured via a condition. Amenity The earthworks operation has primarily involved the movement of material within the application site from an existing earth mound and to a basin. This enabled the creation of a more level plateau, which provides a more usable space. The cross section drawing of the level plateau confirms that the overall height of the land has not be been increased and I am opinion that the development has not had an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the closest residential properties at Brynhyfryd and Bryn Glas in terms of overbearing or overshadowing. Ecology It is not possible to retrospectively assess whether the earthworks operation had an unacceptable impact on ecology within the application site. I do, however, note that the application site is not covered by any statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations. Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Ecologist has indicated that the required landscaping scheme should incorporate native species in order to secure biodiversity benefits. Highways The Team Leader – Highways and Development has confirmed that any traffic movements associated with this type of earthworks operation are temporary in nature and can be accommodated within the highway network. However, as the earthworks are almost complete, no further traffic movements are anticipated. Land Stability and Drainage The Infrastructure Manager has raised no objection to the earthworks subject to the use of suitable fill material and there being no detrimental effect on local drainage points. The developer is responsible for ensuring that all fill material is suitable for the earthworks undertaken and the Council’s Drainage Engineer has raised no objection to the development in relation to drainage matters.


Minerals The application site is located within an aggregate safeguarding area within which development proposals are not permitted where they would permanently sterilize the aggregate resource (Policies M1 and DM19). The development does not, however, involve a change of use of the land or the erection of buildings that would permanently sterilize the aggregate resource. I also note that the application site is located within a mineral buffer zone of Trefil Quarry (Policy M2.1). The development does not, however, involve the introduction of a sensitive land use that would prejudice the extraction of the limestone aggregate or the operation of the mineral site. Other Matters Tredegar Town Council has stated that the material imported on to the site should be returned to its original site at Ty Teulu and reformed as part of the historical landscape. The engineering operation that was undertaken at Ty Teulu is a separate planning matter to this planning application, and Planning Committee has previously resolved that it is not expedient to instigate enforcement action in respect of that matter.




Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development shall be completed in full accordance with the following

approved plans: • Block Plan/Construction Phase Plan, Drawing No. GW/1709/PA/101, Revision B, stamped received 1st November 2017 • Cross Section A, Drawing No. GW/1709/PA/102, Revision B, stamped received 1st November 2017 • Cross Section B + C, Drawing No. GW/1709/PA/103, stamped received 1st November 2017


Unless otherwise specified or required by conditions below. Reason: To clearly define the scope of this permission.

2. Within 6 months of the date of this decision details shall be submitted for the

written approval of the Local Planning Authority of a scheme of landscaping. The submitted scheme shall include:- a) details of ground preparation, planting plans, number and details of species; b) maintenance details for a minimum period of 5 years; and c) a phased timescale of implementation. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise specified or required by condition 3 below. Reason: To ensure submission of an appropriate landscaping scheme and to secure a development that makes a positive contribution to the landscape and visual amenities of the area.

3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping

shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the date of written approval of the scheme of landscaping or any alternative timescale that may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs or plants which within a minimum period of 5 years from implementation of the planting scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced by one of the same species and size in the next available planting season.

Reason: To ensure timely implementation of an appropriate landscaping scheme.

Informative: 1. The landscaping scheme should incorporate native species, where appropriate,

in order to provide biodiversity benefits.


None


Planning Report

Application No:

C/2017/0346 App Type: Retention Application

Applicant: Agent:

Mr Christian Penny 37 Bennett Street Blaina Abertillery

Mr Terry Morgan Clifton House Westside Blaina Abertillery

Site Address:

37 Bennett Street Blaina

Development:

Retention of a garden room / exercise room annex.

Case Officer: Joanne White



Planning permission was granted, subject to conditions, in 2013 for a garden room with exercise room/cycle store above within the rear garden area of 37 Bennett Street, Blaina. However, the building which has been erected has not built in accordance with the approved plans. This application therefore seeks permission to retain the outbuilding as built. Prior to permission being granted in 2013, the property benefited from a ground floor store (at garden level) with a modest pre-fabricated garage above, fronting and accessing onto Coronation Street. The application site is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings set back from the other properties along the street. Unlike the other properties along Bennett Street, numbers 37 and 38 have the majority of their garden amenity space to the frontage, hence their rear garden areas are significantly shorter than those of other properties within the street. Coronation Street runs parallel to the rear of the properties, at a higher level. Due to the sloping nature of the site, the proposed building is single storey when viewed from Coronation Street but two storey when viewed from the west (within the gardens of 37 and 38 Bennett Street). As such, the ridge height of the outbuilding as constructed aligns with the ridge heights of the application property and the adjoining property. The differences between the approved outbuilding and what has been constructed on site are summarised as follows:

It is approximately 0.4m higher than approved;

It is 1.95m longer;

250mm gaps between the side walls of the approved building and adjacent property boundaries, as shown on the approved plans have not been provided;

A 600mm gap shown on the plans between the rear wall of the exercise room and the public footpath to the rear has not been provided;

The approved plans indicated that the structure would not affect the existing retaining wall to the rear. However, the retaining wall was removed and the new structure, which incorporates new retaining walls on three sides have been constructed. The new retaining walls support the neighbouring land both sides and the adopted highway to the rear. A Design Certificate has been submitted by a qualified engineer to confirm the integrity/structural adequacy of the retaining walls as constructed.

2. Site History

Ref No Details Decision C/2013/0177 Proposed garden room with

exercise room/cycle store above.

Approved 06/08/2013




Team Leader Building Control: Building Regulations application already submitted. Enforcement The application has been submitted as a result of an enforcement complaint. The complainant has been notified. Service Manager Infrastructure: Highways: No objections Drainage: No objections Structures: Satisfied that the Design Certificate submitted covers the integrity of the retaining walls. External Consultation Responses

Town / Community Council: Expressed concerns as to the ongoing dispute with regards to the encroachment onto the neighbour’s land. The Town Council is of the opinion that all the required aspects of this legal issue would need to be finalised to the satisfaction of all involved prior to any agreement on the planning application is granted. Welsh Water: Advised that the application site is crossed by a public sewer and that no development will be permitted within the safety zone which is measured either side of the centre line of the sewer. Public Consultation: Strikethrough to delete as appropriate

4 x letters to nearby houses

site notice(s)

press notice




other Response: 1 neighbour letter (44 Coronation Street) was returned as being ‘no such address’.


A letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring property owner. The main objections refer to two issues:

The application is for a retrospective application to retain a larger building that is already encroaching on the legal boundaries between 37 and 38 Bennett Street;

The original plans for the building related to a garden room but the emerging building by reason of its size and mass is having an unacceptable adverse effect on the amenities of the objector’s property by reason of its visually overbearing impact.

Photos, a timeline of events and a letter from a Chartered Building Surveyors accompanied the objection letter. The surveyors letter refers to a basic inspection carried out from the rear of 38 Bennett Street. It concluded that the built garden room had not been constructed parallel to the legal boundary between no.37 and no.38 and the south-western section of the building encroached beyond the legal boundary, onto their clients property at number 38. The letter acknowledged however that the site inspection was basic and that a full measured survey would be required to identify the extent of any encroachment. A further detailed letter from the Chartered Surveyor (provided by the neighbour) confirmed that a measured survey had been conducted. The letter concludes that the outbuilding to the rear of 37 Bennett Street (and the initially approved building) encroaches onto their client’s property. It is claimed that this encroachment over the legal boundary varies between 265mm – 442mm. The degree of encroachment varies due to the alignment of the structure and account for that caused by any overhang of rainwater goods. The applicants agent has confirmed however, on two separate occasions (in response to queries raised by this office) that his client is satisfied that the current planning application is accompanied by the correct Certificate of ownership (Certificate ‘A’) and that he is the sole owner of the application site.


The principle of a two storey outbuilding in the rear garden has already been established. The main issue in considering the current application is whether the increase in size and height and the change to the positioning of the outbuilding is acceptable in planning terms. The width of the building has not altered from that originally approved and is not positioned any further south. Members are advised that whilst the neighbour has objected to this application on the basis that the building encroaches onto his land, land ownership disputes are a civil matter and are rarely a material planning consideration that goes to the heart of whether permission should be granted.

When submitting a planning application, the applicant is required to certify whether


the development is on the applicant’s land or encroaches onto a third party ownership. Members will note from the above that the accuracy of the submitted certificate of ownership has been questioned and the agent has confirmed in writing that his client is satisfied that he is the sole owner of the application site. Any further disputes in relation to this issue are therefore civil matters to be resolved between the relevant parties and should not influence the determination of this application. Having looked at the officer’s report from the previously approved scheme I note that the officer requested revisions at that time to reduce the height of the outbuilding. The outbuilding as originally proposed in 2013 was 4.8m high as measured from Coronation Street to apex with an overall height of 7m high (from garden level). This amounted to an increase in height of 2m compared to the garage/store that was there originally. The officer at the time considered the mass could be reduced by lowering the roof pitch. Consequently, revised drawings were submitted indicating an overall height of approximately 6.3m, which was then approved. I acknowledge that the outbuilding as previously approved was a substantial structure. However, the overall height of the outbuilding that has now been constructed is approximately 6.7m, some 0.4m higher than what was approved. The length has also been increased by 1.95m and the position of the building within the curtilage has changed. The building is now sited 600mm closer to Coronation Street and is now 1.35m closer to the house. The distance from the outbuilding as constructed to the applicant’s rear extension (and that of number 38) is approximately 5.3m. Having viewed the outbuilding from both within the application site and from within the curtilage of the neighbouring property at number 38, I consider that the building as constructed has an overbearing impact upon the amenity of the occupiers of 38 Bennett Street (indeed, at the time of the previous application the officer had already expressed concern regarding the potential mass of the originally proposed structure and had negotiated a reduction in the height of the building in order to make the development acceptable). The building that has been constructed not only exceeds the height of what was considered acceptable at that time, but the length as well. It is apparent from reviewing the planning file in relation to the previous application that the development as approved was viewed as being on the limits of what might be acceptable from a residential amenity perspective and within its setting. I am satisfied that due to the high boundary treatments between 37 and 38 Bennett Street and the high level windows on the upper floor of the outbuilding, the potential for overlooking from the outbuilding into the neighbours garden is minimal. I also


note that there are no first floor windows on the gable end projection to 38 Bennett Street. With regards to the impact upon the neighbour to the north (36 Bennett Street) the proposed outbuilding is in excess of 20m away. I am therefore satisfied that the increase in height and length will not have an adverse overbearing or overlooking impact from their perspective. Having viewed the outbuilding in the context of the street scene along Coronation Street and from the rear curtilages of properties within Bennett Street, I am of the opinion that the structure by virtue of its scale, form and height is an overly dominant curtilage building. Notwithstanding that only the first floor can be seen from Coronation Street (and thus would appear as a single storey building), I consider it to be an intrusive feature in a street scene that is relatively devoid of such development. Its position at a higher level and in close proximity to the main dwelling and neighbouring property (number 38) further emphasises the mass of the building giving it undue prominence and introduces a form of development that appears overbearing and incongruous. Such development runs contrary to the advice contained in the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for ‘Householders: Note 2 – Garages and Outbuildings’ Whilst acknowledging that the width of the outbuilding has not changed from that previously approved in 2013, it is considered that the additional length and increased height results in a building of an unacceptable visual impact. Again, I acknowledge that whilst there are garages further along Bennett Street that front Coronation Street they are considerably smaller in scale than the building that has been constructed and the majority of which do not front residential properties. As mentioned earlier in my report, new retaining walls have been constructed to the rear and sides of the lower level of the building (garden room, part of which supports the adjoining adopted highway). A design certificate has been submitted, signed by a suitably qualified engineer, to confirm the integrity of the walls. The Council’s structural engineer has confirmed that he is satisfied that the certificate covers the integrity of the wall. In conclusion, I recommend that the application be refused for two reasons. Firstly, I consider the outbuilding as constructed has an unacceptable overbearing impact upon the amenity of the adjacent occupiers (at number 38). Secondly, having regard to its size, height and position, the development results in a structure that is out of context with its surroundings and is a form of development that appears overbearing within its locality. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Local Development Plan Policies DM1(2)b,c, DM2(a) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Householder Design Guidance (February 2016)


In terms of process, I am aware that there is a boundary dispute. It is alleged that the structure encroaches onto land within the ownership of 38 Bennett Street. This is a matter for the neighbours to resolve. It has not influenced my consideration of the planning merits. I am content that the Council is entitled to deal with the application and no party has been prejudiced by the disputed certification.




Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason(s):

1. The garden room/exercise room annex by virtue of its increased height and length results in a structure of inappropriate scale and mass which has an unacceptable overbearing impact upon the level of amenity that the occupiers of the adjacent property can reasonably expect to enjoy from their dwelling and associated curtilage, contrary to Local Development Plan Policy DM1(2)c.

2. The garden room/exercise room annex by virtue of its mass and position is considered to be out of context with its surroundings and is a form of development that appears overbearing within its locality, contrary to Local Development Plan policy DM1(2)b, DM2(a) and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Householder Design Guidance (February 2016).


Granting planning permission contrary to the recommendation of this report undermines the principles of the adopted LDP policies. Such a decision would demonstrate an inconsistent approach in the planning process.

Refusing to grant planning permission gives the applicant the right to lodge an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s decision. Members are reminded that should the application be refused, the applicant could revert to the previously approved scheme. This may still cause a land ownership dispute. However, this is a civil matter between the applicant and neighbour and should not sway any planning decision.


Planning Report

Application No:


Applicant: Agent:

Mr Gerald Williams Horizons Educare Ynystawe Swansea

Ron Bagshaw & Associates Limited Mr Ronald Bagshaw Woodfield House Rosser Terrace Cilfrew Neath

Site Address:

8 Woodland Walk Tanglewood Blaina

Development:

Change of use from a Dwelling (C3) to a Care Home (C2) together with the conversion of the integral garage into an office.




This application seeks planning permission to change the use of a detached dwelling (use class C3 (a)) to a residential care home (use class C2). Internal alterations to the building are limited to the conversion of the existing integral garage to an office and the conversion of the lower ground floor sitting room to a bedroom, creating five bedrooms in total. Externally, the garage door would be replaced with a window that would match the existing windows on the front elevation of the building and the existing driveway would be widened to accommodate five off-street car parking spaces. The proposed residential care home would accommodate a maximum of 5 children who would be cared for by non-resident staff working a shift pattern. Staffing levels at the care home would vary between 3 to 5 members of staff during the day and between 2 to 3 members of staff during the night. The children would be autistic or have social/emotional difficulties and would be aged between the ages of 10-18. The intention is to create an environment where children and staff live together as a single family. The application site is located within the residential estate of Tanglewood located to the north east of Blaina local centre. The site is surrounded by existing residential properties apart from the adjacent land to the east, which forms part of the wider Tanglewood housing development that is yet to be developed. The detached dwelling is three-storey in height and currently accommodates 4 bedrooms. The garden to the rear is enclosed by timber fencing, while the front of the garden is open with access to the existing parking area. The remainder of the northern and southern side boundaries comprise of a low rise retaining wall and close board fencing respectively.

2. Site History


8140 162 dwellings and access (Outline)

Planning permission granted 28th January 1991.

9040 61 dwellings, play area, roads and landscaping (Reserved Matters)

Approved 16th September 1991.

97/0232 Residential development (Outline) Planning permission granted 11th November 1997.

98/0324 Phased residential development, associated landscaping and external works (Reserved Matters)

Approved 9th December 1998.

2004/0608 Residential development including access, siting and landscaping, Phase 4

Planning permission granted 7th October 2005.


2005/0065 Construction of three storey dwelling, Plot 22, Phase 4

Planning permission granted 31st October 2005.



Team Leader Building Control: Building Regulations required Service Manager Infrastructure: Highways: No objection subject to the proposed five off-street car parking spaces being hard surfaced and fully constructed prior to the facility becoming operational. The parking areas should be maintained thereafter. Service Manager Public Protection: No objection raised by the Environmental Health Officer Social Services: Indicated that the department has recently made 4 placements with Horizons Educare in their existing homes within the Swansea area and confirmed that involvement with the provider to date has been positive. Also indicated that whilst the provider has not engaged with the department on the proposed development, it is felt that the care home in this area would be of benefit. External Consultation Responses

Town / Community Council: Nantyglo and Blaina Town Council has reservations over the proposed change of use to a care home, due to its location within a predominantly residential area and the lack of information regarding the proposed use. Welsh Water: No objection subject to no surface water arising from any increase in impermeable surfaces within the curtilage of the property draining directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system. Gwent Police: Consulted via the weekly list of applications and no comments received. Public Consultation: Strikethrough to delete as appropriate

8 x letters to nearby houses and 1x letter to Mayfair Construction (Developer of the adjacent housing site)


1 site notice(s)

press notice




Officers attended a public meeting with 3 local members to explain the proposal to concerned residents

Response: 36 letters of objection and 1 petition signed by the occupiers of 96 properties have been received. The objections raised are summarised as follows:

There is insufficient off-street and on-street car parking available to meet the needs of the proposed care home. This will add to road congestion on the narrowed part of the highway adjacent to the application site, potentially resulting in increased danger to pedestrians, cyclists and children playing in the street.

Insufficient information has been provided in respect of visitors and, as such, there is the potential for multiple visitors per child and other servicing requirements which would increase levels of traffic (cars and mini buses) to the detriment of highway safety.

Highway and parking problems already exist with residents currently using vacant plots for off-street car parking and cars parking along the access road to the housing estate, particularly during school start and finish times. The completion of the housing estate will also continue to generate a significant amount of construction traffic and any commercial bin collections would further increase traffic levels.

The residential area is only accessible by car and the roads are prone to be inaccessible during the winter. In respect of the latter, concerns are raised over how the care facility will cope during winter months.

Insufficient information has been submitted to explain how the building will be used and adapted, how disabled visitors and staff will be provided for and how the driveway and access to the building will be improved.

The proposed care home is out of character and incompatible with this wholly residential area.

The residential area has no access to public transport or other public facilities.

The proposed care home conflicts with the site’s allocation as a housing commitment for 78 units (LDP Policies SP4, SP5 and HC1.27). The loss of this large house, which is suitable for multi-generational living, would be detrimental to the need for housing within the County Borough.

The proposed care home will reduce the desirability of the area and potentially


harm the feasibility of developing some, if not all, of the undeveloped plots. In particular, plots 40 and 41, which are located to the rear of the application site, could become undevelopable. The proposal would therefore jeopardise the completion of the site – which has struggled to be developed since 2004 – and future council tax generation.

Property values within this exclusive residential development could be adversely affected.

The change of use to a C2 use class (described as residential institutions) would allow the property to be used for other types of C2 uses without the need for planning permission. If approved, a planning condition should be imposed to control the future uses of the building within this use class.

The change of use to a care facility would allow the property to be used for any business purpose and would set a precedent for further applications on the housing estate.

The proposed 24 hour operation would have a detrimental impact in terms of light and noise pollution, potential vibration and odour.

An increase on off-street car parking to the front of the property would have a detrimental impact on the street scene, due to the number of cars and the loss of soft landscaping.

There are insufficient leisure and outdoor playing opportunities for the children, and the garden of the property is not of sufficient size to accommodate the number of children, particularly given their social and behavioural issues.

Health and safety risk to children residing at the care facility as a result of the ongoing construction of the housing estate.

No justification has been provided for the proposed care facility at this location.

No analysis of the potential impact on the local community, community engagement or pre-planning enquiring application has been undertaken.

There is a lack of sufficient information, including the submission of a design and access statement, to make an informed view.

Concerns over young adolescents breaking free from the facility and causing antisocial behaviour.

The long term viability of Horizon Educare is questionable based on the accounts submitted to Companies House.

The property is not of an adequate, size, design or space to provide the requirements for a care home for children, and a question is raised over whether the Council has ensured that the property and proposed care facility meets the requirements of relevant care home regulations.

Blaina, which is recognised by the LDP as a “local centre to serve local needs” is not a suitable location for a care home as the children will need to be transported to larger town such as Brynmawr, Abertillery and Ebbw Vale in order to utilise relevant facilities.

The proposed care facility breaches Article 1(Protection of Property), Part II,


Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of the entitlement of the community around the application property to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

A request has been received from both Councillors Garth Collier and Lisa Winnett for the application to go before Planning Committee for determination. Councillor Lisa Winnett has also raised concerns relating to car parking, highway safety, the size of the garden area, the possible negative impact on the amenity of residents, the distance to local parks and transport, and the effect of adverse weather conditions during winter months.

4. Planning Policy

Team Manager Development Plans: Planning Policy broadly support the proposed development subject to it meeting relevant criteria within Policies DM1 and DM2 in relation to amenity, accessibility and design. LDP Policies: SP4 Delivering Quality Housing SP5 Spatial Distribution of Housing HC1 Housing Commitments DM1 New Development DM2 Design and Placemaking

Access, Car Parking and Design Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (March 2014)


Requirement for Planning Permission As indicated above, the applicant’s intention is to create an environment that allows children and staff to live together as a single family. While each child would have their own bedroom, the majority of the remaining rooms and facilities are shared between the staff and children, including the kitchen/dining area, lounges, toilets and bathroom. The only room that would be used separately to the rest of the building is the proposed office, which would be restricted to staff and locked when not in use. The staff would provide day to day supervision in a parental role and will undertake domestic duties, such as preparing and sharing meals, cleaning and taking the children to appointments and activities within the community. The building is, therefore, likely to retain a number of characteristics that are similar to the existing residential use in terms of both its physical condition and the nature of its use. As such, careful consideration has been given to whether the proposed use actually falls within use class C2 (residential care home as applied for) or more appropriately falls within use C3(b), which relates to the use of building as


dwellinghouse by not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents. The judgement is not clear cut and is made more difficult by the degree of uncertainty over the precise number and frequency of visits to the proposed care home by professionals. On balance, I am of the opinion that the proposal falls within use class C2 and would result in a material change of use. If the conclusion had been use class C3(b), planning permission would not be required. I reached my conclusion for the following reasons: the carers would be non-resident and remain awake throughout the night, which is not typical of a normal household; and there would be an increase in the comings and goings and general activity at the property as a result of the staff’s shift patterns and the potential increase in visitors. It should however be noted that whilst I am satisfied that there is sufficient difference between the existing residential use and the proposed care home for a material change of use to occur, this only means that planning permission is required. It does not imply that the proposal is different from the existing residential use, or necessarily mean that the proposal is inappropriate in land use terms or would result in unacceptable impacts. The remainder of the report covers these matters in more detail. Principle of Development The Blaenau Gwent Local Development Plan (LDP) indicates that the application is located within the settlement boundary (Policy SB1) within which development is generally permitted subject to policies in the plan and other material considerations. As indicated above, the characteristics of the proposed care home are similar in many respects to those of a residential use with the children and staff living together as a single family as closely as possible. It is not uncommon for care homes to be located in close proximity to residential properties and I am of the opinion that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The application site falls within housing commitment HC1.27 Cwm Farm Blaina and a number of objections have been received stating that the proposal conflicts Policy HC1 and other related strategic housing policies. This housing commitment is based on the planning permission for housing development that covered the site at the time of LDP preparation, and the allocation of 78 units reflects the number of units still to be delivered on this 9.01 hectare site as of 1st April 2009. The application property was, however, built by 2009 and as such, does not form part of the new housing figures identified within LDP Policies SP4, SP5 and HC1. Notwithstanding the fact that the application property does not contribute to the LDP’s housing requirement, it should be recognised that proposed housing numbers on housing allocations are generally regarded as indicative. Moreover, even if the application property was part of the LDP’s housing requirement, I would


not have considered its loss to an alternative use to be unacceptable in the context of an overall housing requirement for 3,500 dwellings across the County Borough. I acknowledge that there is a need for more detached dwellings within the County Borough; however, this Council’s Social Services Department has stated that the proposed care home would be beneficial to the area, indicating that there is also a current need for this type of residential use. I also note that the limited alterations to the application property would not prevent it being brought back into its original residential use as a C3 dwelling in the future, if circumstances change. In addition, the LDP does not contain any policies which prevent the change of use of residential properties to alternative uses. Such applications must therefore be considered on their merits and I am of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable in land use terms. Highways and Parking With regard to vehicular movements to and from the property, the number of staff at the care home would vary between 3 to 5 during the day and between 2 to 3 during the night. During the staff handover period between 21.00 and 22.00 there will be a maximum of 6 staff at the property. While parents will very rarely meet with the children at the care home, other professionals, such as social workers, nurses, tutors and psychologists, may need to visit depending on the needs of the children. The applicant has, however, indicated that the children will use health and education facilities within the community, where possible. The children would be transported to these facilities primarily by existing staff, but on occasion a taxi service arranged by the local authority could take a child to school. If a home tutor is required there will be one per care home and other professionals will visit on less frequent basis. For example, social workers visit a maximum of once a month per child but more generally once every three months. The applicant has confirmed that professional visits are staggered and there would not be a group of professionals visiting together. No additional support services, such as cleaning, laundry or commercial waste services would be required. In terms of car parking, the Council’s supplementary planning guidance entitled “Access, Car Parking and Design” (March 2014) requires 1 space per 3 non-resident staff and 1 space per bedroom. The proposed 5 off-street car parking spaces are therefore in accordance with the SPG and the Team Leader – Highways and Development has raised no objection to the proposal subject to proposed car parking spaces being hard surfaced and fully constructed prior to the care home becoming operational. This requirement can be secured via an appropriately worded condition. A number of the objections received relate to concerns over the lack of available on-street car parking and other highway safety issues relating to the design of the


highway network and the parking of cars on the access road to housing estate during school time. Whilst it is possible that the proposed care home would result in some on-street parking, this is likely to occur when professionals visit the property during normal working hours when many residents of Woodland Walk would be at work. The amount of space available for on-street parking during this period would therefore be more than sufficient to safely accommodate any overspill car parking from the proposed care home. The Team Leader – Highways and Development has also indicated that all existing dwellings at Woodland Walk are afforded dedicated off-street parking provision and the roadways serving the site have been designed to be of sufficient width to accommodate any on-street parking requirements of residents or visitors. Moreover, he has confirmed that there is no evidence to suggest that Woodland Walk experiences any on-street parking congestion that would justify the refusal of the application. With regards to the adequacy of the wider highway network serving the Tanglewood housing estate, the Team Leader – Highways Development has indicated that this residential development has been designed to accommodate traffic movements associated with a maximum of 300 dwellings. As the whole residential development is not anticipated to exceed 200 dwellings when completed, it is considered that there is adequate highway capacity to accommodate the proposed care home. Visual Impact External works associated with the proposed care home are limited to the replacement of a garage door with a window and infill brickwork on the front elevation of the building, and the extension of the existing driveway to accommodate additional off-street car parking. The proposed window would complement the position, size and design of existing windows on the front elevation and would be keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building as whole. The loss of the existing integral garage results in the need for a replacement car parking space, and I note the objections relating to the visual impact of additional car parking to the front of the building. However, having taken measurements on site, it is apparent that the existing parking area would need to be extended by no more than 1m in order to provide the 5 car parking spaces that are required. Off-street car parking to the front of properties along Woodland Walk is a characteristic of the street scene and the loss of no more than 1 m of the grassed landscaped area would not, in my view, have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, any detrimental impact caused through the loss of soft landscaping would be off-set to some extent by the requirement to replace the parking area’s existing gravel surface with hard surfacing. I am also mindful that this four bedroom detached property could accommodate a large family with a


relatively high level of car ownership, and if additional visitors (domestic cleaners, private tutors etc.) were required at the property, the impact on the street scene would be similar to that of the proposed care home. Amenity As indicated above, the care provider seeks to create an environment which allows the staff and children to live together as a single family, and in many respects the proposed care home would not result in any greater impacts on the amenity of neighbours than those that would arise from a large family living at the property. There are, however, certain characteristics of the proposed care home that would differ from an average family, such as the vehicular movements due to shift patterns and visitors, and the night working. With regard to vehicular movements to and from the property, this would be greater than normal. However, the timing of the majority of the vehicular movements would coincide with normal daily activity relating to work and school journeys, health appointments and leisure activities. The night time staff changeover would occur between the hours 21.00 and 22.00 pm, but would only involve a maximum of 6 vehicles spread over an hour. There would be no scheduled vehicular movements after 22.00 pm. I am therefore of the opinion that the number and timing of vehicle movements would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours in terms of noise and disturbance. In relation to the staff working throughout the night, I would expect staff to work as quietly as possible so as not to disturb the children sleeping at the property. In my view, any noise generated by staff at night is unlikely to impact on the amenity of neighbours, due the building being detached. Moreover, any light generated from within the building would be screened by blinds, curtains etc. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the proposed care home and I am of the opinion that there would be no unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Nevertheless, a condition restricting the use and numbers of children to only that proposed and no other use within the same C2 use class would be appropriate in this case, as other institutional uses may have a different character and vehicular movements requiring further consideration. A number of the objections received raise concerns over whether the application site is suitable for a care home use and able to provide satisfactory levels of amenity for the children. Reference is also made to the requirements of care home regulations. In planning terms, there are only limited physical changes proposed to the building (both internally and externally) and the applicant has clearly indicated that the


children will live together as a single family. I therefore have to consider the proposal within this context, and I am of opinion that the building is large enough to accommodate 5 children. I acknowledge that the front and rear gardens are not overly spacious; however, when planning permission was approved for this four bedroom property it was conceivable that a family with 5 children could live within it. The garden areas provided were considered appropriate at the time planning permission was granted, and I have no reason to consider them unacceptable now. Notwithstanding the acceptability of the application site to accommodate 5 children, the proposed care home will also be registered, inspected and regulated by the Care Inspectorate Wales. It is a matter for this regulatory body to ensure that the care home is suitable to meet the specific needs of the children. National planning policy is clear in that local planning authorities must bear in mind that other legislation may also be relevant to certain matters and that the planning system should not conflict with or attempt to duplicate controls better regulated by other bodies under different consent regimes. It is also clear that even if planning permission were to be granted, the proposed care home could not go ahead without other necessary consents in place. Residents have also raised concerns about children breaking free of the care home and causing antisocial behavior. However, these concerns appear to be based on the assumptions that the children will not be properly managed. I have received a copy of what appears to be a letter from a resident who lives in close proximity to an existing care home run by Horizons Educare within the Swansea area, which raises concerns over the management of the facility. However, I have also received comments from this Council’s Social Services Department indicating that they recently made 4 placements with Horizons Educare and confirming that involvement with the provider to date has been positive. It is particularly difficult for the planning process to give any significant weight to the potential behaviour of individuals. The proposed care home use could generate antisocial behaviour, as could the use of any residential property. If antisocial behaviour were to occur, this would be a matter for the staff/management of the care home and any other bodies responsible for dealing with behaviour of this nature, such as the police. It is also notable that Gwent Police, who receive a weekly list of all planning applications, have not chosen to provide comments on the proposed care home. Drainage Welsh Water has indicated that no additional surface water arising from the proposed development should drain directly or indirectly into the public sewerage system. The extended off-street car parking area could give rise to increased surface water runoff unless permeable paving or an alternative sustainable drainage


method is used. This can, however, be addressed by a suitably worded condition and informative. Other Matters A number of the objections received have been addressed under the relevant matter above. The remaining objections are considered separately below:

With regards to the concerns over the lack of amenities in area and the over reliance on the private car, it is acknowledged that the housing estate does not achieve the desired walking distance to local facilities (400 m) as applied as part of the LDP candidate site assessment process. However, the walking distance from the application site to the local centre of Blaina (within 1km), local bus stops (approximately 650 m) and recreational sites, such as Cwm Celyn Pond (approximately 675 m) is not considered excessive. Moreover, the location of the housing estate has previously been deemed sufficiently sustainable in order to locate homes there and I do not consider the need for leisure and play facilities to be markedly different between the children of the proposed care home and the children of other families residing on the housing estate. I am also of the opinion that the local centre of Blaina has a sufficient level of services and facilities to meet the basic needs of the proposed care home. It is also not unusual or unreasonable for residents to travel to larger centres to access specialist facilities. Therefore, to refuse the proposed development based on the level of access to local facilities, would, in my opinion, be unjustified.

Health and safety concerns relating to adverse weather conditions and the ongoing construction of the housing estate are equally applicable to families currently living on the housing estate and are day to day management issues for the care provider. Moreover, they are not material planning considerations.

In terms of the lack of justification for the proposed care facility, there is no requirement to justify the need for the proposal in planning terms. However, I note that the Social Services department has indicated that the proposed residential care home would be beneficial to the area.

With regards to the setting of a precedent for further businesses on the housing estate, there is an accepted principle within the planning system that the setting of a precedent is rarely a justifiable reason for refusal as each planning application must be considered on its individual merits.

The long term financial viability of the care home provider and the reduction in property values are not material planning considerations.


In respect of the lack of community engagement and the submission of sufficient information, the statutory requirements for pre-application consultation and the submission of a design and access statement do not apply to this type of planning application. I am also content that I have received sufficient information from the applicant/agent to enable an adequate analysis of the potential impact on local residents. The requirement for any further internal alterations, including adaptions for disabled visitors or staff, will be a matter for building regulations. I note that there is an existing low rise access ramp to the front of the building.

In relation to the potential impact on the feasibility of developing the remainder of the housing estate, I note that both residents and the developer are of the opinion that the area will become a less desirable place to live. In particular, the developer has concerns over the plots immediately behind the application site (plots 40 and 41) due their proximity to the proposed care home and their relatively high development costs. Whilst I acknowledge these concerns, they are primarily based on an expectation that the proposed care home will negatively affect the public perception of the area. This outcome is not however inevitable and will largely depend on how well the proposed care home is managed and its impact on amenity. As indicated above, I am of the opinion that the proposal is compatible with surrounding residential uses and the impact on amenity will not be unacceptable. Moreover, I have to accept, without any compelling evidence to the contrary, that the care home can be managed appropriately under the regulatory regime of the Care Inspectorate Wales.

With regard to the assertion that the proposed care home would breach the Human Rights Act 1998, provided that the local planning authority fully consider the merits and impacts of the proposed care home, it is entitled to make a decision in the public interest. I am of the opinion that the proposal would not adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and, accordingly, there would be no breach of the entitlement of the community around the property to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.


The Council is required to decide planning applications in accord with the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The planning function must also be exercised in accordance with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to ensure that the development and use of land contributes to improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales. The Council also has obligations under other legislation including (but not limited to) the Crime and Disorder Act, Equality Act and Human Rights Act. In presenting this


report, I have had regard to relevant legislation and sought to present a balanced and reasoned recommendation.


The proposed care home is considered to be compatible with the neighbouring residential uses and is acceptable in land use terms. Moreover, the proposal would not result in any unacceptable impacts in terms of visual and residential amenity, parking and highway matters. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with LDP policies DM1, DM2 and the Access, Car Parking and Design SPG. Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development shall begin not later than five years from the date of this

decision notice. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development shall be completed in full accordance with the following

approved plans: • Location Plan, Drawing No. GW/WW/2017/09, stamped received 18th Jan 2018 • Block Plan, Drawing No. GW/WW/2017/08, stamped received 18th Jan 2018 • Proposed Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No. GW/WW/2017/04, stamped received 18th January 2018 • Proposed Upper Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No. GW/WW/2017/05, stamped received 18th January 2018 • Proposed First Floor Plan, Drawing No. GW/WW/2017/06, stamped received 18th January 2018 • Existing and Proposed Front Elevations, Drawing No. GW/WW/2017/07, stamped received 18th January 2018 • Revised Car Parking Details, Drawing No. GW/WW/2018/10/[insert], stamped received [insert] Unless otherwise specified or required by conditions below. Reason: To clearly define the scope of this permission.

3. No development shall commence until details are submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority of the surfacing of the parking area between the building and the highway. Such surfacing works as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be implemented before the building is brought into beneficial use as care a home. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.


4. The car parking spaces on the approved plans shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles at all times Reason: To ensure that the parking needs of the development are adequately met at all times.

5. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987 (as

amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification) the use hereby approved shall be restricted to that of a children’s care home for up to 5 children between the ages of 10-18 and no other purpose within Use Class C2. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and highway safety.

Informatives: 1. The car parking area should be hard surfaced with permeable materials to

prevent surface water runoff on to the adjacent highway. Alternative methods of sustainable drainage could also be acceptable.

2. The Highway Authority should be contacted on 01495 357873 in respect of extending the existing dropped kerbs to facilitate access to the parking area.


Planning Committee should note that whilst residents’ fears of anti-social behaviour can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, the amount of weight afforded must be based on the extent to which the resident’s fears are justified and can be evidenced. Regard must also be had to other statutory controls that deal with situations likely to generate residents’ fears. Furthermore, it must be recognised that the planning system does not operate on the basis that development can proceed only if harm can be guaranteed never to occur. I have had regard to these considerations in presenting my recommendation that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions.

blaenau gwent county borough council...

Documents