Minutes
of the Ordinary Meeting of the Penrice Community Council held
on Wednesday 16th October 2013 at Oxwich and Penrice Community Hall
at 7.30pm
Members
Present: Councillor M Barnett
Councillor M Williams
Councillor A Glass
Councillor
J Ellis
Councillor
G Roberts
Councillor
J Bowen
Councillor
T Methuen-Campbell
Action
There
were approximately 25/30 members of the public present.
68/13 Apologies
for Absence.
None
69/13 Declarations of Interest.
Cllr T Methuen-Campbell declared an interest in item 9 on the Agenda
relating to the Coalhouse on
The Chair advised the meeting that there were interests to be declared under
Planning, but due to the fact that more that 50% of the Council had an interest
this would be dealt with and explained at this part of the meeting.
70/13 To confirm the
minutes of the Meeting held 18th September 2013.
Cllr A Glass proposed that the minutes were a true and accurate record of
events, seconded Cllr G Roberts, carried unanimously.
71/13 Matters arising from
the minutes.
None
72/13 Community Councils
1 One Voice
Wales Notice of Area Committee Meeting 24th October 13 and also
minutes of the
previous meeting. Noted
73/13 Correspondence
1 The Gower
Newsletter Noted
74/13 Financial. £
1 Clerk salary Information
protected under the Data Protection Act.
Cllr J Bowen proposed to pay, seconded Cllr G Roberts carried
unanimously.
Cash in the bank at the end of August £ 13008.06
75/13 Planning.
The Chair explained that due to the fact that more that 50% of Members
had a prejudicial interest in item A to be discussed under planning, then the
Council had applied to the CCS Standards Committee to obtain a dispensation,
which allowed those Councillors affected to speak on this item, but not vote
and this had been granted.
75/13 Planning cont….
The Councillors who were present and covered by this dispensation were,
Cllr M Barnett, Cllr G Roberts, Cllr T Methuen- Campbell and Cllr J Ellis.
Cllrs J Bowen, A Glass and M Williams did not have interests in this item
so were able to speak and vote on the application.
The Chair explained that the Cllrs with the prejudicial interests would leave
the meeting during the final discussions and decision. The Chair also explained that the Council had
received objections from members of the public that would be included in the
meeting and also that the public would be invited to speak at this part of the
meeting.
(A) Application number 2013/1322 ‘The Old Tennis Courts’, Horton Applicant Mrs S Mumby
Cllr A Glass gave an overview of the application and explained a brief
history of the site. He outlined the
plans. He advised that permission had been granted on the site which is
currently occupied Emmanuel House.
Mr J Mumby advised from the floor that for the property named ‘The
Farmhouse’ the planners had advised the
architect to make it look like a barn conversion, hence the name.
The heights of the houses was not clear on the plans so was questioned. Mr J Mumby advised that they would be the
same height as the new homes planned at Emmanuel House. They have tried to have some of the buildings
at half height in order to protect the views of the houses behind the site.
A query was raised that ‘The Haven’ was a lot lower than the new houses
planned at Emmanuel House.
Mrs S Mumby advised that the new houses on this site were planned on two
different levels, in order to protect the view of the houses overlooking the
site.
The Chairman advised that the Council had received five letters of
objection, the points raised in the letters were read to the meeting as
follows;
1 The development will have a huge
impact on the Haven, which is to the west of the proposed development and it
will be overbearing, overlooking and overshadowing the house, which is against
policy EV16 in the UDP which states “
It has an acceptable relationship with adjacent buildings" and " it
will not harm the amenity of neighbouring residents". The family will lose light from the height of
the house and all their rooms on the East side will be looked into by the
windows of property no.1. The big bedroom window on the west side of the Farmhouse
will look directly over the garden of the Haven taking away their privacy.
The new properties
will also have a higher roof level.
2 Loss of visual amenity to the Public.
The view from the bottom gate of the Tennis Courts which portrays a very pretty
and distinctive village. This view is not available elsewhere in the village
and will be lost on the building of these houses.
75/13 Planning cont….
3 Planning Permission was given for the
development at Emmanuel House on the basis that three houses would front and
look on to the Tennis Courts as a feature.
Now they will look
on to the sides of the houses on Plots 2 and 3 at a distance of approx. 15
metres.
4 Construction of two of the houses is
over the public sewer and substantial parts within 3 metres. The sewer is 4
metres to the west of the eastern boundary of the site
And a strip 3
metres either side of this would take up over 30% of Plot 2.
5 All of the three buildings are far too
large for the sites they occupy.
6 No provision has been made to widen the
narrow lane accessing the site to the north which is 80 metres long. It is only
one vehicle wide and there are no passing places
And no turning bay
at the end. At present most lorries and vans making deliveries reverse down the
entire length. At the moment this lane serves two houses but with the Emmanuel
House development and this it will be seven houses.
7 If planning permission is given
together with the permission already given for Emmanuel House development then
there will be seven large executive houses in a small area which and will
destroy the character of the lower part of the village.
8 Much is made in the application of the
existing green focal area to the north of the development and how this will be
increased by a new green area at the north of plots 1 and 2.
However the
construction of these houses will cause this area to be lost to the rest of the
village and will only be seen by the houses adjoining the area and access to
the general public will only be down a
narrow cul de sac.
9 There is no affordable housing – Only
luxury housing in this proposal.
10.The house
on plot 3 covers a very large area and the footprint it leaves dwarfs those
surrounding it. The design of this house is completely out of character with
those in the vicinity.
11.There is
no economic or social need for a further development of three luxury executive
style homes in a small village of less than 100 homes in an AONB.
12.The whole
development does not fit in with the surrounding houses in either density or
design and destroys the character of the village.
13.The area
of the disused tennis courts is an amenity to the village as a play area,
parking and an open space. In no way can this development be described as an
improvement as suggested in the application.
14.There is no landscape design whatsoever.
75/13 Planning cont….
Other points raised by members were;
a. This area has been used as a play area by children. Members felt that
this could not be used as an argument.
b. Not currently used as a tennis court.
c. Used as a parking area in the winter.
d. Bank holidays over 40 cars parked there. Mr J Mumby advised that he did try and remove
these from this area when able as it is private land.
e. Where would the stone walls on the boundary at the lower end be?
Mr Mumby advised that they would not be right on the edge of the road.
f. Would the trees all remain?
Yes.
g. The Haven would be losing a lot of light and privacy.
h. The village would be losing a lot
of green space and gaining yet another substantial development on a small plot. It seems that any available bit of land
is being used and this would be detrimental to the village and
would means a considerable loss of
amenities to the neighbours.
i. ‘The Farmhouse’ has a lot of glass and the amount of light is
a concern. There is a dark sky in this
area.
j. Mr Mumby advised that the
balcony is under the roof overhang and is only for the purpose of a
viewpoint.
k. Why not put affordable housing
in the area, this development is skewed toward the affluent.
l. In the statement in the
application, there is a semi circular area referred to as green space, however
with this development this area is only for private used and of no benefit to
the public as will be owned by plot 1 and 2.
m. The sewer is currently running under two of the houses, how is this going
to be overcome?
Mr Mumby advised that he would take this up with the architects.
Members of the public raised additional points and also Council Members
added to these points raised;
1. The owner of Talbot Lodge from the floor felt that this proposed
development was intrusive on the privacy of his property.
Mr J Mumby thought that it was only the kitchen that was mainly affected.
The same member of the public advised that several bedrooms and an
outside BBQ area would also lose privacy if the new development was built. The balcony was of particular concern and
overlooks a private part of the garden.
The whole building is less than 20 metres from Talbot Lodge and is 2.5
to 3 metres higher. It is very intrusive
on rooms that are in daily use and the glass frontage is a concern. It is
sheltered by trees and shrubs at the moment but will be intrusive when these
are cut to obtain the views.
Mr J Mumby advised that there were no rooms that were higher than the
glass and confirmed that there were 4 sets of patio doors to have the views in
the direction of Talbot Lodge.
2. Mr J Mumby confirmed that they planned to live in ‘The Farmhouse’, the largest of the developments, and sell the
other two properties.
75/13 Planning cont….
3 The Owner of the Haven
from the floor advised that the new house would block out a lot of light into
their house and the larger house has two bedrooms overlooking the garden so all
privacy in their garden would be lost. The property is only 10 metres from
their garden. Page 20 of the statement
on the application sites
4 The Haven is the
property most affected by the application.
The owners stated that they were devastated by this proposed
development.
5 Another member of the
public from the floor highlighted the fact that the sheer scale of the proposed
houses in the development was a concern and that the footprint of the proposals
could fit two of The Havens inside the footprint of one of the smaller houses. Talbot
Lodge is 160 square metres, the new house is 300 square metres. This would be six times the size of the
Haven.
6 The Owner of
Talbot Lodge added that the surface area would be more than 50% bigger than
their
house and would be out of scale with all other properties in the village.
7. What was happening with
the bank at the lower end of the plot. ?
Mr J Mumby
advised that the plan was to have a retaining wall instead of the bank.
At this point of the meeting Cllrs M Barnett, G Roberts, T
Methuen-Campbell and J Ellis withdrew from the meeting for the remainder of
this one item.
Cllr M Williams took the Chair.
i) Detailed elevations of
the plans were needed. How close is the
Haven to plot 1. ? A considerable loss of natural light to the Haven would
result if this application was built.
Footprint size was of concern in relation to the size of the plot. There
was also an issue with the sewer location and the properties location currently
was over the site of the sewer. The sewer can be moved but is currently a
query. More affordable homes needed in Gower rather than very large houses.
ii) Focal green space,
not for public benefit. This application
does not sit comfortably with the UDP.
Should be more affordable housing.
Young local people are being priced out of the area due to these large
expensive developments. With the area in
question, it would possible to fit in a few affordable homes. Concern that these would become holiday homes
as they are extremely large properties
with very small gardens so they are low maintenance which would be ideal for
short term living. Cannot develop within 3 metres of the sewer. Can’t see how this development can be as
planned as the sewer would have to be re routed onto Emmanuel House land and it
was not foreseen that this would be a possibility. There seemed to be common problems with this
proposal, the height, loss of light and privacy. No letters of support only letters of
objection. Too large a development for
the plot, the size of the houses on the plan is excessive and the access is
another concern. A lay by into the site
could overcome this, but would mean 7 very large houses in this area including
those planned in the Emmanuel House plot, too many in such a small area.
iii) This would adversely
affect The Haven, and has been very upsetting for the owners of this property.
The houses do not even look like Gower properties. If this application could be altered so that
it does not adversely affect the residents especially those living in The Haven
it might have been acceptable.
Cllr A Glass proposed to object to the application , primarily because it
is too large in size an scale for the site and clashes with a public sewer, but
also because of due to all the objections listed as read earlier in the meeting
by Cllr M Barnett, seconded Cllr J Bowen, carried unanimously. Clerk to action SC
75/13 Planning cont….
(B) Application
no 2013/1409 Mrs C Dinsdale
Hillpark, Reynoldston
Cllr G Roberts proposed that there was no objection to the application,
seconded Cllr A. Glass, carried unanimously.
76/13 The Noise from the
Coal House.
Cllr Glass reported that members of the public had complained about
recent fireworks that were let off at the Coal House very late at night and
also live music that could be heard at the top of the village. This was due to two recent weddings being
held at the Coal House. The loud thunder
flashes were the main problem. Dogs were
scared and also the local ponies may have been affected. Even someone in Slade Valley could hear it.
Cllr T Methuen-Campbell had
expressed an interest in this item, but had been requested to remain in the
meeting to speak with the residents who had attended the meeting to raise this
problem.
The main problem was the low frequency base thudding.
Cllr T Methuen-Campbell apologized for what happened and explained that
this was exceptional. The music license
is until 12midnight. Fireworks have
always been in this area as the Penrice Estate have given patrons of the Oxwich
Bay Hotel permission in the past to have fireworks displays. In the future he will try and have any
fireworks before 10.30pm and to omit the loud bangs and the music will finish in
accordance with the license.
Everyone wanted the Coal House to succeed, but not at the expense of the
residents.
Members of the public present were happy with the outcome of the
discussions.
77/13 The Trees on Oxwich Green and the Children’s
Swing.
78/13 The
Cllrs decided to
defer these two items until the next meeting.
79/13 The Local Development
Plan.
Cllr J Ellis gave a verbal update on the
changes. Noted.
80/13 A Proposed Community
Project funded by the PCC all ideas welcomed.
As there was a large community presence at this meeting, Council advised
that they were looking to fund a community project with the finances made from
the sale of land in Horton.
Agreed to put posters on the notice boards and on the website. This can be split between areas.
Cllrs J Ellis, M Williams and G Roberts to organize the posters. GR/MW/JE
81/13 Cllrs Reports and
Questions
Website – Cllr J
Ellis advised that the draft version of the PCC website is in place and any
feedback is welcomed. A lot of work had
already been put in and it was already looking very good. £500 was only to cover the costs incurred.
81/13 Cllrs Reports and
Questions cont…
Cllr A Glass had
attended the CCS budget/finance meeting and gave a verbal report.
82/13 Public
Questions relating to the agenda.
(limited to 10 minutes)
A member of the public from the floor asked about the community project
and advised that she had organized an event in the Oxwich and Penrice Community
Hall earlier in the day that she struggled to raise finance. The Clerk advised that if there were any
small local community projects to write and request funding from the
Council. Each would be dealt with on
their individual merits and may be able to be assisted in obtaining funding.
83/13 Date and venue of
next meeting.
20th November
2013 Horton Village Hall
Date _________________Chairman_____________________