P. 1
Cardiff Council planning committee agenda for December 5 2012.

Cardiff Council planning committee agenda for December 5 2012.

|Views: 474|Likes:
Published by jessica_best2820
The schedule of planning applications due to be considered by Caediff Council's planning committee at their meeting on December 5 2012.
The schedule of planning applications due to be considered by Caediff Council's planning committee at their meeting on December 5 2012.

More info:

Published by: jessica_best2820 on Dec 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/06/2012

pdf

text

original

28th November 2012 20871513 To: Members of the Council Dear Councillor Planning Committee Wednesday 5th December 2012

at Ferrier Hall, City Hall, Cardiff (meeting starts at 2.30.p.m.) I attach a copy of the schedule of Development Control Applications which will be considered at this meeting of the Planning Committee. The plans relating to the applications will be available for inspection at the City Hall, during the whole of Tuesday and Wednesday morning preceding the Committee. Unless otherwise stated in the report, Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine the applications in the schedule. Planning Committee (but not an individual member) can also refer a matter to another committee or to the Council for a resolution. However, Council cannot move an amendment to a recommendation relating to a planning application or make a recommendation relating to a planning application and can only refer a matter back to Planning Committee on one occasion, after which Planning Committee shall decide the matter. Please now note that if any requests for site visits are acceded to by the meeting, such site visits will take place during the afternoon of Thursday 3rd January 2013. If you submit a request for a site visit, you must include in your submission (a) a choice of at least two starting times for the site visit that you are requesting, each of which must be at least 45 minutes apart; and (b) the reasons why you believe that such a site visit is necessary. If you fail to provide any choices of starting times for the site visit that you've requested, it will be assumed that you will be available to attend such a site visit at any time of the day, regardless of what time it starts. The Clerk to the Council will circulate the Agenda for the meeting to the Members of the Planning Committee separately.
Yours sincerely

Head of Planning

CARDIFF COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE THE REPORTS OF THE CHIEF STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OFFICER

LIST OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 5TH DECEMBER AT 2.30PM

AREA

PAGES

HOUSEHOLDER OUTER INNER

1 - 14 15 - 64 65 - 182

CARDIFF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN When regard is to be had to the Development Plan the Council’s decision must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the administrative area of Cardiff remains the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (1997) and the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Minerals Local Plan together with the approved Mid Glamorgan County structure Plan incorporating Proposed Alterations No.1 (September 1989). In accordance with statutory procedures, the Council prepared and placed on deposit a Unitary Development Plan (to 2016) in October 2003. It has never been formally abandoned but agreement was reached with the Welsh Assembly Government in May 2005 to cease work on the UDP and commence work on a new Local Development Plan prepared under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. On the 28 April 2009 Cardiff Council placed the Cardiff Local Development Plan 20062021 on deposit for public consultation. From that date, and in accordance with the Council’s resolution, it was taken into account in development control decisions. On the 30th November 2009, following consideration of the responses to consultation, the submission draft was submitted to the Welsh Assembly Government for examination. However, in the light of the significant reservations expressed at an Exploratory Meeting by the Inspectors appointed to carry out the examination and their recommendation that the Local Development Plan be with drawn from the examination, the Council duly withdrew the LDP on the 12 April 2010. Unless a draft policy or proposal is a material consideration it should not be taken into account when making decisions: it is strictly irrelevant and if it is given weight in reaching a decision, that decision may be successfully quashed in the High Court. In the general run of cases the withdrawn Local Development Plan will not be a material consideration. If there is an issue in relation to which the withdrawn LDP is relevant, officers will advise the Committee specifically. Otherwise it should not be taken into account. Since the deposited UDP has not been abandoned, its policies and proposals may be a material consideration in a given case, but the weight which can be attached to the

UDP, and any statement of policy including the statutory Development Plan should be determined in the light of the following principal considerations:• • • The degree to which later statements of national policy and the Wales Spatial Plan make the policy out of date and suggest a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it; The degree to which the policy is out of date for any other reason; The level and nature of any objection to a UDP or other draft policy.

Table 1.1: Existing Development Plans covering the Cardiff County Area Cardiff County Area Cardiff Deposit Unitary Development Plan (to 2016)

The Plan was placed on deposit in October 2003 and agreement was reached with Welsh Assembly Government in May 2005 to cease work on the plan and commence work on a new Local Development Plan.

City of Cardiff Area (part of the County of South Glamorgan until April 1996) South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Adopted April 1997 Replacement Structure plan 19912011 City of Cardiff Local Plan (including Waste Policies) Adopted January 1996

South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Adopted June 1997 Minerals Local Plan Pentyrch Community Area (part of the County of Mid Glamorgan and Borough of Taff Ely until April 1996) Mid Glamorgan County Structure Plan Approved September 1989 incorporating Proposed Alterations No. 1 Mid Glamorgan Replacement Structure Modifications to the Plan including Plan recommendations of the EIP Panel approved by Mid Glamorgan County Council in January 1996 but not adopted in respect of the Pentyrch Community Area. Glamorgan County Development Plan (Area No. 2) Mid Glamorgan Minerals Local Plan for Limestone Quarrying Approved March 1963

In June 1996 Cardiff County Council resolved to approve the Plan as modified by the Inspector’s Report, for development control and other planning purposes, but the Plan was not adopted in respect of the Pentyrch Community Area.

Page No.
1

App No.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 5TH DECEMBER 2012 Location Description

Decision

Officer
ODJ

12/01685/DCH ROCKY BANK, GARTH HILL, GWAELOD-YGARTH, CARDIFF, CF15 9HS

RETENTION OF GARDEN SHED ERECTED DURING PER CONSTRUCTION WORKS AND EXTENSION AND RE-ROOFING OF EXISTING WOOD STORE AT ROCKY BANK

PLANNING COMMITTEE
Page No. App No. Location

- 5 DECEMBER 2011
Description Decision Officer

15

29

49

12/01342/DCO 44 SANDRINGHAM ROAD, ROATH, CARDIFF, CF23 5BJ 12/01374/DCO PENHILL BOWLING CLUB, PENCISELY ROAD, CANTON, CARDIFF, CF5 1DG 12/01619/DCO PHASE 2, CARDIFF GATE RETAIL PARK, DERING ROAD, PONTPRENNAU, CARDIFF, CF23 8NL

CONVERSION INTO TWO SELF CONTAINED FLATS PER FIRST FLOOR & GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSIONS AND REPLACEMENT WINDOWS REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND INCLUDING 106 DEMOLITION OF THE PAVILLION FOR 8NO RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAIL UNITS (CLASS A1), GYM (CLASS D2) AND A3 UNIT INCLUDING ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, SERVICING AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 106

MR

APB

APB

Page No. 65

App No. 11/01213/DCI

113

12/00691/DCI

160

12/01137/DCI

169

12/01637/DCI

PLANNING COMMITTEE 5TH DECEMBER 2012 Location Description FORMER PONTCANNA REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE RETAIL AT GROUND PINE, 200 KING'S FLOOR AND 8 APARTMENTS ABOVE (FIRST AND ROAD, PONTCANNA, SECOND STOREY) ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED CAR CARDIFF, CF11 9DF PARKING CYCLE PARKING AND REFUSE STORAGE BUTE EAST DOCK, USE OF FORMER DOCK FOR WAKEBOARDING AND HEMINGWAY ROAD, WATER SKIING AND INSTALLATION OF CABLE TOW ATLANTIC WHARF SYSTEM CONVERSION TO 9 APARTMENTS & DEMOLITION OF CARDIFF ARMS HOTEL, 63-65 RAILWAY GROUND & FIRST FLOOR EXTENSIONS STREET, SPLOTT, CARDIFF, CF24 2DF 11 CRWYS ROAD, PROPOSED CONVERSION FROM COMMERCAIL UNIT & ROATH, CARDIFF, EXTENSION TO FORM 7 RESIDENTIAL FLATS CF24 4NA

Decision REF

Officer AS

PER

AS

PER

MR

PER

JF

COMMITTEE DATE: APPLICATION No. ED: APP: TYPE: APPLICANT: LOCATION:

05/12/2012 12/01685/DCH PENTYRCH Householder Planning Permission Mr & Mrs N King ROCKY BANK, GARTH HILL, GWAELOD-Y-GARTH CARDIFF, CF15 9HS APPLICATION DATE: 03/10/2012

PROPOSAL:

RETENTION OF GARDEN SHED ERECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION WORKS AND EXTENSION AND REROOFING OF EXISTING WOOD STORE ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. Nothwithstanding the submitted plans, within one month of the date of this consent, further details of the proposed privacy screen, including its precise position, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected. The privacy screen required and agreed by condition 1 shall be erected within one month of its written approval and thereafter retained and maintained at all times. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupier is protected. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no windows other than those hereby approved shall be inserted into the rear and side (east) elevation of the garden shed. Reason : To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected. Prior to the commencement of development on the extension and reroofing of the wood store samples of the external finishing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the area.

2.

3.

4.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority

1

takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for (i)determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii)ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils, aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates / soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site: • Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. • Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances. • Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and (iii)the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer. Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land. The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination. RECOMMENDATION 3: A summary of the Coal Authority’s standard advice is given : The development lies in an area that could be subject to hazards arising from current or past coal mining. These hazards may include risk of ground subsidence or collapse, gas emissions, spontaneous combustion of coal and / or water emission. You must take account of these hazards before your development proceeds, or any works of excavation and / or boring are carried out on the land. You must contact The Coal Authority Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com to obtain site specific information to assess the risk of such hazards and subsequently seek suitable specialist advice as to how the risk from any hazard may be managed. 1. 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Planning permission is sought for the retention of a wooden garden outbuilding sited to the rear of the extended dwelling near to the northern

2

boundary of the site. This outbuilding, including its veranda to the front, measures approximately 4.5m long, 3m wide, with a maximum height of between 2.8 – 3.5m. The outbuilding takes the form of a garden shed/summerhouse and includes doors to the front and a widow to the side (east). 1.2 It is proposed to erect a 2 metre high solid wooden fence to the east of the outbuilding in order to provide a privacy screen. It is also proposed to extend and re-roof the existing wood store within the site. This wood store is sited directly to the north of the extended dwelling along the northern boundary of the site and adjacent to an existing garden outbuilding of the neighbouring property at 2 Sunnybank. The extended log store will measure approximately 7.5m wide, 5.5m deep, 2.1m to eaves with a maximum height of 3.8m. The wood store will be finished in stone and slate roofing to match the extended dwelling. In addition, rock filled gabion baskets will be used within the southern side of the log store to retain the bank between the extended dwelling and the log store. The log store will adjoin the existing stone faced garden outbuilding within the garden of No. 2 Sunnybank. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application site is an extended dwelling situated within a large (c 0.1 ha) plot on steeply sloping ground which falls from the rear to the front (west to east). It is located near the end of a private cul de sac and has parking spaces and a garage adjacent to the road below the house. To the rear of the extended dwelling is a copse of mature trees which screen the site from the rear (uphill) side. The application site has recently undergone a two storey side (north) extension and garden works (terracing of front garden) approved by planning permission 11/1458/DCH. Two storey houses of similar architectural style are located to the north and south of the application site. These are built at a similar level and share the same access (Sunnybank and Llwyn Onn). To the east of the access, at a lower level than the site, are dwellings of a different visual character. The application site is within the Gwaelod Y Garth Conservation Area. SITE HISTORY Planning Permission 11/1458/DCH – Construction of two storey granny annex extension to side and two storey extension to rear of existing dwelling, link to existing dwelling, and associated engineering and retaining works – Approved 10th February 2012. Planning Permission 10/2169/DCH – Two storey granny annexe extension Approved

1.3

2. 2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4 3. 3.1

3.2

3

3.3

Planning Application 10/1299/DCH – Two storey granny annexe extension – Refused Planning permission 09/551/W – Two storey extension to rear and single storey extension – Approved POLICY FRAMEWORK Mid Glamorgan County Structure Plan (Incorporating Proposed Alterations No. 1) Policy LC13 (Presumption against development likely to affect adversely the character of conservation areas) Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (Deposit Written Statement) Policy 2.20 (Good Design) Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) Policy 2.53 (Conservation Areas) Supplementary Planning Guidance, Householder Design Guide. Gwaelod Y Garth Conservation Area Appraisal. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES The Conservation observations: Policy and Projects Team makes the following

3.4

4. 4.1

4.2

4.3 4.4 5. 5.1

Neither the shed nor existing wood store was observed from the highway (Garth Hill, Main Road or the lane)/public areas. It is considered that the garden shed does not impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. It is proposed that the wood store is to be extended forward and to have a pitched roof. The proposed materials are stone and slate blue profile metal sheeting. Whilst the height of the roof is to be increased this would result in very limited potential for this structure to be publicly visible. When combined with the proposed roofing materials, a typical outbuilding covering the colour of which generally reflects use of slate in the area, it is considered that this will not result in a negative impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. It is suggested that should consent be granted a sample of the profile sheeting should be submitted for approval by the LPA prior to the roof being covered. 5.2 5.3 The Natural Environment Team has no objection to the proposal. The Pollution Control Service has no objection subject to Recommendation 2.

4

6. 6.1 •

EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES The North West Conservation Group objects to the proposal for the following reasons: The Woodstore is a largish development. Roofing materials need to be inkeeping with adjoining properties. Further information is required relating to the elevation facing adjoining property. There are concerns regarding the size of the retained shed and the fact that it has a veranda and effect on conservation area. Pentyrch Community Council objects to the siting of the shed as an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of a next door neighbour (No. 2 Sunnybank). British Coal has no objection subject to Recommendation 3. REPRESENTATIONS The occupier of No 2 Sunnybank has made lengthy objections to the proposal which are available within the planning case file for Members to view if they so wish. In summary, the occupier of No 2 Sunnybank objects to the proposal for the following reasons: The garden outbuilding is described as a shed by the applicant when it is a garden summerhouse. The garden summerhouse erodes the privacy of the occupiers of No. 2 Sunnybank when using their garden and allows views into their dwelling. The summerhouse should be moved to another area of the garden which does not overlook No. 2 Sunnybank. The wood store is over development within the Conservation Area The applicant has a complete disregard for the planning process and continues to build illegally. The occupier of 2 Sunnybank suggests that the applicant has incorrectly served notice on him. The occupier of The Anchorage (property located to the west of the application site) objects as the proposal is not for a shed. The structure is a summerhouse which is built on land which has a covenant that precludes any buildings being built. ANALYSIS The key issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbours. Garden Shed This structure is sited to the rear of the dwelling. It is not visible from the highway to the east of the site. While it is visible from neighbouring properties

6.2

6.3 7. 7.1

• •

• • •

7.2

8. 8.1

8.2

5

to the south and north, it is of a small scale and is of an acceptable appearance. It is not considered that the wider Conservation Area is prejudiced by this outbuilding. It is noted that there are other examples of garden outbuildings and sheds within the vicinity, some of which are more visible from the public realm. It is noted that this garden outbuilding is located close to the northern boundary of the site and is on higher ground than the garden of No. 2 Sunnybank. However it is of a scale and appearance where officers are not of the opinion that it represents a visual overbearing structure when viewed from No. 2 Sunnybank. Officers have visited the application site and using a laser measuring tool the outbuilding is approximately 19m from the extended dwelling at No. 2 Sunnybank. Despite its raised siting, this distance will ensure that it will not be an overbearing development when viewed from the dwelling at 2 Sunnybank. It is also noted that the outbuilding is located south of No 2 Sunnybank. However, it is not considered that the outbuilding will cast an unreasonable shadow over the area used as an external amenity space by the occupier of No 2 Sunnybank or the dwelling at this neighbouring property. In regards to the privacy of the neighbours to the north, the applicant has suggested that a 2 metre high solid privacy fence will be erected within the garden of the application site, to the side (east) of this garden outbuilding, in order to protect the privacy of neighbours. Officers are of the opinion that subject to this fence being erected users of the garden outbuilding will not be able to look directly into the garden or dwelling of No 2 Sunnybank. This includes the use of the veranda and when looking out of the side (east) facing window of the outbuilding. Should planning permission be granted a condition is necessary to ensure the erection of such a screen and its future maintenance. 8.3 Extension to Wood Store The exiting wood store has been insitu for some time. The extension to the wood store is to be constructed out of stone work and slate blue profile roofing which will be of an acceptable appearance. Condition 3 will ensure samples are submitted so that the final appearance of the store can be controlled. In addition, it is noted that the adjacent garden outbuilding within the curtilage of 2 Sunnybank is also finished in stone work. Accordingly, its appearance will be a good match to the existing dwelling and other outbuildings within the vicinity. The scale of the wood store will still be single storey. Accordingly such a structure is considered to be common place within the surrounding vicinity and is not considered detrimental to the overall character of the conservation area. It is noted that the dwelling at the site has been extended. However, the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed extended wood store. In addition, it is noted that other properties in the vicinity benefit from several outbuildings within their curtilage. The wood store will be adjacent to the existing stone finished outbuilding within the curtilage of 2 Sunnybank. It is not considered to be visually overbearing or cast any unreasonable shadow over the neighbour to the north.

6

All proposed openings overlook the garden of the application site and do not look directly at the garden serving 2 Sunnybank. The extended log store will be sited sufficient distances from neighbours to the east and south so as to not be an un-neighbourly form of development. Accordingly the proposal is not considered to prejudice the residential amenities of neighbours. 8.4 • • • Other issues In regards to the issues raised by neighbours, and external consultees which are not covered above, the following should be noted: Whether the development is described as a garden shed or summerhouse is of no material planning concern. It is a structure within the garden and its planning merits have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Any restrictive covenants on the land precluding any outbuildings is not a material planning consideration. It is considered that the applicant correctly served Notice on the occupier of 2 Sunnybank as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(Wales) Order 2012. The occupier of 2 Sunnybank has been given notice of the application on 14th November by the applicant and the Local Planning Authority will allow a period exceeding 21 days for the receipt of any comments. Notwithstanding this, the occupier of No 2 Sunnybank has been notified of the application by the Local Planning Authority in writing on 8th October 2012. In addition, the application has been advertised by way of notices on site and within the press. The occupier of 2 Sunnybank has made comments on the application. Accordingly, it is not considered that the administration of this application by either the applicant or the Local Planning Authority has prejudiced the ability of the occupiers of 2 Sunnybank to make comments regarding the planning merits of this application. It is noted that the application for the garden shed/summerhouse has been made in retrospect. However, National Planning Guidance contained within Technical Advice Note 9: Enforcing Planning Control states that, in considering enforcement action, the decisive issue for the Local Planning Authority should be whether the breach of planning control would unacceptably affect public amenity. Where unauthorised development may be considered acceptable, including where it would be necessary to include conditions on any consent issued, the Local Planning Authority should invite a retrospective planning application so that the planning merits of the development can be properly considered. The intention of the Local Planning Authority should be to remedy the effect of the breach of planning control, not to punish the person carrying out the breach. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the garden shed is considered acceptable subject to conditions which will protect the privacy of 2 Sunnybank. Accordingly, the correct procedure has been carried out. Subject to conditions 1 and 2, the garden outbuilding is not considered to prejudice the privacy of the occupiers of No 2 Sunnybank. The comments from the North West Conservation Group in regards to further information needed in relation to the elevation facing the adjoining neighbour (No. 2 Sunnybank) are noted. However, it is proposed to construct the wood store so that it adjoins the existing outbuilding at No 2 Sunnybank. Therefore, there is no requirement for such an elevation to be submitted.

• •

7

8.5

It is recommended that subject to the listed conditions that planning permission be granted.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 05/12/2012 APPLICATION No. ED: APP: TYPE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: 12/1342/DCO PENYLAN Full Planning Permission APPLICATION DATE: 08/08/2012

Mrs Dorothy Kendall 44 SANDRINGHAM ROAD, ROATH, CARDIFF, CF23 5BJ CONVERSION INTO TWO SELF CONTAINED FLATS FIRST FLOOR & GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSIONS AND REPLACEMENT WINDOWS ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. D3D Maintenance of Parking Within Site 3. No development shall take place until samples of the external finishing materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The samples shall include the proposed brick for the new section of boundary wall. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the area. 4. D5A Implement means of enclosure 5. No windows shall be inserted in the side elevation of the first floor extension hereby approved facing towards 42 Sandringham Road. Reason: No ensure that the privacy of the adjoining occupier is protected 6. The shower/toilet window in the rear elevation of the first floor flat shall be glazed with obscure glass and thereafter shall be so retained. Reason: No ensure that the privacy of the adjoining occupier is protected 7. C2N Drainage details 8. The approved refuse storage facilities approved shall be provided before the development is brought into beneficial use and shall be thereafter retained for future use. Reason: To secure an orderly form of development and to protect the amenities of the area.

15

9. The cycle parking spaces hereby approved shall be provided before the development is brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be retained at all times and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles. RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations. RECOMMENDATION 3: The applicant is advised that whilst like for like repair of the wrought ironwork to the front balcony would be supported, any alteration affecting its character would require planning permission. RECOMMENDATION 4: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the advice contained in the submitted Flood Consequences Assessment and in the letter from the Environment Agency dated 16th October, 2012, concerning the implementation of measures in relation to the management of flood risk (i.e. that residents register with the Environment Agency’s Flood Warning System and that a Flood Emergency Evacuation Plan be prepared and implemented in conjunction with the occupation of the flats). 1. 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This planning application relates to an end of terrace two bedroom house occupying a corner location at the junction of Sandringham Road and Grenville Road. The dwelling lies opposite Roath Mill Gardens and falls within the Roath Mill Gardens Conservation Area. Planning permission is sought to convert the dwelling into 2 no. one bedroom flats and construct new ground and first floor rear extensions, as shown on the attached plans. The dwelling contains double height bays on both front and side elevations. The proposal seeks to replace the existing 16 no. metal windows in the bays with new traditional sliding sash windows of similar appearance to those at the adjacent 42 Sandringham Road. The main window in the rear elevation of the proposed first floor extension is also to be of a traditional sliding sash design. The Agent advises that the existing brick boundary wall along Grenville Road is frost damaged and it is proposed to repair it to match the appearance of the brick boundary wall opposite, at no. 46 Sandringham Road. A new gate is

1.2

1.3

1.4

16

proposed in the wall to access a bin store for the first floor flat. A short section of dwarf wall is proposed alongside the house and will replace that part of the existing single storey flat roof extension which i projects beyond the side of the dwelling, up to the back edge of the footway (refer to photographs). 1.5 Although there are no first floor extensions at the rear of the terrace of which no. 44 forms a part, two storey annexes are a feature of the adjacent terrace. The submitted scheme shows a two storey extension generally in keeping with the rear projections of the nearby terrace in terms of its scale and pitched roof form. The first floor extension will be set in approximately 2.0 metres from the boundary with the attached house (no. 42) and approximately 1.0 metre from external (side) wall of the house. It will project 2.0 metres beyond the main rear elevation of the property. The ground floor extension will have a flat roof on either side of the proposed first extension. However, the scheme follows pre-application advice in that it proposes the removal of that part of the existing flat roof extension which projects unsympathetically in front of the side elevation of the house, facing Grenville Road. A further single storey rear extension is proposed beyond the structures described above, adjoining the boundary with no. 42. The extension, which measures 2.5 metres by 3.0 metres in plan, provides a small utility room and entrance area. It also has a flat roof but this will be approximately 0.5 metres lower than the flat roof structures referred to in paragraph 1.6. Part of the rear amenity area will be fenced off to provide a small private ‘yard’ for the ground floor flat. The remainder of the rear amenity space will be available for the communal use of both flats. The proposed extension will be finished in cream render to match the appearance of the rear elevations of the terrace. The pitched roof of the first floor extension will be finished in natural slate. The boundary wall along Grenville Road will be repaired/constructed in red brick. A Flood Consequences Assessment has been submitted in support of the application, having regard to the site’s location within Flood Zone C2 as identified by the Development Advice Map referred to under TAN 15 : Development and Flood Risk. DESCRIPTION OF SITE This application comprises a traditional two storey end of terrace dwelling at the junction of Sandringham Road and Grenville Road, within the Roath Mill Gardens Conservation Area. The property benefits from double height bay windows on both the Sandringham Road and Grenville Road elevations. The windows in the bays are of metal construction and not sympathetic to the character and

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10

2. 2.1

2.2

17

appearance of the Conservation Area. 2.3 To the rear, the property has a flat roof single storey extension and a smaller pitched roof outbuilding. The rear yard is enclosed along Grenville Road by a brick boundary wall which is approximately 1.6 metres in height. Part of the flat roof extension projects beyond the side elevation of the house, up to the back edge of the footway. At the rear of the yard, the property benefits from a single flat roof garage, beyond which lies a rear lane. The adjoining house at 42 Sandringham Road has a single storey extension running the complete length of the common boundary with the application site, at a height of approximately 2.8 metres. To the south, 11 Grenville Road is separated from the application site by the rear lane. That property has no windows in its side (flank) elevation. SITE HISTORY None directly applicable. POLICY FRAMEWORK Policy 3 (Conservation Area), Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality), Policy 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) and Policy 28 (Subdivision of residential property) of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan. Policies 2.20 (Good Design), 2.24 (Residential Amenity), 2.53 (Conservation Areas) and 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003). Supplementary Planning Guidance : Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance : Waste and Collection and Storage Facilities Roath Mil Gardens Conservation Area Appraisal 2008 Planning Policy Wales Edition 4, February 2011. Paragraph 9.3.3. advises that ‘Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment, including conversion and adaptation, should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity. This includes any such impact on neighbouring dwellings, such as serious loss of privacy or overshadowing.’ TAN 12 : Design TAN 15 : Development and Flood Risk

2.4

2.5

2.6

3. 3.1 4. 4.1

4.2

4.3 4.4

4.5

18

5. 5.1

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES The Operational Manager, Transportation advises that he has no objections to the application subject to the retention of car parking and provision of cycle parking. The Operational Manager, Environment (Pollution Control) has raised no objections but recommends Informative R1 Construction Site Noise. The Operational Manager Waste Management advises that plans detailing refuse storage are acceptable. The Officer requests that the storage areas be provided and retained for future use. The advice of the Conservation Officer has been incorporated into the analysis section of this report. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru has requested drainage conditions to ensure no detriment to the environment or to the Company’s assets. Details of a public sewer crossing the application site have also been provided. A copy of the Company’s comments has been forwarded to the applicant’s agent for his information. The Environment Agency advises that the site would be flood free for the 1 in 100 fluvial event with an allowance for climate change. It states that the Flood Consequences Assessment submitted with the application has demonstrated manageability of this risk by recommending that residents register with its flood warning system and that a flood emergency evacuation plan will be prepared and implemented. Consequently, the Environment Agency has no objection to the application. REPRESENTATIONS Councillor B Kelloway states that he has been contacted by the residents of 42 and 40 Sandringham Road who object to the above application. The main grounds for objection are as follows: • • • Loss of family housing. The creation of two flats could generate extra pressure for on street parking spaces in Sandringham Road. Adverse effect on Roath Mill Gardens Conservation Area (With Article 4 Directive). Although the proposed two storey extension is at the rear of the property, it would be viewable from the Conservation Area. Currently, the terrace of houses between 38 and 44 Sandringham Road does not have double additions at the rear. The proposal to build a two storey extension at the rear of 44 Sandringham Road would destroy the original appearance and continuity of design of these properties. It would be out of character and would not be in keeping with the principles underpinning the conservation area status of the

5.3

5.3

5.4

6. 6.1

6.2

7. 7.1

19

road. The construction of a two storey extension at the rear of 44 Sandringham Road, with additional windows overlooking the rear garden of 42 Sandringham Road would compromise its privacy The construction of a two storey extension at 44 Sandringham Road would have an overshadowing effect upon the rear habitable rooms at 42 Sandringham Road, throwing the rear elevation into shade and denying natural light to the house and garden/patio area.

Councillor Kelloway requests that the concerns expressed above be taken into account when this planning application is determined. 7.2 Councillor Joe Boyle endorses the points made by Councillor Kelloway and requests that they are taken into account when the planning decision is made. Jenny Willmott MP advises that she has been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned about this planning application. She understands that the application is for a double extension at the rear of the property, which is situated in the Roath Mill Gardens Conservation Area. She states that the property currently has a single extension, in line with each of the other properties in the 4-house block in which it is situated, and, that none of the other houses in the block have a double extension. As the rear of the properties are south-facing, she feels the development would have a severe impact on the natural light reaching its neighbours and that it would also potentially create a precedent for other properties in the block to be development in the future in a similar way, which would spoil the uniform look which currently exists. 7.4 Jenny Rathbone AM wishes to add her voice to the objections on the application, stating as follows: (i) This is a conservation area and therefore the planning authority has a duty to protect the vernacular of the area. I am concerned that if this application is granted, it will create a precedent which will then make it very difficult to refuse applications for further conversions to flats thereby undermining the purpose of the conservation area status. (ii) The particular impact on the adjacent 42 Sandringham Road. The neighbouring occupiers’ children are deaf and the blocking of light to the rear of the house will materially impact on their ability to lip read. It will also destroy their amenity of being able to eat and play outside without being overlooked. 7.5 The East Cardiff Conservation Group welcomes the removal of the side structure and restoration of the windows but objects to the first floor extension which it considers would destroy the line of the terrace. Six letters of objection have been received from neighbouring and local

7.3

7.6

20

residents. In summary, the following objections/concerns are raised: (i) Adverse impact of the proposed first floor extension on no. 42 Sandringham Road, resulting in an overshadowing effect and reducing natural light to upstairs windows and to the patio/garden area. (ii) Loss of privacy to the occupiers of no. 42 Sandringham Road. The proposed first floor extension has three windows of which only one would be obscurely glazed. The property currently has only one first floor window which is obscurely glazed. (iii) None of the four houses in the terrace of which no. 44 forms a part have first floor extensions. The proposed first floor extension would damage the appearance and character of the terrace and the surrounding area. Consequently, it is considered that this aspect of the proposal would not accord with the Council’s policies to safeguard the appearance and character of the conservation area. (iv) There is concern that the proposal would set an undesirable precedent. (vii) The conversion of the house into flats is objected to and would involve the loss of a family house and increase parking pressure in the area. (viii) The neighbouring occupiers at no. 42 state that they have not signed a Party Wall Agreement and are not in agreement with the proposed works. They also query the proposed use of a sustainable drainage system and consider that the size of the house is not large enough for conversion into two flats. (ix) Notwithstanding the concerns outlined above, several of the residents welcome the proposed restoration of the windows. 8. 8.1 ANALYSIS This planning application was deferred on 7th November, 2012, for a Committee site visit which took place on 28th November, 2012. The application seeks to convert the dwelling into two self contained flats, construct ground and first floor rear extensions and install replacement windows. The site lies within an existing housing area as defined in the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan. Policy 28 of the Local Plan states that the applications for sub division of residential properties into self contained flats will be favourably considered subject to appropriate provision for car parking, amenity space, refuse disposal and appropriate external alterations. In principle, therefore, there is no objection to the proposed use in this area. The main planning issues are considered to relate to: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Roath Mill Gardens Conservation Area and the general amenities of neighbouring occupiers; (ii) whether the proposed development will provide an acceptable living environmental for future occupiers; (iii) parking/highway issues;

8.2

8.3

8.4

21

(iv) flood risk. 8.5 This property occupies a prominent corner location within the Roath Mill Gardens Conservation Area. As such, the appearance of the rear of the property is considered to be important in terms of the preservation or enhancement of the conservation area. Whilst none of the other properties within the small terraced row in which no. 44 is located have two storey rear extensions, each of the dwellings within the terrace on the opposite side of Grenville Road (46-60 Sandringham Road) do have well-proportioned consistent gabled annexes. Therefore on balance, given that the scale and form of the proposed rear two storey extension is comparable to others evident along Sandringham Road, the principle is considered acceptable. The first floor element would project no further than the existing single storey extension and would be set well back from the property’s Grenville Road frontage. The ridge of the extension would match those of the localised examples and sit below the eaves height of the main dwellings roof whilst incorporating an appropriate pitch. As indicated in paragraph 1.6, the existing single storey extension at the rear of the property projects beyond the side elevation of the dwelling, facing Grenville. This, coupled with its bulk and green painted finish ensures that it forms an unsympathetic addition to the property, streetscene and wider conservation area. The proposed works would see the extension brought back to the original building line, significantly reducing its visual impact. This, combined its proposed cream coloured render finish would be considered to enhance the appearance of the conservation area. The existing outside store and wc at the rear of no. 44 would be redeveloped as part of the proposed works with the resulting space being incorporated into the main dwelling. The utility room proposed in this area would be constructed to the same height as the existing building and will project no further into the rear courtyard than the existing building. It would, however, be widened by approximately 2.2 metres. This alteration would not be prominent within the street scene and therefore it is considered that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved. The addition of a shallow pitched roof with incorporated rooflight above the proposed kitchen would not be prominent and considered acceptable on design grounds. The application seeks to replace the unsympathetic metal casement windows located in the bays at the front and side of no. 44 with timber sliding sash windows. The profile and detailing of the proposed windows would match those of the windows evident in the neighbouring dwelling at No. 42 Sandringham Road. As such the replacement windows would be considered to enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The replacement windows proposed at the rear of the dwelling would be constructed of upvc with the exception of window W4 which would be a

8.6

8.7

8.8

8.9

8.10

8.11

22

wooden sliding sash window, this being the largest and most prominent window on the rear elevation. Given that the existing windows at the rear of the property are unsympathetic in terms of their proportions, materials and appearance, the proposed uPVC windows are considered acceptable in this instance. 8.12 A small section of the boundary wall fronting onto Grenville Road would be removed as part of the proposed works in order to allow for the provision of a bin store associated with the first floor flat. Given that a section of dwarf wall would be reconstructed in the location of the rationalised rear extension and taking into account the limited area of wall which would be removed to allow the provision of a gate/store, its removal would not be considered to harm the character or appearance of the conservation area and is considered acceptable. In relation to the effect of the development on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, the principle impact will be on the adjoining house 42 Sandringham Road. The Council’s Householder Design Guide’ SPG advises that two storey extensions should not be positioned very close to the boundary adjacent to the garden of a neighbour’s property. In this case, the proposed first floor extension is modest in length, projecting only 2.0 metres beyond the rear elevation of the existing dwelling, at a distance of 1.8 metres from the boundary with no. 42. It is not considered that proposed two storey extension would result in an overbearing or dominating effect from the windows or the patio area at the rear of no. 42, having regard to its modest length and distance from the boundary. The proposed single storey extensions at the rear would be screened by the existing structures at the rear of no. 42. No. 44 is unusual in that it has only one first floor window in its rear elevation which is obscurely glazed. Consequently, the neighbouring rear garden at no. 42 is not currently overlooked from the application site. Whilst a proposed bathroom window in the rear elevation of no. 44, sited next to the boundary with the neighbour, could be obscurely glazed (as recommended by condition), a proposed kitchen window in the rear elevation of the proposed first floor extension would permit angled views across part of the neighbours rear garden. This aspect of the proposed would therefore diminish the level of privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of no. 42. Notwithstanding this, the mutual overlooking of garden areas is a common feature of dense terraced living, as is evident elsewhere at the rear of this block, and it is not considered that this issue would justify a refusal of the planning application. The windows in the rear elevation of the proposed first floor extension will be sited approximately 13.0 metres from the blank gable end of 11 Granville Road to the south, which is separated from the application site by a rear lane. The proposed development is considered to provide adequate internal space for both one bedroom flats, with each flat having a satisfactory outlook.

8.13

8.14

8.15

8.16

8.17

23

8.18

A small outdoor amenity space will be retained at the rear which is considered sufficient for purposes of siting out, refuse/cycle storage and clothes drying. It is also evident that the future occupiers will benefit from the large area of public open space opposite the site. The Operational Manager, Transportation has advised that the proposals (which retains one off street parking space) are acceptable on highway safety/parking grounds subject to the retention of the existing parking space and provision/retention of secure cycle parking provision at a ratio of one cycle per bedroom. It should be noted that the Council’s approved SPG states that for a one bedroom flat, 0.5-1 car parking spaces will be required and that the Guidelines work on a maximum basis. Consequently the application is considered to comply with the Council’s approved parking standards. Issues relating to the construction of the extension including the need for sound proofing will be addressed as part of a building regulations application. Issues relating to the Party Wall Act are not material to the determination of the planning application and is a private matter for the applicant and the adjoining neighbour. The submitted Flood Consequences Assessment concludes there are no residual risk of flooding to the development but recommends that the occupiers register with the Environment Agency Wales’s Flood Warning System and that Flood Emergency Evacuation Plans should be prepared and implemented. Informative 3 addresses this issue. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the proposed development. Approval is recommended subject to the attached conditions.

8.19

8.20

8.21

8.22

24

25

26

27

28

LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 05/12/2012 APPLICATION No. 12/1374/DCO ED: APP: TYPE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: CANTON Full Planning Permission APPLICATION DATE: 13/08/2012

Waterstone Homes Ltd PENHILL BOWLING CLUB, PENCISELY ROAD, CANTON, CARDIFF, CF5 1DG PROPOSAL: REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF THE PAVILLION FOR 8NO RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to the persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in paragraph 5.2, of the Chief City Development Officer’s report planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered 3687-02(05)301RevA, 3687-02(05)201, 3687-02905)302 RevA, 3687-01(05)301 RevB, 3687-01(05)401, 3687-01(05)201 RevB 3687-04(05)301 RevB, 3687-04(05)401 RevB, 3687-04(05)402 RevB, 3687-04(05)201 RevB, 3687-04(05)202 RevA, 3687-00(05)102 RevA, 3687-00(05)103 RevA, TDA.1877.03 RevC attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application. 3. D3D Maintenance of Parking Within Site 4. No development shall take place until construction details of the proposed access/footway crossover on Pencisely Road, including (but not limited to) the provision of build-outs, alterations to existing carriageway markings/cycle lane, the reinstatement of the existing access and resurfacing (as required) of the existing footway along the perimeter of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those details shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into beneficial use. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of all users passing along the highway abutting the site. 5. No development shall take place until details of a turning space within the

29

curtilage of the site to enable delivery vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into beneficial use until the details have been implemented and thereafter the space shall not be used for any purpose other than the turning of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site. 6. No development shall take place until detailed plans showing the position and form of construction of all roads within the site and the method of disposal of all surface water drainage there from have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development and to make provision for the satisfactory access to any dwelling by the future occupants. 7. Prior to commencement of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to include details of construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access, wheel washing facilities and parking of contractors vehicles. The development construction shall be managed strictly in accordance with the scheme so approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity. 8. No development shall take place until a site assessment, including ground permeability testing, has been undertaken to determine the whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised, and a drainage scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage, including any connection to the existing drainage system has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the scheme is carried out and completed as approved. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development. 9. E7Z Imported Aggregates 10. D7Z Contaminated materials 11. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure 12. E1B Samples of Materials 13. D4A Landscape Scheme 14. E4A Implementation of Landscape Scheme 15. D7G Road Traffic Noise 16. C1J CFSH - Stan Overarch Con Post 11/12/10

30

17. C1K CFSH - Pre-ComCon Post 11/12/10 18. C1L CFSH - Post Construc Con Post 11/12/10 RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations. RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for (i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils, aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates / soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site: • Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. • Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances. • Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and (iii) the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer. Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land. The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.

RECOMMENDATION 4: That public transport options are provided to tenants

31

upon residency, as a ‘Welcome Pack’, as this can set in train sustainable transport behaviours. Leaflets are available from the Council for the bus and cycle routes in the area as well as guidance on the kind of information to provide in the pack which would promote sustainable transport behaviours. RECOMMENDATION 5: That the developer be advised to liaise with Highway Operations in order to obtain the necessary licence to implement the proposed footway improvement works. RECOMMENDATION 6: The access works (subject to condition) and any other works to the existing or proposed adopted public highway are to be subject to agreements under Section 278 and 38 of The Highways Act 1980 between the developer and Local Highway Authority 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposal is for a residential development of 8no. dwellings with associated garages on the former bowling green. The development consists of a mix of two pairs of semi detached dwellings fronting onto Pencisely Road, with a further four detached dwellings to the rear of the site, which back onto Thomson’s Park. The proposed semi detached dwellings along the frontage of the site measure 10.2 metres in height, with the detached dwellings to the rear of the site reducing to 9.6 metres in height. The semi detached dwellings are 3 - 4 bedroom, and the detached dwellings are 5 bedroom. The proposed dwellings are to be finished with red facing brickwork, with cast stone string courses and coping, with a replica slate and terracotta ridge tiles. The development is served by 12no. parking spaces plus a further 9 garage spaces, which are accommodated within a triple garage and three double garages across the site. The proposal involves landscaping works and a new 1.8 metre high timber hit and miss fence enclosure along the southern boundary of the development with Thomson’s Park and along the eastern boundary with the park the majority of the enclosure will be timber hit and miss fencing with a 6 metre long section of 1.8 metre high railings adjacent to the internal driveway. Along the frontage of the development with Pencisely Road a dwarf wall with railings fixed on top is proposed, to a total height of 1.8 metres. 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The 0.29 Hectare site is currently occupied by the Penhill Bowling green and club house. The club house is located to the north of the site, backing onto Pencisely Road and the bowling green to the rear (south of the site). The club no longer uses the application site. The site is bordered to the north by Pencisely Road, to the east and south by Thompson’s Park and to the west by a line of residential garages which belong to Dulwich House beyond and the residential street of Dulwich Gardens.

32

3.

SITE HISTORY None relevant.

4. 4.1

POLICY FRAMEWORK The site is within existing area of Open Space as defined in the City of Cardiff Local Plan. Planning Policy Wales, 5th Edition (November 2012) is relevant. Relevant Technical Advice Notes (TANs): 11 Noise (1997) 12 Design (2009) 18 Transport (2007)

4.2 4.3

4.4

The application should be considered against the following policies of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 7 ‘Protection of Open Space’ 11 ‘Design and Aesthetic Quality’ 17 ‘Parking and servicing requirements’ 18 ‘Provision for Cyclists’ 31 ‘Provision of open space on new residential developments’

4.5

The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 2.20 ‘Good Design’ 2.24 ‘Residential Amenity’ 2.45 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’ 2.57 ‘Parking and Servicing’ 2.64 ‘Air, Noise and Light Pollution’

4.6

The following Supplementary Planning Guidance: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements, Standards, January 2010; Trees and Development, March 2007; Waste Collection and Storage Facilities, March 2007. Infill Sites (2011) Residential Design Guide (2008) Open Space (2008)

5. 5.1

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES The Urban Design team advised that: ‘The properties fronting Pencisely Road have now been set back by 3.2 m and the ridge height of these properties has been reduced by 600mm. Whilst the ridge height of these properties still

33

remains higher than that of the properties opposite, the proposed development has more steeply sloping roofs and the eaves heights are subsequently lower than those opposite. The revised Design and Access Statement provides an assessment of characteristic development of the local area and it is considered that the revised proposals demonstrate a response to this assessment. The properties towards the rear of the site have been reduced in scale with the number of units reduced. These units are now considered to be subservient in scale to the main road properties. The layout of parking has been revised to provide on plot for some of the properties and to provide a clearer relationship with the units served for others. The development is now considered to be appropriate to the character of the area in terms of design, scale and layout and to comply with the Council’s design policy’. 5.2 The Operational Manager Parks has no objections and advises that a financial contribution of £23,196 is required towards the provision of, or enhancement of existing public open space. Furthermore, compensation in lieu of the loss of recreational space of £6000 which would be used to improve the existing bowling facilities at either Llandaff Fields or Victoria Park. Loss of the Penhill Bowling Green through development of the site is considered completely acceptable by Parks as it has been under‐used for some time, is in increasingly poor condition, and there are other bowling greens nearby which can be used. The SPG for Open Space was formally adopted by Council on 13th March 2008. Under current policy the proposed development is subject to Policy 31 of the Local Plan (Provision of open space on new residential developments), which requires the provision of open space for recreational activity. The closest area of recreational open space in Canton is Thompsons Park and Victoria Park. Based on the 2009 Cardiff Council Open Space Survey the Canton ward, in which the development is situated, is deficient in opens space provision by 3.19 hectares (Measured by the Fields in Trust recommended standard of 2.43 hectares per 1000 population). The quality and facilities of existing open spaces also require improvement, with additional capacity to take into account the increased residential population resulting from the development. 5.3 The Operational Manager Drainage recommends a condition requiring ground permeability testing to be undertaken and an informed drainage scheme submitted for approval prior to commencement of development. The Operational Manager Pollution Control (Contaminated Land) has no objections subject to conditions regarding the importation of soil or aggregates to the site and an advisory note relating to contaminated and unstable land. The Operational Manager Pollution Control (Air and Noise) has no objections subject to a condition requiring a sound insulation scheme to ensure that all habitable rooms exposed to external road traffic noise in excess of 63 dBA or

5.4

5.5

34

57dBA at night shall be subject to sound insulation measures in accordance with a sound insulation scheme to be submitted for approval. In addition an additional recommendation is required advising the applicant of the provisions of the control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to construction site noise. 5.6 Waste Management has no objections and advises that a refuse vehicle would be able to enter the site in order to collect from the properties if the access road is to be constructed to adoptable standards. The Operational Manager Transportation advises: ‘The Council’s adopted Access, Circulation & Parking Standards SPG requires a minimum of 9No off road parking spaces for residents, with a maximum limit of 27No spaces (based on the plot schedule shown on drg. No. 3687-00 (05) 101). The proposed 14No spaces and 10No garage spaces (24No in total), therefore sits within this range and is deemed to be acceptable on this basis. It is recommended that the 2No visitor bays be marked out as such in order to ensure that that these are available for this use; It is considered that in order to improve visibility at the location of the proposed access that the provision of build-outs be investigated within the adopted highway. The existing redundant access into the site will require reinstating as footway, including resurfacing of the length of footway abutting the site. Alterations will also be required to the existing carriageway markings, including the cycle lane. The scope of these works will need to be agreed and implemented via a S278 Agreement. On the basis of the above, I can therefore confirm that Transportation would have no objection in principle to the proposal, subject to conditions’. 6. 6.1 EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust advise: The application area is situated within the area of the Essential Setting to Thompson’s Park (Sir David’s Field), which is on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales, Glamorgan volume, where it is graded level II. It is not thought that any buried archaeological remains exist. The bowling green is noted as of Edwardian origin. It is therefore necessary to consider the impact of the proposed developments on these aspects of the historic park; the changes will clearly remove the original use and represent significant changes to the Historic Park; your Members will need to consider the benefits of the development against the loss of the historic feature. As noted above Thompson’s Park is included as a Level II Park in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales. We

5.7

35

therefore recommend that the Garden History Society and the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust should be consulted on this application. 6.2 The Garden History Society and the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust were both consulted and no comments were received. Dwr Cymru has no objections subject to standard drainage conditions. REPRESENTATIONS Councillor R Cook objects to the proposed development on behalf of nine local residents on the following grounds: (i) The site is designated for sporting/recreational use and should be retained as such. The proposed houses facing Pencisely Road are too close to the road, and out of keeping with other houses opposite, and further along Pencisely Road, which are set back from the road. This is in contravention of Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policy 2.20 – Good Design – responding to local character and context. The proposed development provides for 14 vehicle parking spaces, this is at the lower end of that required by the Supplementary Planning Guidance (minimum requirement 11.25 spaces, maximum 29.25 spaces). Each 4/5 bedroomed house will have at least two vehicles, therefore at least 18 spaces should be provided. Much of the proposed planting is of non-native species. More native species, and pollinator friendly plants should be included in the landscaping. The Welsh Government recently announced the development of an action plan, likely to include changes in the planning system, to encourage more pollinator friendly planting to encourage bees. Because the ground is higher than that in Dulwich Gardens the height of the houses will be overbearing. Also because of the intensification of use of the site it will have a harmful impact on the residential amenity of the neighbours. This is in contravention of policy 2.24 – residential amenity of the UDP. Due to the increase in impermeable surfaces there will need to be two holding tanks to temporarily store surface water before discharge to the local combined sewer system. Surely, since the surface water has to be collected and stored, it would be more ecologically sound to use the surface water for garden watering, toilet flushing or washing.

6.3 7. 7.1

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

7.2

Objections have been received from the occupiers of nos. 14, 20 and 22 Pencisely Road, 10, 12, 14 and 15 Dulwich Gardens, 3, 5 and 6 Dulwich House, 14 Cae Syr Dafydd, 28 Conway Road, 61 Llanfair Road, 27

36

Conybeare Road and 94 Ryder Street The objections include: (i) The proposed semi detached dwellings are too high and too close to Pencisely Road and would appear out of character with the surrounding area. The development would result in a loss of light for neighbouring occupiers. Increase in traffic congestion in the area Increased pressure for on street parking as there is insufficient off street parking within the proposed development. Increased demand on water supply. Lack of unsurfaced land could lead to flooding of garages in Dulwich Gardens. Noise and dust pollution during construction. No need for new dwellings within the area. Loss of public open space. The site was gifted to the occupants of Cardiff as public open space and a covenant was placed upon the use of the site for recreational purposes. Loss of view. Over development of the site. Lack of footway within the proposed development, resulting in a hazard for pedestrians. Loss of privacy; Encroachment of development into Thompson’s park.

(ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x)

(xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) 7.3

A letter of support was received from the occupier of 32 Coed Arhyd, Ely. The letter responds to objections received and states: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Despite the proposed dwellings being tall the houses opposite are significantly higher ground level; A great deal of effort was made to attract people to the club prior to the club closing and the decision was not taken lightly; There are many other bowling facilities available for use; The bowling club was not open a ‘public’ amenity and was a members only club; When the club was running and used for functions there was significant noise and on street parking.

8. 8.1

ANALYSIS Policy 7 of the Cardiff Local Plan only permits the loss of recreational facilities where the loss does not exacerbate a local or city wide deficiency and satisfactory compensatory open space is provided. In this context the Operational Manager Parks has no objections to the loss of the open space because the site the site has been underused for some time, and that there are other similar bowling facilities available within easy travelling distance. Furthermore, appropriate contributions are offered to enhance existing

37

facilities. 8.2 The scheme has been amended to address the concerns raised by the Design Team regarding the proximity of the development to Pencisely Road, a lack of soft landscaping on site, and parking layout. The amended scheme incorporates the following amendments: (i) The number of proposed dwellings has been reduced from nine to eight. (ii) The height of the dwellings along the frontage of the site has been reduced by 600mm. (iii) The semi detached dwellings (Plots 1,2,3 and 4) have been set back further from the footway on Pencisely Road, (now a minimum of 3.5 metres). (iv) There are now 4 trees proposed within the site along with new planting within Thompson’s Park adjacent to the boundaries with the proposed development (to be agreed with Parks). 8.3 The design of the proposed development is now considered acceptable. The reduction in the height of the dwellings fronting Pencisely Road and their repositioning slightly further back into the site softens the impact upon the streetscene. It should be noted that the dwellings on the northern side of Pencisely Road are at a higher ground level. Therefore, the difference in height between the existing dwellings on the northern side of Pencisely Road and the proposed on the southern is not significant enough to cause concern. The deletion of a dwelling from the scheme has opened up the proposed development and improved the relationship with the park beyond, enabling views into the park and of the trees beyond. The amendments also enable the provision of some planting on site. 8.4 Relationship with park The Urban Design team and Parks raised the issue of the proposed development’s relationship with the adjacent parkland. It was considered that the intervisibility between the development and the parkland was a key issue, with a need for good levels of overlooking of the parkland by the proposed dwellings, In the interests of reduced crime and anti social behaviour. It was initially considered that the most appropriate means of enclosure would be to construct a quality brick wall with railing inserts. However, on balance it was not considered that the use of a wall along the boundaries with Thompson Park would be the optimal solution. Council Tree Officers advised that the construction of a boundary wall would result in the loss of hedge and damage to a number of trees. Furthermore, the use of sections of railing panels within the boundary wall would prejudice the privacy of occupants within the rear gardens of the proposed dwellings and would likely result in screening being erected along the boundary by future

38

occupiers. The least visually obtrusive option was considered to be the use of a ‘hit and miss’ timber fence which would provide privacy and security for the occupiers of the proposed development, whilst minimising damage to trees and vegetation within the adjacent park. The proposals also incorporate additional planting and coppicing along the boundaries in order to provide improved screening of the boundary. Intervisibility between the proposed residential development and the park has been achieved from first floor level of the dwellings and the introduction of additional windows in the side elevations. In addition a section of railings will be used along the eastern boundary with the park, adjacent to the internal driveway. 8.5 It is not considered that the proposed development would prejudice the privacy or amenities of neighbouring occupiers by virtue of overbearing or loss of light. Adjacent to the western boundary of the site is a block of garages belonging to Dulwich Gardens (flats). The block of garages measures 32 metres in length and runs the majority of the length of the shared boundary. Dulwich Gardens (flats) are a distance of between 14.5 and 17.5 metres from the boundary with the application site. The closest residential dwelling is 14 Dulwich Gardens which is a distance of 12.5 metres from the closest dwelling (plot 8). In response to the objections received which have not already been addressed within the report: (i) Evidence indicates that there is a significant demand for new dwellings within the area; (ii) There is no indication that the proposed development encroaches into Thompson’s Park. (iii) Any covenants restricting the use of the land in question are not a material planning consideration and would be a Legal matter. (iv) Transportation raises no objection to the proposed parking provision nor does it suggest there will be traffic congestion or safety problems as a consequence of the proposal or internal absence of footways. (v) There has been no indication from Welsh Water that an appropriate water supply cannot be made available. (vi) There is no evidence to suggest that the site surface water drainage will increase to a degree that will result in flooding or adjoining properties. (vii) Whilst perforation in sustainable terms the water management regime does not compel the use of grey water system. 8.7 A Section 106 agreement is required in order to secure the required financial contributions for Parks (see paragraph 5.2 above).

8.6

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

COMMITTEE DATE: 05/12/2012 APPLICATION No. ED: APP: TYPE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 12/1619/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 21/09/2012

PONTPRENNAU/ST MELLONS Full Planning Permission

Cardiff Gate Pradera Ltd PHASE 2, CARDIFF GATE RETAIL PARK, DERING ROAD, PONTPRENNAU, CARDIFF, CF23 8NL PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAIL UNITS (CLASS A1), GYM (CLASS D2) AND A3 UNIT INCLUDING ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, SERVICING AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to the persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in paragraph 5.3 of the Chief City Development Officer’s report planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. The retail floorspace hereby permitted shall not exceed 2614 sq m gross, either by internal or external alteration. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt. 3. The non food retail floorspace hereby permitted shall not be used for the sale of men’s and women’s fashion clothing and footwear, (excluding sportswear) or jewellery except where ancillary to the principal use of the building and for no other purpose including those set out in Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order with or without notification. Reason: To prevent other retail uses or changes to the format of retail sales which would need to be fully considered separately by the Local Planning Authority in terms of development plan policies and/or government planning guidance. 4. Conditions limiting the retail floorspace and the permitted range of goods in the existing retail units (Units 1-6) continue to apply. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt. 5. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro 6. C4R Landscaping Implementation

49

7. C4F Protection of Trees 8. C3D Loading, Unloading & Parking Within Site 9. C3S Cycle Parking 10. A scheme of lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before its installation on site. All lighting is to be designed to avoid spillage outside the site footprint or onto vegetation. No direct lighting of vegetation or light spillage shall be allowed into established woodland surrounding the site. Reason: To protect the habitat of protected species. 11. C2N Drainage details 12. C7S Details of Refuse Storage 13. F7Q Kitchen Extraction 14. The consent relates to the application as supplemented by the Ecology Addendum dated 7th November 2012. Reason: To ensure that the impact upon protected species is minimised. 15. E1C External Materials 16. E7Z (Imported Aggregates) 17. D7Z (Contaminated Materials) 18. H7G Plant Noise 19. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include details of construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access, parking of contractors’ vehicles and wheel washing facilities. The development construction shall be managed strictly in accordance with the scheme so approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity. 20. Details of litter bins to be provided on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented prior to beneficial use of the development hereby approved Reason: In the interests of the local environment. 21. C1P BREEAM - (Non Res) Overarching Condition 22. C1Q BREEAM - (Non Res) Pre-Commencement

50

23. C1R BREEAM - (Non Res) Post Construction 24. Prior to first beneficial use of the development hereby approved the following highway / pedestrian works shall be implemented in accordance with full engineering details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall include: (i) The footway / cycleway travelling along the eastern boundary of the site and connecting with the boundary of the site, adjacent St Mellons Road to the north (shown indicatively on Drawing no. P.204-Q); (ii) The provision of a zebra crossing of the unnamed road to the north of McDonald’s and linking to the car park to the north. (iii) The repainting of the informal zebra crossing of Dering Road. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety and permeability. 25. Prior to first beneficial use of the development hereby approved a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority and shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of sustainability. 26. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application. RECOMMENDATION 2: R4 To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations. 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This application proposes the development of new retail units totalling 2614 square metres gross, a gym (1504 sq m), and an A3 unit (172 sq m) and associated car parking, servicing and access improvements at Cardiff Gate Retail Park. The development will be situated to the east of the existing B&Q in the already established car park. 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application relates to part of the Cardiff Gate Retail Park which is located to the south of Junction 30 of the M4 (Cardiff Gate). The application site consists of existing retail units and associated car parking, servicing and

51

landscaping. The Cardiff Gate Retail Park also consists of an Asda supermarket and McDonald’s drive-through takeaway. 3. SITE HISTORY 11/0830/DCO – Permission granted for a variation of condition to allow a further five years to implement A3 Consent 05/ 2701/E. 94/411/N – Outline planning permission granted for ‘Retail development to include food and non food use together with free standing A3 restaurant, petrol filling station and ancillary facilities associate, surface car park and open space’. 4. 4.1 POLICY FRAMEWORK The site is identified as existing Business, Industry and Warehousing land as defined in the City of Cardiff Local Plan. Relevant National Planning Guidance: Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5 November 2012) MIPPS 01/2008: Planning for Good Design TAN 4: Retailing and Town Centres TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning TAN 11: Noise TAN 12: Design TAN 18: Transport TAN 21: Waste TAN 22: Sustainable Buildings 4.3 The application should be considered against the following policies of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan: (i) (ii) (i) (ii) 4.4 11 ‘Design and Aesthetic Quality’ 17 ‘Parking and servicing requirements’ 18 ‘Provision for Cyclists’ 19 ‘Provision for Pedestrians’

4.2

The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant: (i) (ii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) 2.20 ‘Good Design’ 2.34 ‘Retail Development’ 2.45 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’ 2.57 ‘Access, circulation and Parking Requirements’ 2.64 ‘Air, Noise and Light Pollution’ 2.74 ‘Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development’

52

4.5

The following Supplementary Planning Guidance: (i) Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements, Standards, January 2010; (ii) Trees and Development, March 2007; (iii) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities, March 2007.

5. 5.1

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES The Operational Pollution Control recommends conditions relating to plant noise and kitchen extraction and an advisory note relating to construction site noise. The Ecology team advise that the information submitted within the Ecology Addendum dated 7th November 2012 addresses their concerns in relation to protected species and their habitats. A condition is recommended to secure the measures recommended in the Ecology Addendum, which are aimed at mitigating any adverse impacts upon bat, Dormouse or bird populations and habitats. The Operational Manager Transportation has no objections and advises that ‘The TA satisfactorily demonstrates that the additional vehicle movements that will be generated by the proposed development can be adequately accommodated within the existing adopted public highway network, and also that there will be more than sufficient capacity within the retained car park to accommodate demand at peak periods. It also examines access by non-car modes of travel and identifies a number of improvements’. A zebra crossing, is proposed to the north of Unit 5 (McDonald’s) along with the re-painting of the existing informal zebra crossing to the east of McDonald’s. The improvements are welcomed as they would significantly improve ease of access for pedestrians Another link is proposed to the east of B&Q incorporating an extension to the existing footway adjacent to St Mellons Road in order to provide a continuous link into Cardiff Gate Business Park. Such a link would be very welcome Concept details of the scheme are shown in Fig 4.2 of the TA and a condition would be required relating to submission of full details for approval. The applicant has offered a financial contribution of £70,000, to be secured via Section 106 agreement to fund: (i) a pedestrian / cycle linkage between the northern boundary of the site and St Mellons Road to the North, to complete the link to the Cardiff Gate Business Park; (ii) a zebra crossing on Heol Pontprennau, to the south west of the application site (in the vicinity of Burwell Close) which will improve safe pedestrian access to the Retail Park.

5.2

5.3

53

Reference is also made in the TA to the production of a Travel Plan and a further condition will be required in this respect. 5.4 Tree Officers remain concerned regarding the impact upon trees on site. The applicant is undertaking further work to overcome these concerns and the outcome will be reported to Committee. The Design Team advise: ‘There are no issues regarding the scale and massing of the proposed new retails units/gym. The landscaped setting of the link road provides the context. Introducing additional units will increase the vitality of the area and strengthen the urban form. A major consideration in relation to this proposal is its relationship with surrounding communities. Any pedestrian or cycle movement to the site currently involves negotiating busy roads and this significantly restricts the site’s connectivity to surrounding neighbourhoods by means of travel other than the car. In terms of links to Cardiff Gate Business Park to the north, a new footpath link is proposed along the perimeter of the B&Q store to join St Mellons Road which could then give access into Business Park. Whilst this section of the link lies outside the applicants’ ownership, the issue of a direct public access route to the retail uses from the Business Park should be explored further. This route should be well lit. Permeability Access to the car park has been amended to provide a single combined entrance and exit. This will aid legibility for both motorists and pedestrians. The proposal also includes improvement to pedestrian circulation routes across the site. Wider pavement areas will be provided outside units with seating areas and planters’. 5.6 Waste Management advise that the proposed refuse storage areas is acceptable. In addition, details of proposed litter bins will be required throughout the site. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES Dwr Cymru has no objections subject to standard conditions. REPRESENTATIONS None received. ANALYSIS The site is an out of centre location and the proposal must therefore be considered against Policy 50 of the Cardiff Local Plan (1996) and assessed against the standard retail policy tests of Planning Policy Wales Edition 4 ‘Planning for Retailing and Town Centres’, (February 2011), including whether

5.5

6. 6.1 7. 7.1 8. 8.1

54

there is a need for additional retail development; the sequential approach to site selection and; the impact of the proposal on existing centres. In support of the application a retail assessment has been provided by the agents. 8.2 Quantitative Need The agents seek to justify the proposed A1 element of the application on the grounds that there is a quantitative need for the development. As the proposal will provide smaller retail units and therefore primarily serve a localised function, the primary catchment area adopted in the agent’s quantitative analysis is Zone 4, i.e. the catchment area as identified in the Council’s Retail Capacity Study and which encompasses north east Cardiff. The agents adopt a base year of 2012 and a design year (the year the development will have been completed and established normal trading patterns) of 2017. The agent’s findings for quantitative need for the proposed retail floorspace are summarised as follows:• • Unit 7 is intended for an A3 occupier and Unit 12 is intended to be occupied by a gym (Use Class D2). These units will not generate a retail turnover and are therefore not included in the quantitative analysis. Although it is considered likely that the eventual mix of development may include service uses, in order to undertake a robust, worst case analysis the quantitative analysis assumes that Units 8-11 are to be occupied by retail use (Use Class A1). Expenditure on comparison goods in the Primary Catchment Area (PCA) is £234.5 million, comprising of expenditure retained in the PCA (£101.1 million) and inflow of expenditure into the PCA (133.4 million). The comparison goods turnover of existing stores in the PCA is £185.3 million and £31.6 million for commitments. Allowing for commitments which will increase both the market share of expenditure in the PCA and also increase the amount of inflow into Zone 4 as a result of the increased attractiveness of the retail offer, the resultant available comparison goods expenditure in Zone 4 to support the new floorspace is £17.7 million. The proposed retail floorspace is expected to have an estimated turnover of £9.3 million. The quantitative analysis therefore demonstrates that there is sufficient growth in comparison goods expenditure to support the new retail floorspace.

• • •

• •

8.3

Qualitative Need The agent’s findings for the qualitative need for the proposed retail floorspace is summarised as follows:

55

The application site is considered to be highly accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, and the accessibility to the site, including from the business park and between different parts of the retail park will be greatly enhanced as a result of the improved linkages which from part of the proposal. The retail park is served by 8 buses per hour in each direction. The provision of an improved retail offer to meet local need will reduce the necessity of local residents to travel further afield to meet basic shopping needs and provide complementary facilities for workers at the adjoining business park. It will also facilitate the provision of a new leisure facility, the gym, which would not be available as a freestanding development. Whilst the convenience goods provision is adequate in quantity due to the Asda superstore, it is considered that there is a lack of non-bulky comparison goods and service uses in the area, which the proposed development will help to alleviate.

8.4

Sequential Approach The sequential approach to site selection as contained in national policy requires that if need is demonstrated for additional retail facilities, wherever possible they should be located in or adjacent to existing shopping centres with development plan status. The first preference is for town and district centres and if none can be identified that are considered suitable and viable, edge of centre sites may be considered. Where there is no edge of centre sites available, then out-of-centre locations may be considered where they are accessible by a choice of means of transport. Planning Policy Wales places the onus on developers and retailers to be flexible and innovative about the format, design and scale of the proposed development and the amount of car parking, tailoring these to fit local circumstances. The agent’s claim the proposed retail development at Cardiff Gate Retail Park would satisfy the sequential test taking into account the following: • • The characteristics of the proposed development The planned district centre role for the site which was a longstanding policy and commitment of the Council. Paragraph 9.3.9 of the Local Plan acknowledged that approval had been granted for a new district centre at North Pentwyn. This is further acknowledged on the Proposals Map. The existing development was always intended to serve the role of a district centre and although it has an add on role in term of bulky goods retailing, it nevertheless serves a function as the district centre for the area, containing a large food store with integral post office and pharmacy, although it does not have a leisure facility, smaller shops or a range of restaurants. The proposed retail floorspace would add these facilities for the benefit of local residents thereby contributing to its original intended role as a district centre. It would also enable the enhancement of the public realm, the enhancement of the pedestrian linkages within the centre and new linkages to adjacent areas, thereby better meeting needs of the community.

56

Given the catchment which the proposed development seeks to serve, it would not be appropriate to undertake a purely academic sequential assessment of sites further afield. In view of the planned district centre role for the site and the characteristics of the proposed development, it is considered that no other site could meet the need of the development and therefore the sequential approach is considered to be satisfied.

8.5

Retail Impact New out of centre retail floorspace should only be allowed where it does not cause or contribute unacceptable harm to the vitality and viability of existing or planned centres, or threaten strategies aimed at sustaining and enhancing them. The agents have produced an impact statement evaluating the impact of the proposed development on the vitality and viability of existing centres, initially assessing the health of district and local centres within Zone 4 and those closest to the application site in Zone 5 and then providing details of the estimated pattern of trade diversion. In summary the agent’s assessment of the impact of the proposed retail floorspace is as follows: • A significant proportion of the turnover of the proposed retail floorspace will be diverted from existing stores at Cardiff Gate Retail Park, principally the Asda superstore which offers the only significant non-bulky shopping provision at the retail park. An estimated 25% of the £9.6m turnover at 2017 will be diverted from adjacent units, representing a 3.6% impact. An estimated 45% of the proposed retail floorspace turnover will be diverted form other shops in the PCA (Zone 4). This includes the numerous out-of-centre retail units in the Newport Road area, in addition to developments further afield, such as the out-of-centre stores at Ty Glas Retail Park. A very small proportion of expenditure will be diverted from existing district and local centres in the PCA. The impact on these centres is likely to be spread over a wide area and not concentrated on any particular centre, and as such is not considered to be a threat to the vitality and viability of any defined centre in the PCA. In overall terms, the £4.2m trade diversion is likely to be focussed on outof-centre stores and the resultant 3.7% impact is not considered to pose a material threat to any individual store or centre. The estimated £1.4m trade diversion from the city centre is not a materially significant level of trade diversion given the substantial turnover of the centre (£1215m); the impact will be imperceptible at 0.1%. Allowance is made for a trade diversion of £1.4m from stores outside of Zone 4 and the city centre. This is expected to be drawn from a wide number of stores and locations and as such will not have a materially harmful impact on any particular centre or store. The proposed development is not considered to present a material threat to any defined centre or any other store, and is not of a scale to pose any threat to any committed or proposed investment in a centre or store.

• • •

57

8.6

Conclusion In summary it is considered that the retail statement in support of the application demonstrates:• there is a forecast growth in comparison expenditure to support the proposed retail floorspace. A residual expenditure of £17.7 million is available within the primary catchment area to support the proposed retail floorspace which is estimated to have a turnover of £9.3m. that given the locations of the nearest district centres to the application site – St. Mellons situated 3 miles away and Thornhill 4.8 miles away, the proposed retail floorspace would fulfil a qualitative need. The provision of an improved retail offer to meet local need will reduce the need for local residents to travel further afield to shop in addition to providing a complementary facility for workers at the adjoining business park and therefore satisfy a qualitative need for the proposal. In terms of the applicants approach to the sequential test, it is not accepted that Cardiff Gate Retail Park is a designated district centre. Cardiff Gate Retail Park in its current format, comprising large retail units selling bulky goods possesses none of the characteristics of a district centre. The retail park does not have a leisure facility, smaller shops or a range of restaurants which are typical of district centres. In this instance, given the lack of a readily accessible district centre and the consideration that the development is unlikely to negatively impact upon any other District or Local Centres, the agent’s arguments put forward in terms of the sequential test are accepted. It is inevitable that the proposed retail floorspace will have some impact on the turnover of existing stores both in designated centres and in out-ofcentre locations. However, the supporting statement clearly demonstrates that 45% of the proposed stores turnover will be diverted mainly from other out-of-centre stores, particularly in the Newport Road area and 25% of the proposed stores turnover will be diverted from existing stores at Cardiff Gate Retail Park. Designated district and local centres and the city centre will experience only very minor trading impact which will not affect their vitality and viability. The proposed retail floorspace would represent a 10% increase in the gross retail floorspace at the retail park. Taking the above factors into account and comparing the proposed development, including the amount of floorspace proposed to that which exists, the application raises no retail policy concerns. The proposal will provide up to 80 new jobs in addition to jobs created in the construction phase and this is a material consideration in the determination of this application.

However, conditions should be attached to any grant of consent in order to prevent future changes to the scale and nature of the retail park which could adversely impact on the retail strategy of the development plan. 8.7 The design of the proposed retail units is considered acceptable. The proposed units are typical in their appearance for this type of retail

58

development. Condition 15 will require material samples to be agreed prior to commencement of development. 8.8 There are no residential neighbours in close proximity to the proposed development. The area of the existing car park which is to be developed is at the far eastern end of the site and backs onto the embankment of the M4 Link Road. The Tree Officers have expressed concerns regarding the loss of trees on site. The applicant has amended the scheme in order to work towards addressing these concerns, including the deletion of the pedestrian link through the protected woodland to the south west of the application site. However, it is unlikely that the applicant will be able to address all of the Tree Officer’s concerns. A number of trees are proposed to be lost on the eastern boundary of the site in order to provide the pedestrian / cycleway to St Mellons Road in the north. It is considered that the significant replacement planting scheme which is proposed is sufficient to mitigate the loss of trees proposed. It should also be noted that the trees to be lost within the existing car park, which were planted as part of the retail park’s original planting scheme are generally in a very poor state and the proposed planting scheme, including enhanced tree pits will enable trees to grow to a sufficient size to enhance the visual amenity value of the site. Pedestrian permeability is considered to be an important consideration as part of this application. The application as initially submitted contained a public footpath to be created from the park adjacent Heol Pontprennau through the woodland belt to the south west of the application site, through McDonald’s car park and toward the retail park via a new pedestrian crossing of the unnamed road to the north of McDonald’s. However, on balance, the merits of providing this link were considered to be outweighed by the negative points. The proposed footpath would have resulted in the clearance of an area of woodland which has the benefit of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), the path would have then travelled through the rooting zone of an Oak tree, which is also covered by a TPO and across the McDonald’s car park via an informal crossing. The crossing of the car park would have been very close to the entrance to the car park and on a sharp bend with poor visibility. Therefore, the new footpath was deleted from the scheme. The application includes a number of additional benefits to aid permeability and pedestrian / cycle safety. The two most important issues relate to the provision of the northern pedestrian footpath / cycleway which extends along the eastern boundary of the site from south to North, to meet the northern boundary of the site in proximity to St Mellons Road. The footpath / cycleway will stop short of St Mellons Road as there is a section of land between the northern boundary of the site and the highway which is not within the applicant’s control. The applicant is to provide funds via a 106 agreement to cover the cost of the construction of the final link to St Mellons Road, which will require negotiation with the landowner (WAG) to secure. A pedestrian link with Cardiff Gate Business Park has been sought for many years and is considered to be a significant achievement in terms of both permeability and

8.9

8.10

8.11

59

sustainability. A financial contribution will also enable the construction of a zebra crossing of Heol Pontprennau, to the south west of the application site which will further encourage pedestrian rather than vehicular movement in the vicinity. 8.12 The proposed development is considered acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement relating to the matters covered in Section 5.3 above.

60

61

62

63

64

PETITION LOCAL MEMBER, AM AND MP OBJECTION COMMITTEE DATE: 05/12/2012 APPLICATION DATE: 12/07/2011

APPLICATION No. 11/1213/DCI ED: APP: TYPE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: RIVERSIDE

Full Planning Permission

Pontcanna Pine Developments FORMER PONTCANNA PINE, 200 KING'S ROAD, PONTCANNA, CARDIFF, CF11 9DF PROPOSAL: REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE RETAIL AT GROUND FLOOR AND 8 APARTMENTS ABOVE (FIRST AND SECOND STOREY) ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING CYCLE PARKING AND REFUSE STORAGE ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: following reasons: 1. That planning permission be REFUSED for the

The application fails to demonstrate how satisfactory short-term parking for the proposed retail use would be effectively secured without exacerbating existing on-street parking pressures and congestion within close proximity of the site, particularly at the junction of Kings Road/Severn Grove. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policies 17, 18 and 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff UDP and the Council’s Access, Circulation and Parking Standards SPG. The application fails to secure provision of safe and convenient movement of pedestrians and cyclists within close proximity of the site, particularly at the junction of Kings Road/Severn Grove, to the detriment of highway safety and free-flow of traffic. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policies 18, 19 and 20 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff UDP and the Council’s Access, Circulation and Parking Standards SPG. The proposal would give rise to and exacerbate on-street parking pressures and congestion by service and delivery vehicles associated with the retail use, by reason of the limited space available for such functions, and would give rise to obstruction to all users of the adjacent roads, to the detriment of highway safety and free-flow of traffic and

2.

3.

65

would be contrary to policies 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards’ SPG. 4. The proposed layout of the rear yard does not provide adequate facilities for the secure and covered storage of cycles or the manoeuvring of vehicles, to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to policies 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards’ SPG. By virtue of a failure to demonstrate adequate supporting facilities in the form of effective access, parking and servicing arrangements, the proposal would constitute over-development of the site, contrary to the Council’s ‘Infill Sites’ SPG, ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards’ SPG, policy 11, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.20 and 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

5.

1. 1.1

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This is a full application, as amended, for the redevelopment of the former Pontcanna Pine site to provide a three storey building at the junction of King’s Road and Severn Grove. This would comprise a retail unit at ground floor with 8 no (2 bed) apartments above at first and second floor, and associated parking, cycle parking and refuse storage. The retail unit would have a gross internal floor area of 268 sq m and a sales area of 195 sq m (2019 sq ft). The future occupier was not identified in the application, as originally submitted, nor was it specified that the application would be for a convenience store; this assumption was, however, made for testing purposes, in both the submitted Retail and Transport Statements. In the additional information submitted 27 September 2012, the Agent confirmed that ‘since the original submission Heads of Terms have been agreed with the Co-op’, noting that ‘the presence of a named operator will set in context the scheme and the likely effects that such a proposal will have’. The Co-op has since confirmed that they have no interest in the site and that they are no part of the current application process. The implications of this are discussed in the analysis below. The application was initially placed on the agenda for Planning Committee 08/02/2012 and the report published, with the proposal recommended for refusal on 5 grounds, set out below: 1. The application fails to satisfactorily demonstrate how short-term parking for the proposed retail use would be effectively secured without exacerbating existing on-street parking pressures and congestion

1.2

1.3

66

within close proximity of the site, particularly at the junction of Kings Road/Severn Grove and, also, fail to secure provision of safe and convenient movement of pedestrians and cyclists at this location, to the detriment of highway safety and free-flow of traffic. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to policies 17, 18 and 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff UDP and the council’s Access, Circulation and Parking Standards SPG. 2. The proposal would give rise to and exacerbate on-street parking pressures and congestion by service and delivery vehicles associated with the retail use, by reason of the limited space available for such functions, and would give rise to obstruction to all users of the adjacent roads, to the detriment of highway safety and free-flow of traffic and be contrary to policies 17, 18 and 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards’ SPG. The proposed layout of the rear yard does not provide adequate facilities for the secure and covered storage of cycles or the manoeuvring of vehicles, to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to policies 17 and 18 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards’ SPG. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would provide effective, secure, unobtrusive and easily accessible facilities and a strategy for the storage of waste and of materials for recycling, including two separate refuse storage areas (one for domestic waste and one for commercial waste), to the detriment of proper waste management and contrary to policy 2.74 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Waste Collection and Storage Facilities SPG. By virtue of a failure to demonstrate adequate supporting facilities in the form of effective refuse, access, parking and servicing arrangements, the proposal would constitute over-development of the site, contrary to policy 2.74 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan, the Council’s ‘Waste Collection and Storage Facilities’ SPG, the Council’s ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards’ SPG, policy 17 and 18 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

3.

4.

5.

1.4

The report was taken off the agenda at Planning Committee at the request of the agent, on grounds reported as a late representation to February 2012 Planning Committee and summarised below:

67

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

Concern that many of the matters raised by the Transportation Officer and forming the basis of the recommendation may be the result of a misinterpretation of the very detailed studies submitted on behalf of the applicant. A report by the transport consultant MBC raised concerns in relation to the consideration of the following matters in the February Committee report: deliveries, dropped kerb parking, ‘fall back’ uses, short stay parking /loading bay, AutoTRACK assessments, traffic generation, parking surveys, pedestrian and cycle movements, survey methodology and car park layout; Concern that ‘at no stage since the submission of the application and the additional information has any officer come back to …request clarification on any points’ despite contacting the officers; Waste arrangements for the retail element is confirmed as follows – that waste will be stored within the building and collected at prearranged times by a private contractor or the operator, with the back up space noted to provide for more than sufficient space. A waste management collection and re-cycling strategy could also be agreed with the authority, which is noted to be common practice; Concern raised that in the event of an appeal and public inquiry that it is important for reasons for refusal to be based on sound planning grounds and correct interpretation of the application; Requests that the proposal be withdrawn from consideration at committee so that the issues raised can be considered.

1.5

A detailed rebuttal of the above was provided by the Operational Manager Transportation, but who later advised that further discussion with the agent and traffic consultant are necessary in order to clarify issues and to establish a comprehensive and robust assessment of the traffic implications, which was considered critical to the Council’s position on any impending appeal against possible refusal of planning permission based on Transport grounds. Following discussions with the Agent and their team, further amended plans and additional information were submitted at the end of September (see para 1.14) and subjected to public consultation (21 days). The February 2012 report has been amended here to reflect the latest information and also incorporates late representations received prior to February 2012 Committee. The application is supported by a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA), a Retail Statement, a revised Design and Access Statement (DAS), a revised Transport Statement (TS), a Code for Sustainable Homes Pre Assessment, and a Tree Report. The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the stone wall fronting Severn Grove, for which a Conservation Area Consent application has already been granted (10/233W). The electricity substation to

1.6

1.7

1.8

68

the rear of the site would be retained, as would the street tree just outside the site along the Severn Grove frontage. 1.9 The yard to the rear would accommodate refuse storage, 8 no car parking spaces for the 8 flats, 1 car parking space for the store manager and a disabled parking space. 20 no. cycle parking spaces are proposed in the rear yard and 3 cycle parking spaces close to the store entrance on the Severn Grove frontage, together providing cycle parking for residents, staff and customers. The TS confirms that no on-site parking would be provided for customer use. Access to the flats and rear of the site for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles would be via the existing single track road, which would be altered and designed as a gated undercroft, with floorspace above. The road would be approx 4.5m wide for a distance of 4.6m (measured from the edge of the carriageway) and, therein, would reduce to a width of 3.2m. The 4.6m long and 4.5m wide section would allow vehicles waiting to enter to wait off-street if another is exiting the site. Access to the flats would be from a stairwell to the rear of the proposed building. Access to the retail unit, for customers, staff and deliveries alike, would be from the sole entrance at the corner of King’s Road and Severn Grove. On street servicing is proposed for the retail unit. The two existing roller shutter doors and dropped kerbs on the King’s Rd frontage would not be required and three on-street car parking spaces with a dual loading bay use are proposed. The TS notes that the loading area would be 18m in length allowing for the FTA design articulated vehicle during the permitted loading / unloading time, and up to 3 cars for short stay parking at other times. The Draft Delivery Management Plan, set out in the TS, notes that loading would be only allowed from 7am to 1pm and that no loading or unloading would take place outside of this period. (This conflicts with additional information from the Agent which states that deliveries would be within the stated opening hours.) The Draft Delivery Management Plan also estimates that there could be 4 to 5 deliveries per day – a Co-op centralised delivery, milk, bread, newspaper plus twice per week collection of refuse. Swept path analysis has been undertaken for articulated vehicles of 16.5m and 10.7m length and a vehicle of 9.6m rigid length, with the TS noting that it would be unnecessary to restrict the vehicle types that can deliver to the site. Lorry routing is proposed along Severn Grove, Kings Road, Sneyd Street and onto Cathedral Road. The 2 ½ storey building would be approx 20m wide along the Kings Road frontage (measured to the shared boundary with 198 Kings Road) and approx 19m wide along the Severn Grove frontage. The building would be set back approx 2 – 2.5m from the footway along the Severn Grove frontage, and 1.5 2m from the footway along the King’s Road frontage. The building reflects the design approach adopted in the approved development, with detailing and

1.10

1.11

1.12

69

materials to reflect the ‘Pontcanna – style’. The building is articulated by bay windows at first floor, with dormer windows above, and a combination of a shopfront and more domestic scale windows at ground floor. The building is intended to provide a ‘book end’ to the 2 ½ storey development at the opposite end of the street, which has commercial uses at ground floor and a combination of traditional shopfronts and windows of a more domestic appearance. Two velux windows are proposed in the Kings Road elevation. 1.13 Amended plans and additional information were submitted December 2011 and considered in the February 2012 Planning Committee report, comprising: (i) (ii) a reduction in the number of apartments from 10 no. (6 x 1bed, 4 x 2bed) to 8 no. (2bed); clarification of the size of the existing retail units – from 570m2 gross internal area as stated in the application form to 530m2 gross internal area, with the revised Transport Statement using a gross external area of 552m2 to compare like with like in terms of traffic generation; changes to car parking provision from 10 spaces for the 10 flats and no on-site car parking for staff or customers of the retail unit, to 8 car parking spaces for the 8 flats, a car parking space for management use and a disabled car parking space; an increase in cycle parking, with 20 cycle racks in the secure rear parking area (from 14) and 3 cycle spaces close to the store entrance; reduction in roof height from 11.6 m to 11.2m; a revised Transport Statement, a revised Design and Access Statement, a Retail Statement and an illustrative street scene; clarification of opening times from 7am to 10pm and that deliveries would be within the same time.

(iii)

(iv) (v) (vi) (vii)

1.14

Further amended plans and additional information were submitted 27 September 2012, following withdrawal of the first report from the February Planning Committee agenda, and comprised the following: (i) Plans and drawings - Amended plans to rectify discrepancies noted between elevations and plans and also including the following changes – altered position of the ground floor entrance to the upper floor flats, a new rear door for the retail unit, a new first floor window on the rear elevation (apt 1), the removal of the 3 on street parking spaces previously proposed on King’s Rd, and a reduction in the number of refuse bins presented kerbside; Co-op - confirmation that Heads of Terms have been agreed with the Co-op, noted to set in context the likely effects that such a proposal will have. It is noted that the company’s stores regularly trade alongside independent retailers and provide a local service, rather than being a destination for shoppers outside the immediate area. A schedule of existing Co-op stores is submitted.

(ii)

70

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

Car Parking Availability and Demand - Further information on car parking availability and demand, including survey data on arrivals and transport mode between 16th and 22nd April at the Co-op store in Llanishen, where 92% of arrivals were on foot. New interrogation and presentation of parking data previously presented to overcome officer concerns that the information was not sufficiently transparent, and showing the location of car parking within the survey area at different times of the day on Friday and Saturday, and the number of spaces and special parking designations. It is concluded that ‘capacity within the 200m distance of the site is sufficient to accommodate parking demand if the Lincoln store traffic generation is adopted’ (% split between car / pedestrian / cycle arrivals is 68% / 28% / 4%) and if Bath store is used (92% pedestrian and 8% car arrivals) ‘parking demand would be readily accommodated in close proximity to the site’, with car parking demand further reduced if the Llanishen data is used. Servicing - on street servicing proposed combined with the proposed introduction of single yellow lines. (Single yellow lines would restrict parking, other than for deliveries and disabled parking for up to 3 hours, between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Monday to Saturday.) The Agent notes that the length of the yellow line would accommodate the anticipated deliveries, and that there would only be 1 delivery (a paper delivery) outside of the above times and that its double parking would not lead to any highway safety issues. The Agent confirms that the Applicant would not object to a Service Management Plan, to apply to all vehicles 8m + long, to restrict vehicle length to no greater than 10.7m, set out a delivery programme and restrict deliveries to specified hours. Waste Collection and Storage – It is proposed that all waste associated with the foodstore would be stored within the store and collected by merchandise delivery vehicles on trolley cages, with there being ‘no reason for waste to be presented to the highway for collection other than on designated days of domestic refuse collection when bins would be presented on Kings Rd’, in line with application 11/2053dci at 97-99 Albany Road and 1A Alfred St.

2. 2.1

DESCRIPTION OF SITE The 0.08 ha site lies at the junction of King’s Road and Severn Grove. The site is formed by a large, industrial/warehouse building - the old Pontcanna Dairy building, with associated out buildings/workshops, electricity sub-station and yard to the rear. According to the revised figures, the buildings on site have a Gross Internal Area of 530 m2 and a Gross External Area of 552 m2. The application form notes the building is currently in retail use. Third parties note that the building has been used as a gallery, yurt workshop/ shop and as storage for ice cream vans.

71

2.2

The building is set back from the footway of both Kings Road and Severn Grove, with an area of hardstanding to the front of the Kings Road frontage, which is used for parking. A high stone wall forms the site boundary along Severn Grove. The sole vehicular access to the rear of the site is from a 3.6m wide, single track access onto King’s Rd. There are dropped kerbs onto King’s Road, which served the vehicular access to the building via two existing large roller shutter doors. The yard and outbuildings are located to the rear of nos 190-198 Kings Road and run alongside the side wall of the rear garden of no 62 Severn Grove. The site is broadly level, although uneven underfoot in places. The application form notes that there is 1 car parking space on site. King’s Road, from which on street servicing would take place, is a two way highway, with a footway on both sides of the road. The pavements fronting the site along King’s Rd and Severn Grove are approx 4.5m and 2.2m wide, respectively, and are uneven underfoot in places, particularly around the street tree on Severn Grove. There are residents parking bays opposite the site on King’s Road and at intervals along Severn Grove, and double yellow lines at the junction of King’s Road and Severn Grove. Whilst there are dropped kerbs on the existing King’s Rd frontage, cars do park here. Due to cars being parked on both sides of the road, traffic is frequently reduced to a single lane. Whilst the site lies in an area characterised by mainly 2 storey dwellings, there are a number of 2 ½ storey dwellings in the vicinity, including those at the junction of King’s Road and Pontcanna St, which forms a ‘bookend’ to the proposal, and opposite, on Severn Grove. There is a mature street tree in close proximity to Severn Grove boundary, which forms one of an important avenue of trees along Severn Grove in the Conservation Area. There are other commercial uses in the immediate vicinity, including no 50 (a letting agency) on the opposite side of King’s Rd and 60 Severn Grove (an office use), immediately to the north of the site. There is also a range of commercial uses nearby at the King’s Rd/Pontcanna Street junction. The site also lies in close proximity to a wider range of retail facilities at the northern end of Pontcanna Street and Cathedral Road. These include a post office, a pharmacist and a range of hugely popular, independent shops, offering a range of comparison and convenience goods, the latter including a butcher, baker, fish shop, delicatessen, greengrocer, and a newsagent. The site also lies within a short walk of a retail parade at the Romilly Crescent/Severn Road junction. None of these centres/local shopping parades are designated as a local/district centre in the City of Cardiff Local Plan. Notwithstanding the presence of commercial uses in the vicinity, the site falls within a residential area, as defined by the City of Cardiff Local Plan. The site

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

72

itself is located within the Conway Road Conservation Area, but the remainder of the Kings Road frontage lies within the Cathedral Road Conservation Area. 2.7 The area is well served by bus services, routing along Cathedral Road, and Romilly Crescent, with bus stops located within a short walk of the site. The site benefits from a Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use as a retail outlet (07/2388w). There are no restrictions on the retail use permitted in the buildings; whether in the form of the range of goods that can be sold, opening hours, delivery times or the type of occupier, whether a local retailer or national chain. The site also benefits from an extant consent for 14 apartments with associated parking (car and cycle) access and amenity space’, in the form of a 3 storey block, of similar scale, detailing and access (10/232w). SITE HISTORY Relevant site history is as follows: 99/1890W 01/0463W 01/1903W 02/0408W Erection of 11 flats – withdrawn. Redevelopment for residential use (5 units) - Appeal against non determination withdrawn. Redevelopment for residential use (4 units)- approved. Studio to be used as ancillary accommodation to plot 4 of prospective residential development (as per permission 01/1903) – approved. Erection of garage block – approved. Modification to condition 5 of planning permission 01/1903w relating to parking arrangements – approved. Existing use as a retail outlet – grant of Certificate of Lawful Use for an existing use. Redevelopment to provide 14 apartments along with associated parking (car and cycle) access and amenity space – approved 09/05/2011. Demolition of former Pontcanna Pine and associated outbuildings (CAC) – consent granted 15/07/2010.

2.8

3. 3.1

02/2144W 02/2490W 07/2388W 10/232W

10/0233W

4. 4.1

POLICY FRAMEWORK Relevant legislation and National Planning Guidance: Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5 November 2012) 1.2.3 It is not the function of the planning system to interfere with or inhibit competition between users of and investors in land or to regulate development for other than land use planning reasons.

73

10.3.1 When determining a planning application for retail, leisure or other uses best located in a town centre, including redevelopment, extensions or the variation of conditions, local planning authorities should take into account: • • • • • • • • • • compatibility with any community strategy or up-to-date development plan strategy; need for the development/extension, unless the proposal is for a site within a defined centre or one allocated in an up-to-date development plan; the sequential approach to site selection; impact on existing centres; net gains in floorspace where redevelopment is involved, and whether or not it is like-for-like in terms of comparison or convenience; rate of take-up of allocations in any adopted development plan; accessibility by a variety of modes of travel; improvements to public transport; impact on overall travel patterns; and best use of land close to any transport hub, in terms of density and mixed use.

10.1.4 Corner shops in urban areas, village shops in rural areas, and public houses and other individual outlets with a retail function which are not part of established centres, can play a vital economic and social role and their loss can be damaging to a local community. TAN 4: Retailing and Town Centres 6. All applications for retail developments over 2,500 square metres gross floor space should be supported by an impact assessment providing evidence of: • whether the applicant adopted a sequential approach to site selection and the availability of alternative sites; • their likely economic and other impacts on other retail locations, including town centres, local centres and villages, including consideration of the cumulative effects of recently completed developments and outstanding planning permissions; • their accessibility by a choice of means of transport including access for pedestrians, giving an assessment of the proportion of customers likely to arrive by different means of transport; • the likely changes in travel patterns over the catchment area; and where appropriate; • any significant environmental impacts. Such assessments may also be necessary for some smaller developments, for instance those that are likely to have a large impact on a smaller town or district centre.

74

TAN 11: Noise TAN 12: Design TAN 18: Transport TAN 21: Waste WO Circular 16/94: Planning Out Crime WO Circular 61/96 (Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas) Policy Clarification Letter CL 03 10 Design & Access Statements 4.2 Relevant City of Cardiff Local Plan policies: 3: Development in Conservation Areas 11: Design and Aesthetic Quality 16: Traffic Calming 17: Parking and Servicing Facilities 18: Provision for Cyclists 19: Provision for Pedestrians 20: Provision for Special Needs Groups 31: Residential Open Space Requirement 49: District and Local Centres 4.3 Relevant Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003) policies: 2.20: Good Design 2.21: Change of Use or Redevelopment to Residential Use 2.24: Residential Amenity 2.26: Provision of Open Space, Recreation and Leisure 2.36: District & Local Centres 2.45: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows 2.53: Conservation Areas 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements 2.64: Air, Noise and Light Pollution 2.74: Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development 4.4 Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance and other guidance: ‘Infill Sites’ (April 2011) ‘Waste Collection and Storage Facilities’ (adopted March 2007) ‘Residential Design Guide’ (March 2008) ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards’ (adopted January 2010) ‘Open Space’ (March 2008) ‘Shop Fronts & Signage Guide’ (October 2011) ‘Trees & Development’ (March 2007) ‘Affordable Housing Delivery Statement’ (October 2010) Conway Road Conservation Area Appraisal (2007)

75

5. 5.1

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES Strategic Planning (Land Use) note that the application raises no land use policy concerns, commenting: Retail Need: The figures provided in the retail statement demonstrate the turnover of the proposed store would be very low relative to the available expenditure and forecast expenditure growth. The application site is located within Zone 2 as defined by the Cardiff Retail Capacity Study. In 2016 the available expenditure in Zone 2 is £368.6m and the turnover of the proposed store would represent just 0.3% of this available expenditure. In Zone 2 an increase in expenditure of £46.6m is forecast between 2008 and 2016 and the proposed store represents 2% of the increase in expenditure and a 10.3% increase in convenience goods expenditure. Retail Sequential Test: In terms of the sequential test, the agent states that there are no vacant units in either Kings Road/Pontcanna or Kings Road and Cathedral Road centre which would meet the requirements of the proposal. The only vacant units in Kings Road/Pontcanna Street are too small and it is not clear whether either of the units is available as there are no signs of marketing. Within the Cathedral Road/Pontcanna Centre there are no vacant units. In terms of Cowbridge Road East District Centre, the possible occupiers of the former Pontcanna Pine warehouse are already represented. Retail Impact: The agent has considered the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of designated district and local centres in addition to the Pontcanna St/ Kings Rd neighbourhood centre and the Cathedral Rd/ Pontcanna St neighbourhood centre. Given the low turnover of the proposed store relative to available expenditure and forecasted expenditure growth, the impact of the proposed store on designated district and local centres and the Pontcanna St/ Kings Rd neighbourhood centre and the Cathedral Rd/ Pontcanna St neighbourhood centre is likely to be negligible. Conclusion: Given the nature of the proposed store, the assumptions adopted in the retail statement in terms of need, sequential test and impact are considered reasonable and robust. It is accepted that the forecast growth in expenditure on convenience goods will more than adequately support the proposed convenience store, especially given the low forecast turnover as a percentage of convenience goods expenditure and therefore the impact on designated district and local centres and the Pontcanna St/ Kings Rd neighbourhood centre and the Cathedral Rd/ Pontcanna St neighbourhood centre is likely to be negligible.

5.2

In considering representations by a local planning consultant and residents, Strategic Planning (Land Use) confirmed that ‘given the scale and nature of the proposed convenience store, the Retail Impact Statement provided by the

76

agent is considered satisfactory and there are no retail policy concerns raised by the proposal sufficient to justify a refusal of planning permission’. 5.3 The Operational Manager, Transportation provided the following initial comments on the application as amended December 2011 and objected to the application: (i) The car parking spaces shown on Kings Road as being achieved as a result of the reinstatement of the existing footway crossovers, would not be a benefit over the course of a typical day as the developer is proposing that this area will be used for deliveries until 1:00pm and then short stay parking after this. This length of parking would be unavailable for residents to use during these times. This proposal would require the associated Traffic Regulation Order to be in place which would be subject to public consultation; It is not the Council's practice to provide Loading Bays for individual uses or to share the space with short stay parking / limited waiting, due to issues with enforcement. On that basis the applicant cannot rely on the availability of either the loading bay or short stay parking; (ii) Delivery Vehicles - The vehicle track analysis drawings submitted demonstrate that a 16.5 metre artic would have difficulty negotiating its way along Severn Grove and King's Road due to the constraints of the existing road layout and presence of parked cars along its route. Whilst the 10.7 metre vehicle can make this manoeuvre, should one vehicle be parked outside of those areas indicated, then the vehicle could not undertake this as illustrated. In addition the diagrams submitted indicate a 'single' way working along its route and no allowance is made for vehicles approaching in the opposite direction. The track for a 9.6 metre 'pantechnicon' delivery vehicle is accepted as being reasonable as there would be more room for manoeuvring within the constraints of the existing highway layout. This would be the maximum recommended size of vehicle for this purpose; The revised Transport Statement (TS) states that ".....it is considered unnecessary .... to restrict the vehicle types that can deliver to the site...." (para. 4.4.5). On the basis of the above comments, this statement is not accepted; (iii) Trip Generation - The methodology put forward for the proposed retail use is not considered to accurately represent the proposal and on that basis we are unconvinced that the predicted trip rate information can be relied upon;

77

The trip rates for the residential element of the development are accepted; (iii) Parking - The results of the parking surveys demonstrate that there are a number of available car parking bays within the area surveyed, however the results are not displayed in a format that is transparent, i.e. the location of the existing parking restrictions, 'resident parking bays' and available spaces are not clearly indicated on a plan. In addition there is no assessment of the likely impact of short stay parking at the junction of King’s Road / Severn Grove. There may be a temptation by visitors to the store to ignore the existing parking restrictions, thereby affecting deliveries, visibility and turning movements. It is considered that TS does not address this issue or put forward measures to mitigate this concern; Pedestrian / Cycle Movement - The TS identifies that a significant number of pedestrians and cyclists currently pass through the junction of King's Road / Severn Grove, however the impact that the proposal may have on these users of the highway network is not considered in the context of the proposal, particularly as regards their safety; Car parking layout - The car parking layout for the residential use is compliant with the SPG - Access, Circulation & Parking Standards in terms of the number of spaces, i.e. one space per flat. The location of the bay nearest the sub-station should be extended such that the doors can be accessed. The location of the additional cycle parking may conflict with vehicles egressing the parking area. It would be recommended that the layout be amended to address these issues; The refuse bins, where they are shown as being presented for collection are located within the adopted highway (on King's Road). The number and size indicated could cause an obstruction to users of the footway and would not be considered acceptable. These should be relocated to an area within the curtilage of the site. In addition it is not clear where the refuse bins associated with the retail use will be stored, which again should be located within the curtilage of the site; Disabled Car Parking Bay - We would not insist on a disabled bay for the residential use, but if the applicant wishes to provide one then we would have no issue with this. It is unlikely that a visitor to the store would use this bay due to its location within a gated yard. However, I would anticipate that disabled users would either use double yellows (where loading is permitted) or Resident Parking Bays, which they can use for up to 3 hours. I would conclude that there is no requirement for a disabled car parking bay within the site for the retail use;

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

78

(viii)

Parking Survey Area - I would consider a 200 metre 2.5 min walk to be reasonable as per the Lambeth Methodology and it has been demonstrated that spaces would be available. However, the TS does not assess the impact of those people parking close to the store.

5.4

The Operational Manager, Transportation provides the following comments on the September 2011 amended plans/ additional information: (i) Pedestrian/Cycle Movement - The previously submitted Transport Statement had identified that a significant number of pedestrians and cyclists currently pass through the junction of King's Road/Severn Grove. However the impact that the proposal may have on these users of the highway network is not considered in the context of the proposal, particularly as regards their safety. Discussions have take place with the developer in order to address this issue and one solution put forward by Transportation was to consider providing a raised table at this junction. This still remains a valid point and has not been addressed within the additional information put forward; Parking Surveys - The amended plans now display the parking survey information in a format that is transparent. The results indicate that generally within the surveyed areas car parking is available, however there is limited ‘free space’ present within close proximity to the site and hence opportunities for visitors (to the store) to park - at those times when the retail use is in operation; Short Term Parking - There is still no assessment of the likely impact of short stay parking at the junction of Kings Road/Severn Grove. There may be a temptation by visitors to the store to ignore the existing parking restrictions, thereby affecting deliveries, visibility and turning movements. It is considered that neither the submitted Transport Statement nor the additional information addresses this issue or puts forward measures to mitigate this concern; Loading/Unloading - I would reiterate that it is not the Council's practice to provide Loading Bays for individual uses or to share the space with short stay parking/limited waiting, due to issues with enforcement. The response from City Management to the developer’s agent regarding this issue indicates that the Council’s practice is to introduce single yellow lines only where there is an identified parking problem for a specific time and/or on a specific day. Single yellow lines allow disabled drivers to park for up to 3 hours and for vehicles to load and unload. The letter further states that there may be some benefit in introducing a single yellow line in King’s Road from the junction with Severn Grove for 10 metres in a north easterly direction which would assist large vehicles to negotiate the junction and may provide some

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

79

limited loading/unloading provision, providing no other vehicles are parked at this location. The response is not conclusive in this respect and as such it is considered that the introduction of a single yellow line for the purpose of loading/unloading at this location cannot be relied upon; (v) Delivery Vehicles - The vehicle track analysis drawings previously submitted demonstrated that a 16.5 metre articulated would have difficulty negotiating its way along Severn Grove and King's Road due to the constraints of the existing road layout and presence of parked cars along its route. Whilst the 10.7 metre vehicle can make this manoeuvre, should one vehicle be parked outside of those areas indicated, then the vehicle could not undertake this as illustrated. In addition the diagrams submitted indicate a 'single' way working along its route and no allowance is made for vehicles approaching in the opposite direction. The track for a 9.6 metre 'pantechnicon' delivery vehicle is accepted as being reasonable as there would be more room for manoeuvring within the constraints of the existing highway layout. This would be the maximum recommended size of vehicle for this purpose. No further information has been put forward in respect of any alternative route or to change Transportation’s view on this issue; Trip Generation - The methodology put forward for the proposed retail use was not considered to accurately represent the proposal. Further survey work has been undertaken by the applicant in order to demonstrate that a local Co-op store in Cardiff could have a similar pattern of visitors to that which is being proposed. However, these surveys were undertaken during the 2nd week of the school Easter holiday period and as such do not necessarily give a clear indication of the number of trips that could be made by car. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest or confirm that the Co-op will be the end user in this case and as such this additional information has limited weight, particularly in terms of car parking demand; Car/Cycle Parking Layout - The car parking layout for the residential use is compliant with the Access, Circulation & Parking Standards SPG in terms of the number of spaces and is therefore still accepted. It was previously recommended that the parking bay ‘8’ nearest the substation be extended such that the doors to the sub-station can easily be accessed. This does not appear to have been addressed. It was also previously highlighted that the additional cycle parking may conflict with vehicles egressing the parking area and as such it was recommended that the layout be amended to address this issue. Again this has not been addressed within the latest submitted plan;

(vi)

(vii)

80

(viii)

Refuse Bins – The amended plan still shows the bins (for the apartments) being presented for collection within the adopted highway (on King's Road). The number and size indicated could still cause an obstruction to users of the footway and would not be considered acceptable. These should be relocated to an area within the curtilage of the site as previously recommended. It is noted that the refuse bins associated with the retail use will be stored within the retail element of the building and collected by merchandise delivery vehicles on trolley cages. These have not been shown on either the site or ground floor plans;

Conclusion - Taking all the above into account, I would still consider the acceptability of the proposal particularly the retail use to be finely balanced. On the basis of the information put forward to-date Transportation feel that there are still numerous concerns as described above, which have not been alleviated and which are considered sufficient to make this application unacceptable in its current form. 5.5 Parks Services note that, as no recreation/play space is being provided onsite, a financial contribution of £11,020 should be sought towards the provision of open space off-site or the improvement (including design and maintenance) of existing open space in the locality. The provision of a Tree Protection Plan and method statement for the street tree on Severn Grove is also recommended prior to commencement. The Tree Preservation Officer notes that a Tree Survey was undertaken in 2010 as part of pp 10/232w and that it is unlikely that the condition of the tree has changed significantly. Various conditions to protect the tree are recommended. Pollution Control (Contaminated Land) note the previous use of the site as a workshop, which may have led to some localised contamination and conditions are recommended to control contamination. They had no additional comments to make in respect of the amended plans. Pollution Control (Noise and Air) have no objection to the September 2012 amended plans, subject to recommended conditions to control sound insulation, opening hours (to require opening hours as follows 22:00 and 08:00hrs Monday to Saturday and 20:00 and 08:00hrs on Sundays and specifying that no staff shall be present at the premises before 7:00am on any day and for no longer than 30 minutes after the premises are closed to the public on any day), delivery times, plant noise, and future kitchen extraction Advice is provided in relation to illuminated advertisements and construction site noise.

5.6

5.7

5.8

81

No member of the public shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on the premises between the hours of 22:00 and 08:00hrs Monday to Saturday and 20:00 and 08:00hrs on Sundays. Additionally, no staff shall be present at the premises before 7:00am on any day and for no longer than 30 minutes after the premises are closed to the public on any day. Reason: To ensure the amenity of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected. 5.9 Commenting on the first set of amended plans, Waste Management advised that the development must have two separate refuse storage areas, one for domestic waste and one for commercial waste. The domestic waste storage shown on plans, whilst a little small, was considered acceptable, but they noted that there is nothing to stipulate how waste from the retail unit is going to be managed. They advised that no refuse storage for a retail development of this nature is not acceptable and that, as a bare minimum, a footprint is required along with a waste management strategy detailing anticipated volumes and frequencies of collection. Until this is addressed, Waste Management stated that they object to the proposed development. Commenting on the September 2012 proposals, Waste Management note: Whilst the SPG outlines that all developments must provide on-site recycling and waste storage facilities, large enough to separate waste into a minimum of three waste streams, I would find it acceptable that the waste can be dealt with on site, providing they conform to conditions including: • • • • All recycling and waste must be stored internally Waste must not be stored on the highway, it will only be acceptable to present waste that is awaiting collection If necessary, Waste Enforcement reserve the right to issue a S47 notice (Environment Protection Act 1990), where by the day and time for collection can be determined by the local authority A detailed waste strategy must be provided outlining how all waste is to be managed and identifying anticipated waste streams, volumes and frequency of collections

5.10

5.11

Drainage Services have no objection to the amended plans and recommend a condition to investigate opportunities for sustainable drainage techniques. Building Control has no objection. The Council’s Access Officer broadly agrees with the comments made by a local resident, who is also an Access Consultant, and recommends that the application is refused at least pending alteration, engagement, a suitably

5.12 5.13

82

considered DAS and an Equality Impact Assessment. provided comments on the amended plans. 6. 6.1 EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES

No comments are

The Cathedral and Conway Rd Areas Conservation Group object for the following reasons: a) The scale and mass is detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area, the premises does not respect the established Severn Grove building line, the height of the proposed development is considerably in excess of the previous application, to the extent that the proposal would be overbearing and destroy the nature of the junction; The footprint of the building, at first floor, represents a 25% increase in area, taking the building to the absolute limits of the site; The impact of further car use and illegal parking from customers and delivery vans would be detrimental to the character of the area, which is already highly congested and dangerous to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians; The impact of signage and clutter associated with a convenience store would be damaging to the character of the Conservation Area.

b) c)

d)

The Cathedral and Conway Rd Areas Conservation Group note that the amended scheme does not address their previous objections. 6.2 The Chair of the Cathedral and Conway Rd Areas Conservation Group objects to the second set of amended plans, also raising concerns over the harm to the Conservation Area resulting from the loss of independents and vacancies. The Environment Agency has no objections to the amended plans, noting that the FCA has demonstrated that the criteria set out in para. A1.14 of TAN 15 has been met and that indicative levels set out in para A1.15 of TAN 15 are not exceeded. South Wales Police have no objections, provide design comments and recommend conditions to restrict the opening hours of the retail unit (07:00 to 23:00hrs) and to allow A1 use only therein. Welsh Water has no objection, and provides advice in relation to sewerage and water supply. REPRESENTATIONS 118 neighbouring occupiers and local residents were initially consulted, and the application advertised by means of a press and site notice. In additional

6.3

6.4

6.5

7. 7.1

83

to the original consultation, two amended plans consultations were undertaken (December 2011 and September 2012), both giving 21 days. Notice of the application via the weekly list was sent to the Cardiff & Vale Coalition of Disabled People, now Diverse Cymru, and Diverse Cymru were also consulted on the amended plans. Representations on proposal as originally submitted Mark Drakeford AM and Kevin Brennan MP object to the proposal on the following grounds: (i) (ii) Unsuitability of site for a 2900 sq ft retail development; Exacerbation of existing ‘critical’ traffic and parking problems. The claim that impact on traffic and parking would be ‘minimal’ conflicts with local experience and casts doubt on the proposal’s validity; Particular concern raised over daily deliveries, recognising that Kings Rd and Severn Grove are busy routes to schools; Impact on noise and other environmental pollution.

7.2

(iii) (iv) 7.3

Andrew Davies AM objects to the proposal on grounds of its harmful impact on: traffic and parking, quality of life and residential amenity, the character and appearance of the area and Conservation Area, local independent shops, stemming from the unacceptable and un-neighbourly intensification of use, narrow streets, its size and the likelihood that the shop would become the new retail centre of Pontcanna. Detailed concerns are raised, all of which are reflected in other representations. Cllr Gordon objects to the application on the following grounds, and states her intention to declare an interest and speak at Planning Committee: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) adverse impact on local businesses and areas special character; major and un-neighbourly intensification of use – vehicular and pedestrian – to the detriment of quality of life and amenity; exacerbation of existing traffic, parking and highway safety problems, with inadequate provision for deliveries; harm to amenity as a result of noise, litter, and anti-social behaviour , compounded by long opening hours and alcohol sales; harm to the character of the Conservation Area from supermarket, with access to larger shops and supermarkets in the vicinity.

7.4

7.5

Mr Islam (former Cllr) objects to the application on the following grounds and states his intention to speak at Planning Committee: (i) (ii) (iii) exacerbation of existing traffic congestion and parking problems; harm to the amenities of residents, as a result of noise and litter problems, late opening times and the sale of alcohol; harm to the character of the Conservation Areas;

84

(iv) 7.6

harmful impact on local shops and the character of the area.

In response to the proposal, a 2419 strong petition (a 2154 name strong petition was initially submitted with a further 265 signatories reported as a late rep to the February 2012 report), citing the following reasons for refusal: (i) the store – Sainsburys? - and 10 flats will affect the parking, road access and safety of residents, through some people driving to the shop, deliveries by large lorries and extra vehicles associated with the new flats parked on the street. Traffic congestion and illegal parking will increase; the shop will attract many people to the mainly residential area, well into the evening, resulting in more noise and litter, and, if the shop gets a license to sell alcohol, more anti-social behaviour is likely; a shop of this size/ character will take sales away from many of the existing local independent shops which contribute to the distinctive character of the area and might cause the closure of some, including the Post Office; This major development is at the junction of two narrow ‘rat run’ residential streets (with single width car access) which already gets very congested at times. It is felt that shops of this size are not suitable for this location, and should be kept on wider streets, with other similar sized shops.

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

7.7

In response to the proposal, as originally submitted, 169 letters of objection were received from the owner/occupiers of 100, 114, 118, 147, 154, 156, 160, 162, Flat A 177, 185 (x2), 189, 190, 192, 196 (x2) King’s Rd, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17(x2), 29, 31, 33 (x2), 35 (x3), 39a (x2), 50, 64 (x2), 65 (x2), 66, 67, 75, 76 (x2), 78 (x2), 85, 87, 94, 96 (x2), 102 (x2), 103, 110 (x3), 114 (x2), 115, First floor 128 Severn Grove, 31 Severn Rd, 3, 30 Mortimer Rd, 19 (x2), 20 Gileston Rd, 31, 49, 95 Romilly Crescent, 37 Romilly Rd, 2, 7 (x2), 8 Sneyd St (x2), 2, 4, 7, 23, 25, 47 Pontcanna St, 17, 19 Pontcanna Place, 5, 7, 15, 22, 27, 32 (x2), 51, 67, 69, 73 (x3), 82, 91 Plasturton Ave, 17 Plasturton Gardens, 94 Ryder St (x3), 61, 63, 76, 98 Llanfair Rd, 12A, 18, 25, 45 Farleigh Rd, 185 Cathedral Rd, 16 Egham St, 17, 19 Gileston Rd (x3), 22 Talbot St, 4, 15, 28, 61, 67, 69, 73, 75 Conway Rd, 99, 193, 197, 216 (x2) Cathedral Rd, 18 (x3), 19, 23 Pitman St, 47 Glynne St (x2), 3 Iestynian Av, 1, 17 Meadow St, 8 Dogo St, 18 Preswylfa St, 14 (x2), 20 Syr Davids Av, 5 Berthwin St, 2 The Avenue, 33 Palace Rd, 2 Melrose Court, 2 St Catherines Mews, 9 Maldwyn St (x2), 22B Penhill Rd (x2), 26 Teilo St, 126 Wyndham Crescent, 119 Plymouth Rd, 47 Glynne St, 15 Dulwich Gardens, 87 Farleigh Rd, 84 Aldsworth Rd, 15 Stoneleigh Court, 26 Western Court, I of unknown address on Mortimer Rd, 6 of unknown address, the Pontcanna and Women’s Institute. In addition, a local resident submitted map bases showing residential streets with parking allowing one car width at a time and showing a refuse vehicle swept path.

85

The objections and representations raised are summarised below: Land use and retail impact: (1) Conviction that the proposal is for a supermarket – a Sainsburys with post office and pharmacy; (2) Overdevelopment and intensification of use of the site; (3) Harmful retail impact and impact on quality of life and the community, leading to closure of local independent shops, colonisation by fast food outlets, increased vacancies, unemployment, a loss of diversity and characterless places. Need to consider impact on the whole supply chain and harm to sustainability; (4) No need or demand for the retail unit / supermarket; (5) The Council should represent local people, not benefit the interests of large corporations and landowners; (6) Concern over the use of the fallback position to avoid an assessment of retail or transport impact. The retail impacts (need, sequential and impact) need to be carefully considered. A social impact assessment is also required; (7) Concern over the increased sale of alcohol in the area, given existing provision/ saturation, with consequent anti-social behaviour, littering and harm to residential amenity; (8) Suitability of site for 2 or 3 smaller retail units, wholly residential/ family housing / town houses/ community functions/ cultural activities and exhibitions / voluntary services; (9) Need for policy guidance on supermarkets, given corner shop format. Highway, Transportation and Access Matters: (10) Transport Planning Associates (TPA) were instructed by a local resident to review the Transport Statement (TS) produced by MBC Ltd, which concludes that a highways objection to the development can be justified and raises the following concerns: (i) Fall back – use of the ‘fall back’ position to compare the impact of the proposed development is not realistic. The realistic fallback position is the planning consent for 14 flats; Deliveries – it is not demonstrated that the store can be serviced safely without detriment to the free flow of traffic. No information is provided on the number of deliveries per day, the size of delivery vehicles, swept path analysis or details of the delivery route; Loading Bay - No information is provided on the hours of operation or the size of the ‘dual use’ loading bay proposed on King’s Rd, which is important given the existing parking pressures; Parking – Lack of parking resulting in increasing demand on onstreet parking in an area with little or no spare capacity, highway

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

86

(v)

safety and traffic problems, and harm to residential amenity. Increased risk of illegal parking on double yellow lines at the junction of Kings Rd/Severn Grove or legal parking by blue badge holders, impacting on manoeuvring and deliveries. The 3 additional parking spaces proposed outside the store are already used and will not increase parking capacity. Their dual use as a loading bay means that they will be removed from use for some of the time, reducing parking capacity in the area. The hard standing to the front of the site currently operates as additional parking and will also be removed. Independent parking surveys should be undertaken to ascertain parking capacity. Criticism of the on-street parking calculation and trip attraction prediction, suggesting that the parking demand is likely to be higher than predicted; Traffic Attraction Data – the traffic attraction prediction is low and based on just one site, contrary to good practice.

(11) (12)

(13)

Other representations criticised TS assumptions and findings; Existing highway problems in the area - traffic speeds, narrow surrounding streets with parked cars on both sides only allowing oneway traffic within insufficient spaces to allow traffic to pass, local roads used as ‘rat runs, congestion, bottlenecks at junctions - the Severn Grove/ King’s Rd junction is often impassable, accidents, collisions and driver stress, difficulties experienced by large delivery lorries negotiating the Severn Grove/ Kings Rd junction – leading to congestion, accidents and damage to parked cars. The number of features limiting access for all (including pavement gradients, narrow uneven pavements, lack of accessible road crossing points, heavy fast traffic, limited visibility splays particularly for disabled people), with impact on quality of life and well-being. Parking problems – insufficient parking and illegal parking. Great difficulties noted in finding a place close to dwellings even at off-peak times, consequent problems unloading children and shopping, lack of availability of spaces in residents parking zones despite having a permit with visitors put off from visits; Traffic and parking impact – Unacceptable impact on traffic, parking availability and risks to highway safety across a wide area, not outweighed by fallback position in an already congested and parking deficient area. Concern over double and other illegal parking as drivers just ‘pop in’ to shop on their way to and from work given lack of parking. Concern that the 10 parking spaces would be insufficient for visitor parking and occupiers with more than one car owner per flat. Concern that the 3 parking spaces proposed outside the site are not new - their removal would make parking problem worse; concern that parking is already at saturation point and that there is insufficient parking in the area to accommodate on street parking for local residents and nearby

87

(14)

(15) (16)

(17)

(18)

businesses, nor additional parking for future residents of the upper floor flats and their visitors, shoppers and staff. Particular concern over access for emergency vehicles; Highway safety risks to pedestrians, cyclists (who use Severn Grove as an important route to travel East/West), dogs and drivers as a result of increased traffic and deliveries. Particular risks to children walking to school, reducing parents willingness to walk; Other traffic-related concerns - increase in noise and pollution from increased traffic; increase in food miles; driver stress; Deliveries - no acceptable servicing option, resulting in damage to trees, lorries and parked cars, and risk to drivers, pedestrians and cyclists, congestion, noise. Pontcanna Pine deliveries always came into their yard; Unacceptable parking layout and lack of cycle parking provision for shop customers. Provision on the narrow pavements will inhibit pedestrian traffic; A 10 page letter was submitted by a local access consultant, which set out a number of ways in which the DAS does not meet planning policy and guidance, and other guidance relating to inclusive design, concluding that the application should not be validated and should be refused. Criticisms include: (i) (ii) no mention of ‘access’ requirements, with access interpreted purely in public transport terms; a LPA must not validate an application unless the DAS satisfies requirements of legislation, and doing so may be a contravention of duties under the Equality Act 2010. Approving a planning application submitted with a DAS void of engagement, impact assessment, equality plans, accessibility and inclusive design aspects without a LPA considering these duties may be considered to be a contravention of the Specific Equality Duties under the Equality Act 2010; Specific failings of the DAS include failure to consider: the ‘access’ criteria or ‘movement to, from and within the development’, ‘community safety’, existing and potential traffic problems, the access and pedestrian/vehicular cross-over points, the multi-armed junction at the site, visibility splays, the needs of the local population, including a number of older and disabled residents, or the enhancement opportunity of resurfacing street surfaces on Pontcanna St;. No evidence of public engagement, pre-application discussions or contact with the Access Officer in the DAS.

(iii)

Design and impact on the Conservation Area: (19) Support for the design (20) Criticism of the design and Cardiff’s Planning Dept;

88

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24) (25) (26) (27)

Harm to the character of the Conservation Area, with particular concern over shopfronts and signage, and associated clutter (air conditioning units, CCTV, bins, window advertising and displays); Concern over the building’s overbearing height, scale and massing, out of keeping and out of proportion with the existing ‘book end’ and other buildings, and the lack of respect for the established building line, leading to harm to the Conservation Area; This is a form of land-grabbing, and the fact that a previous application has been accepted using the same building line should not detract from this ‘disgraceful practice’; The black and white drawings do not adequately show how the building will look in context; Objection to the demolition of the existing building and 2m high stone boundary wall; Objection to the loss or cutting back of any trees; Concern over the absence of gardens or greenery at the front of the site, deemed out of character with the Conservation Area.

Neighbouring Amenity: (28) Harm to residential amenity, well-being and quality of life; (29) Noise and litter, and associated health risks, including rat problems and noise from refrigeration units and refuse collections; (30) Alcohol license could encourage gathering of anti-social groups; (31) Harm to privacy as a result of overlooking and impact on light; (32) Visual disturbance and light pollution from shop signage and illumination. Other matters: (33) Site boundary should be amended to include all proposed works; (34) Insufficient detail provided; (35) Exacerbation of flood risk and increased burden on drainage; (36) Falling property prices, as the area becomes less desirable; (37) Need for a Planning Committee site visit; (38) Conditions requested: to maintain the current retail use; limit deliveries and opening hours, and prevent sales of alcohol; (39) FOI request, enquiring if a s106 agreement has been requested or granted on the above property, and when. Representations on proposal as amended Mr Islam (former Cllr) objects to the proposal, as amended, on the following grounds: (1) (2) Impact on parking and from deliveries, resulting in obstruction and highway safety problems; Harmful impact on the Conservation Area, local residential and shopping area;

7.8

89

(3) 7.9

Increase in ASBOs and nuisance from alcohol related incidents.

Cllr Gordon wrote a seven page report ‘Keeping the Heart of Pontcanna Independent: A Report on Local Businesses and the Impact a New Minisupermarket Would Have On Them’ (January 2012) and letter of objection in relation to the amended proposal (December 2011), which raise the following issues/concerns: (1) Harm to character of neighbourhood from supermarkets, with negative impact on local food and drinks shops, knock on effect on range of small businesses, with resulting closures and job losses; Great support for local independents, which support local producers to the benefit of the economy and in line with WG policy; A survey of 45 (43 responded) local businesses revealed 278 people are employed in those 43 businesses, 153 work full time, 125 people work part time across a range of retail uses (A1, A2 and A3); Local concern about and resistance to ‘supermarkets’ moving into Pontcanna, evidenced by the petition and public meetings, opposition and success in relation to Tesco’s ‘One Stop’ at Ballantynes, opposition to ‘Pontcanna Pine’; Traffic impact – increased traffic and parking on already congested streets, harm to air quality; Retail impact - popular and friendly shops will be forced to close. Analysis of shops most at risk of closure – 3 small family run businesses that sell drinks and flowers (Philip Morgan, Flowers with a Twist, Wine and Roses), next vulnerable – locally owned food outlets (The Hot Pantry, Bant a la Cart and Pontcanna Stores), last to feel the effect – Fruit Bowl, Driscolls, Bailey and Fish at 85; Job losses - The above have 41 staff; Harm to the character of the area and Conservation Area, from a supermarket with loud signage and lighting; Impact on Pontcanna as a ‘good place to live’, with a sense of place, where people thrive and feel secure. ‘Good places to live are memorable and distinctive, well used and cherished by the people who live in them, work in them and visit them’ (Design Commission for Wales, No Place Like Home). Concern over increased traffic, road danger, pollution, noise and disturbance, impact on quality of life, litter, anti-social behaviour should the shop sell alcohol; A terrace of 4 town houses would be an ideal alternative.

(2) (3)

(4)

(5) (6)

(7) (8) (9)

(10) 7.10

Mark Drakeford AM and Kevin Brennan MP object to the proposal, as amended (December 2011), on the following grounds: (1) (2) Key objections remain unresolved - the site not suited to retail and the proposal fails to meet the tests of sustainable development; Traffic, parking and delivery issues not adequately addressed;

90

(3) (4) (5)

The impact on existing retailers is poorly analysed and some of the information difficult to reconcile; Concern over impact on Cowbridge Road East shopping centre; Concern over the impact of Sunday shopping outside of times larger supermarkets are open, leading to increased noise and disturbance on the only quiet day of the week and harming quality of life.

7.11

In response to first set of amended plans and additional information (December 2011), 133 letters of objection and representation were received from the owners/occupiers of 9, 11, 17 (x2), 25, 31(x2), 33, 34, 35(x7), 39a (x2), 42, 50 (x2), 57, 62 (x3), 64, 67 (x2), 73, 75, 78 (x2), 85, 102, 108 (x2), 110 (x2), 114 (x2) Severn Grove, 17 Stoneleigh Court and 21 Hafren Court, Severn Grove, 2, 4 (x2), 7 Pontcanna St, 94, 118 (x2), 148, 162, 174, 176, 177a (x2), 181, 185, 187, 189 (x2), 190, 192 (x3), 196 Kings Rd, 94 Ryder Street, 17 Gileston Road (x2), 185, Flat 3 197, 216 Cathedral Rd, 5 Aquila Court, 4, 8, 28, 51, 69, 78 Conway Rd, 15, 25, 61 (x2), 67, 73 (x2), 85 (x2), 91 Plasturton Av, 19 Gileston Rd (x2), 47 Glynne St, 2, 7 (x4), 8 Sneyd St, 3 Iestynian Avenue, 84 Aldsworth Road, 98 Llanfair Rd, 7, 30 Mortimer Rd, 13 Dogo St, 47 Pencisely Rd, 12a, 18 Farleigh Rd, 8 Beacon St, 26 Talbot St, 31 Romilly Crescent, 40 Wyndham Rd, 126 Wyndham Crescent, 2 St Catherines Mews, 2 Library St, 4 Romilly Place, 14 of unknown address, in addition to a resident from Cladach, Swansea and Scethrog, Brecon and a Green Party member. These re-iterate many of the objections raised above and these points are not repeated here. The new concerns raised are summarised below: (1) The plans are very similar, the reports inadequate and the problems outlined remain; Highway matters There is sufficient evidence to support a refusal on grounds of traffic generation combined with insufficient parking, and servicing; The TS is impenetrable, and the conclusions not representative; The parking survey is flawed and the parking survey area too wide – covering an area 200m of the site and roads up to 360m from the proposed unit. 100m regarded as more reasonable. The TS reveals that there is a total of a potential 107 unrestricted spaces over 200m away which makes a ‘huge’ difference to the availability of parking. It is noted that customers are unlikely to negotiate all these roads in order to find a parking space and if they did, they would add to congestion and possible road safety issues. The TS doesn’t take into account the 2 spaces currently used in the evening on the Pontcanna Pine forecourt and the inefficient parking with cars often leaving spaces up to 3.5m between cars, and for assuming spaces are around 5m (5.5m is noted to be more sensible as used by TPP). Sampling for 2 days is not statistically robust and the parking survey unrepresentative. Having some gaps between parked cars is vital as passing places;

(2) (3) (4)

91

(5)

(6) (7)

(8)

(9) (10)

A resident has re-analysed the submitted parking survey data, based on the availability of parking within 100m, noting that there are 34 periods of 15 minutes when parking demand is more that the spaces available, 2 periods when parking is at capacity and 16 periods of 15mins when parking can be accommodated. They note that the analysis demonstrates that there is most pressure for parking around the site and that customers will want to park within 100m, probably much closer, to the store and are likely to park illegally in residents parking, on corners, pavements, in disabled bays, on double yellow lines at the junction or double park, as occurs regularly, leading to inconvenience for displaced residents. No confidence that parking enforcement would be effective; The fall-back position and cannot be used to justify substandard access arrangements, servicing and parking; Deliveries - The AutoTRACK runs/ swept path analysis doesn’t account for vehicles being parked on the delivery bay, vehicles blocking the road, coming the other way, the lack of passing spaces in the form of parking spaces or that deliveries may be impeded by disabled badge holders allowed to park on double yellow lines. The application acknowledges that most deliveries in the area are from doubly parked vans. Delays and conflicts are likely to occur on a regular basis, with the large articulated lorry swept path appears to graze parked cars; Double yellow lines have been extended adjacent to the site, reducing the availability of unrestricted parking spaces adjacent to the site by 25, with a query as to whether the Council is negotiating with the developer; Disabled parking space is unsatisfactory regarding location and size; Transport Planning Associates (TPA) were instructed by a local resident group to review the Transport Statement (TS) produced by MBC Ltd, which raises the following concerns: i. ii. Fall back position – planning case law establishes that a fallback position must be realistic and implementable; Traffic attraction – criticism of the sample, noting that TRICS best practice guidance does not suggest selecting a sample of 5-6 representative sites and choosing one of them; Disabled parking space - not in an acceptable location and not correctly marked out; Parking – the surveys show the minimum number of spaces available for general use as 34 on a weekday PM and 20 on a Saturday; this represents less than 10% of the total quoted parking capacity on a weekday and less than 5% on a Saturday. The surveys represent a snapshot and a margin for error must be applied for daily variation – there will likely be days when more and less parking is available than shown by the survey;

iii. iv.

92

v.

vi.

vii.

viii.

ix.

x.

Parking survey distance –questionable whether customers would walk 200m given that convenience is key - customers will want to be closer and disabled customers should not be expected to walk significant distances. DfT guidance document ‘Inclusive Mobility’ recommends a distance limit for the mobility impaired of 100m; Parking –parking accumulation is based on hourly arrival and departure profiles, which is not appropriate for a convenience store given the average duration of stay of approx 15mins. It is for this reason, for example, that the parking demand contained in the report for the 1800-1900 period is zero spaces despite the fact that 48 vehicles are predicted to arrive during this period; Parking – the weekday TRICS data has been applied to the Saturday parking accumulation, although in the absence of sufficient Saturday sites within TRICS this is probably best; Parking – the consultant undertook a parking accumulation based on average trip rates using the 6 sites contained in the TS, excluding Broad Street, Birmingham. Assuming that each arrival stays for 15 minutes the parking accumulation suggests that 11 spaces would be demanded during the 19:30 – 19:45 and 19:45 – 20:00 period. This left just 9 general spaces available during the Saturday peak for general parking within an area up to and beyond 200m of the site; Parking – parking survey shows a small number of available spaces that could likely accommodate demand but are located up to and beyond a 200m of the site - would require vehicles to circulate, leading to increased congestion and delays; Swept path analysis – the swept path of a 16.5m maximum legal vehicle is very tight and the manoeuvre touches the edges of the parking bays and is not acceptable. If granted, a condition should be attached limiting vehicle delivery size.

Retail Statement (RS) and impact (11) The retail use of the premises as a fall-back position cannot be used to justify retail impact. If a national retailer was able to occupy the premises via limited works this would have happened some time ago; (12) RS is inadequate and out of date. Impact on other local stores not satisfactorily addressed and statement flawed and open to challenge; (13) Detailed criticisms of RS - The RS assessment in the context of main food shopping is irrelevant as top up shopping is a completely different market. Turnover should be tested as a worst case scenario - the predicted turnover of the store is low. Expenditure figures are probably out of date. The consideration of a store of this size in the context of zone 2 is irrelevant as the Council have only asked about its impact on one local and 2 neighbourhood centres. Description of local stores is inaccurate. The sequential test is poorly justified. Disbelief in the claim

93

(14)

Query as to whether the fact that there has been no established retail activity on the site for a couple of years constitutes abandonment, sufficient to result in the loss of established lawful use rights.

Inclusive Access (15) Revised DAS still inadequate. Specific objections to DAS proposals on Access – the disabled parking bay is substandard, the access control to the car park is not detailed as ‘accessible’, barrier to access from presence of kerbside bins, double yellow line on-street spaces for disabled people is unacceptable as facilities for transfer are not provided, disabled parking should be provided as part of a new development regardless of guidance or legislation, dismissal of lift on grounds of not being a requirement is unacceptable, increased size of the units welcomed, but no consideration given to the need for lifetime homes. Other (16) Intention to withdraw any consent for the demolition or alteration of any party wall shared with the site; (17) Harm to amenity from kerbside bins; (18) Without prejudice, the following conditions are requested: restricted opening hours (8am to 6pm-8pm Mon – Sat and 10am – 4pm Sun) was commonly requested), restrictions on delivery times to avoid morning rush hour, restrictions on delivery vehicle size be restricted to no longer than 10m, restrictions on goods sold (excluding alcohol, Lotto, fresh bread, fresh fruit and veg, fresh meat, pharmaceuticals and flowers), a condition requiring the sub-division of the main building into 2 retail units, and that a license to sell alcohol should be refused. Conditions should also control signage, advertising and storage of delivery containers and trolleys on the street frontage. Means to avoid loitering should also be considered; (19) No residents’ parking permits should be made available to residents of the flats; (20) Impact of Sunday opening after 4pm (noted as allowed as the store is under 3000 sq ft)

94

(21)

(22)

Query as to whether the Council would reduce Council Tax and resident parking permit charges, and increase policing, refuse collections and bins if the shop is approved; Suggestion that the existing building should be refurbished for retailing, as indicated in the Retail Statement instead of the intensified use proposed.

7.12

In response to the second set of amended plans and additional information submitted 27 September 2012 and subject to a 21 day consultation period, 99 letters of objection and representation were received from the owners/occupiers of 26 Greenfield Av, 17 Pontcanna Place, 7 Pontcanna St, 4, 69, 75 Conway Rd, 22B Penhill Rd, 2 St Catherines Mews, 12A Farleigh Rd (x2), 126 Wyndham Crescent, 2, 7 (x2), 12 Sneyd St (x4), 22, 94 Ryder St, 15, 67, 27, 73 (x3), 91 (x2) Plasturton Av, 4 Romilly Place (x2), 152, 185 (x2), 216, 236, Cathedral Rd (an Access Consultant), 84 Wyndham Crescent, 12 Romilly Crescent, 8 (x2), 12, 30 Mortimer Rd (x2), 16 Egham St, 114, 157, 166 (x2), 174, 189, 190, 192, 196 Kings Rd, 17, 19 Gileston Rd (x2), 20 Landmark Place, 18 Pitman St, 17 Stoneleigh Court, 9, 17, 31, 33, 34, 35 (x2), 39a (x2), 62 (x3), 66, 68, 76, 87, 102, 110 (x2), Flat 2 128, 114 (x3), 64 Severn Grove and 12 x address withheld and Cardiff Civic Society and executive members of the Pontcanna and Canton WI. These re-iterate many of the objections raised above, which are not repeated here. The new concerns raised are summarised below: (1) Both the Co-op Regional Secretary and Regional Acquisitions Manager South Wales of directly confirm the co-op does not have an agreement in place with the developer and that they are wrongfully stating that the Co-op is the end occupier. Dishonest developer behaviour in citing Co-op involvement, raising the questions over reliability of other information and seen as an attempt to bypass local objections; Confirmed lack of interest from Sainsbury’s Head of Convenience Acquisitions – South. Concern that if built, the store would remain a vacant eyesore; Barely any change to the proposal and previous reasons for refusal have not been addressed– the traffic and parking problems are still not addressed- photos attached, slightly smaller delivery vans would not overcome delivery problems; Concern expressed over parking analysis, with parking shortfall noted to be worse than indicated – the developers have picked data that indicates low demand for parking and have used a very large area of streets to show there is parking available to support the demand, Llanishen Co-op is a misleading example, parking demand figures ignore needs of new residents, staff other than the manager, those who currently park in front of the Dairy; survey does not address parking

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

95

(6) (7)

capacity at peak times, takes no account of drivers driving around looking for a space close to the store; Account with photos submitted showing problems experienced by an articulated lorry accessing the site via proposed delivery route; Summary of report submitted by Transport Consultant on behalf of third parties – • Co-op - confirmed lack of interest from Co-op, confirming conversations with other operators including Tesco and Sainsburys that the site is unsuitable due to access, servicing and parking. Demonstrates that additional data on parking, servicing and waste management based on Co-op is irrelevant / misleading; Car parking - revised analysis based on developer’s revised parking availability data shows parking demand exceeds availability within 50m of the store at all times chosen by the developer, and 6 out of 7 times within 100m of the store. Customers will use resident’s spaces and single yellow lines proposed outside the store to pop in. parking shortfall will be worse than data shows, as staff parking hasn’t been taken into account other than single manager’s space and resident’s needs for more than 1 space, the comparative Co-op stores mentioned are not comparable, the figures on transport mode include data from Easter school holidays and are not representative and the methodology not provided, survey times ignore the peak period for shopping and travelling such as lunchtime and afternoon rush hour; Servicing – length of proposed single yellow line is not specified, delivery van size may not be enforceable with another operator, proposed single yellow line for servicing would be parked on by customers causing delivery conflict; there would be a real loss of existing parking from the single yellow line adding to parking pressure, suggested option of deliveries on Severn Grove would be unacceptable due to character of junctions. Waste Collection and Storage – the proposed internal storage of waste is not practised in other Co-op stores in Cardiff and accommodation for containers is not shown, storage of delivery trolleys is unsightly and has not been dealt with. The February reasons for refusal have not been adequately addressed.

(8) (9)

There is a Co-op with adequate parking on Cowbridge Rd and no need for another; Increasing concern expressed at Co-ops adoption of capitalist competition;

96

(10)

(11) (12)

(13)

Access – new concerns include no mention of barrier free housing in the DAS, no accessible drop-off points, no cross-over points in the rear car park, no lift to upper floor residential; No provision of affordable housing or other community use benefits; Further conditions requested in the event of approval – limiting Sunday closing to 10am - 4pm, limit servicing to vans via Service Agreement, prevent pavement use for waste collection more than once a week or storage of delivery trolleys awaiting collection. Neighbour whose garden runs adjacent to the site raises concern that the developer has not consulted them and notes that previous use was not uneighbourly.

7.13

4 letters of support were received to the second set of amended plans from the owners/occupiers of Flat 1 35 Conway Rd, Flat 6 20 Penhill Rd, 10 Chester St, 75 Plasturton Av which raised the following matters: (1) A convenience store is needed to challenge the monopoly of Pontcanna stores and to offer a broader range of fresh, quality produce and competitive pricing Concern about harm from chains to the ‘village like feel’ rejected given opening of Coffee#1. Co-op is a good brand, in keeping with the area, given they operate under a co-op model Useful addition that would improve a derelict building Sale of alcohol supported.

(2) (3) (4) (5) 7.14

Mark Drakeford AM and Kevin Brennan MP object to the second set of amended plans, noting that ‘catchment’ has now widened to 350m and confirming their views remain unchanged. Cllr Gordon objects to the second set of amended plans on grounds of traffic and congestion, impact on the character of the Pontcanna ‘urban village’, reports that taxi drivers refer to the Kings Rd/ Severn Rd junction as ‘road rage corner’, attaches an objection from a local resident (no new issues raised), and recommends planning conditions, noted above, in the event of an approval. Cllr Hawkins objects to the second set of amended plans on grounds of increased parking and congestion problems, inadequate servicing, no adequate strategy for waste management, impact on local businesses and local economy, and criticises the parking survey on grounds raised above. ANALYSIS The application raises the following issues:

7.15

7.16

8. 8.1

97

8.2

The acceptability, in principle, of a residential use in this location The application site falls within an existing residential area and outside of any designated shopping centre, as defined by the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan. There would be no objection in land use policy terms to the proposed residential units, given the site’s location within an existing residential area and given that the principle of a residential use has been previously established under pp. 10/232w. The acceptability, in principle, of a retail (A1) use in this location The retail unit would have a gross internal floor area of 268 sq m (2884 sq ft) and a sales area of 195 sq m (2019 sq ft). The Retail Statement notes that the sales area is similar to Tesco at Corporation Road, Grangetown (2034 sq ft), Tesco at 37-39 Birchgrove, Heath (2000 sq ft), Tesco at Park Road, Whitchurch (2102 sq ft) and Tyn Parc Road, Whitchurch (2230 sq ft)). The proposed unit is significantly smaller than the Tesco in Cowbridge Road East (13,751 sq ft gross floorspace and 11,506 sq ft). It is also significantly smaller than the Co-op in Cowbridge Road East (12,700 sq ft gross floorspace and 9,116 sq ft net floorspace). Whilst not directly comparable, Pontcanna Stores is estimated to have a gross floorspace of 206 sq m, as measured from an OS map base. Whilst larger than Pontcanna Stores, the proposed unit is not a large unit. It is certainly significantly smaller than the size of retail development that would normally require a retail impact statement under national retail policy – 2,500 sq m gross floor space (TAN 4, para. 6). Given that the site is located outside of a designated shopping centre, as defined by the City of Cardiff Local Plan, policy 50 would apply and the application would have to satisfy the tests of out-of-centre retail policy. Cowbridge Road East is the nearest designated shopping centre defined by the City of Cardiff Local Plan that would be afforded retail protection under policy 49, and this would be the main focus of consideration in terms of retail impact. The existing cluster of shops along Cathedral Road/ Pontcanna Street, King’s Road/ Pontcanna Street and the retail parade at the Romilly Crescent/Severn Road junction, whilst known for their small, independent traders and very popular as a shopping destination, fall outside a designated shopping centre as defined by the City of Cardiff Local Plan policy. They would not, therefore, enjoy the protection afforded to local / district centres designated under the Local Plan, such as Cowbridge Road East. However, paragraph 9.3.8 of policy 49 does recognise that there are other centres not identified in Policy 49. In terms of the status of the smaller centres, Cathedral Rd (including part of Pontcanna St) was defined as a local centre by policy 2.36 of the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (to 2016) Deposited Written Statement. Although this plan has no formal status, it may be a material consideration. Cathedral Road & Pontcanna St and Kings Road & Pontcanna St were recognised as neighbourhood centres in the Retail Floorspace Survey 2001. However, it is

8.3

8.4

8.5

98

noted that the survey has no formal policy status at all, was not subject to public consultation and is now out of date, and should, therefore, be accorded minimal weight, if any, as a material consideration. The site itself is detached from the above neighbourhood/ commercial clusters, in an out-of-town location, and policy 50 and national retail policy would apply. 8.6 Paragraph 6 of TAN 4 establishes that applications for retail developments over 2,500 square metres gross floor space should be supported by an impact assessment, noting also that ‘Such assessments may also be necessary for some smaller developments, for instance those that are likely to have a large impact on a smaller town or district centre’. Whilst the proposed retail unit is significantly below the size threshold at which retail impact assessments would normally be required, the LPA considered it prudent to ask the applicant to consider national and local retail policy for out-of-centre locations, given that the proposal would involve the demolition of the existing unit and the creation of a new planning unit, given the national policy position that such impact assessments may also be necessary for some smaller developments and that Pontcanna St/ Cathedral Rd was allocated a local centre in the UDP. Notwithstanding the site’s location in an out-of-centre retail location, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on grounds of the retail impact of the proposal on either Cowbridge Road East or the shops along Cathedral Road/ Pontcanna Street nor King’s Road/ Pontcanna Street the for the following reasons: i. ii. The size of the proposed retail unit; The established retail use in this location, as confirmed by the Certificate of Lawfulness (07/2388w) which includes all of the buildings on the site. That said, it is acknowledged that the weight to be given to this fact is significantly reduced by virtue of the fact that the proposal, if permitted, would involve the demolition of the existing building and result in a new planning unit and a new chapter in the planning history of the site, where the established lawful use rights would be lost. It is, never-the-less, a material consideration; As a protected policy 49 centre, Cowbridge Road East would be the main consideration as opposed to the shops along Cathedral Road/ Pontcanna Street, King’s Road/ Pontcanna Street and Romilly Crescent/Severn Road junction, which have no formal policy status; The lack of objection from Strategic Planning and their conclusion that there are no retail policy concerns raised by the proposal sufficient to justify a refusal of planning permission’; Whilst the retail unit – if a convenience store - may compete with some local stores for some types of goods, Planning Policy Wales establishes that ‘it is not the function of the planning system to interfere with or inhibit competition’ (para. 1.2.3). PPW also recognises that

8.7

iii.

iv.

v.

99

corner shops in urban areas, which are not part of established centres, can play a vital economic and social role (para. 10.1.4). 8.8 Representations received cite wide-ranging benefits of local independent stores in comparison to national chains, and a wide range of potential harmful impacts of national chains on those independents and the places in which they are located. However, land ownership is not a material planning consideration. Moreover, it would not be reasonable to control by condition either the ultimate occupier of any retail unit or to require occupation by independent shops only. Impact on the character and appearance of the area and Conservation Area The proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the street scene and Conservation Area, subject to a range of conditions that would be imposed were the proposal to be recommended for approval (relating to materials specification, architectural detailing, tree protection and pruning). The principle of the demolition of the existing buildings and stone wall has already been established under pp. 10/233W. The existing buildings and structures were considered to detract from, rather than enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and it is considered that the proposed scheme would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, overall, in design terms. The scale, massing and footprint of the proposal is acceptable, and reflects that approved under pp. 10/232w. The height of the proposed building has been reduced from 11.6m to 11.2m and is acceptable, taking into consideration the variation in building heights in the vicinity, including the presence of other 2 ½ storey dwellings along Severn Grove and the established bookend at the other end of the terrace along Kings Rd (182-188 Kings Rd). The proposed scheme would follow the established building line along Kings Road. Whilst the proposal does not follow the established building line along Severn Grove, the 2 – 2.5m set back from the back of footway would be acceptable and reflects the building line of the scheme approved under pp. 10/232w. The proposed development responds to the ‘Pontcanna style’, with an acceptable use of materials, and incorporates typical features of the Conservation Area – the use of stone detailing around the windows, stringer courses, quoins, bay windows and dormer windows. The design of the shop unit and its windows is acceptable, and reflects the design of the commercial units at the ‘book end’ at 182-188 Kings Rd. Whilst there is some concern over the 2 no proposed velux windows, the impact would not be so unacceptable as to warrant refusal of the application, taking into consideration their size and the wider benefits to the Conservation Area. It is also noted that 2 velux were approved under pp. 10/232w.

8.9

8.10

8.11

100

8.12

Trees and Landscaping The proposal allows the street tree to be retained and there is no objection from the tree officer, subject to their recommended conditions. Impact on the living conditions of neighbours The proposal, as amended, would not result in unacceptable harm to the privacy of neighbours, by virtue of overlooking, taking into consideration the separation distances involved, the design and position of the windows to the rear and subject to appropriate conditions were the proposal recommended for approval (controlling boundary treatments and the use of obscure glazing). The proposed mixed use development would not have an overbearing or unneighbourly effect on neighbouring occupiers or cause an unacceptable loss of sunlight/daylight, taking into consideration the height, scale and massing of the proposed development and the separation distances involved. The impact from noise and disturbance would be acceptable, subject to the recommended conditions to control opening hours, delivery times, plant noise and future kitchen extraction, refuse arrangements, and taking into consideration the planning history of the site, the range of uses in the area and the lack of objection from Pollution Control and South Wales Police. Impact on the living conditions of future occupiers The living conditions of future occupiers would be acceptable, with regard to the internal floor area of the units, outlook (taking into consideration separation distances) and privacy (taking into consideration window design). Whilst there is some concern that the occupants would not have access to private or shared amenity space, the harm would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application, taking into consideration: the fact that the Residential Design Guide recognises that the provision of amenity space may vary, that it is a mixed use scheme in close proximity to park land, the constraints provided by a corner site and the proximity to parking spaces and refuse storage, and that the rear yard provides some of the functional requirements that external amenity areas should cater for (refuse storage and cycle parking). It is also noted that there was no provision for outdoor amenity space under pp. 10/232w. The impact from noise and disturbance would be acceptable, subject to the recommended conditions. Access, Parking and Circulation The context of the proposal is critical to its acceptability or otherwise. Officer site visits have revealed and third parties report that the streets close to and within the vicinity of the site are subject to severe parking pressure and congestion (with associated risks to highway safety), are frequently reduced to one way traffic due to the presence of parked cars (both legal and illegal) on both sides of the narrow roads and that, as a consequence, the limited parking spaces that are available often play an essential role as passing places, without which congestion and highway safety would be worse. It is

8.13

8.14

8.15

8.16

101

also reported and observed that the streets can become gridlocked. Set against this context is the proposed development, which does not propose any dedicated off–street customer parking (other than a single disabled parking space), staff parking (other than for the manager) or off-street servicing for the proposed retail unit. 8.17 It is critical, therefore, that the proposal deals with all ‘movement’ aspects arising from the scheme in a manner which is satisfactory. Third parties have questioned the validity of the parking analysis, noting that the parking shortfall would be worse than indicated, with the proposed residential and retail use together placing an unacceptable demand on parking, with associated problems of congestion, access and safety, as well as severe inconvenience. They express a real concern that the studies submitted employ data that indicates a low demand for parking and uses a very large area of streets in the parking survey to demonstrate that there is parking available to support the demand. Other third party criticisms of the parking analysis include: that the car parking demand does not account for staff parking (other than the single manager’s space), the real needs of the future occupiers of the proposed residential element of the development (despite satisfying the SPG parking guidelines in terms of the number of spaces) and the loss, in real terms, of the parking spaces adjacent to the street that would be lost with the proposed introduction of the single yellow line (despite such spaces not being technically available for use due to the presence of dropped kerbs). They also comment that the stores used as the basis for predicting parking demand are not comparable, that the parking survey times ignore the peak period for shopping and travelling such as lunchtime (12.00 – 14.00) and the afternoon rush hour (16.00 – 18.00) and, in doing so, do not address the worst cases where there would be conflict between shoppers, travellers and residents. Commenting on trip generation, the Operational Manager Transportation has advised that the methodology put forward for the proposed retail use is not considered to accurately represent the proposal and that the further survey work of the Co-op Llanishen is of limited weight, given it was undertaken during the school Easter holiday and given that the Co-op have confirmed they have no interest in the site. He also raises concerns that there are limited free parking spaces within close proximity of the site at times when the retail use is in operation, and that visitors may be tempted to ignore the existing and proposed parking restrictions, to the detriment of deliveries, visibility and turning movements. Whilst it is noted that car parking is available within the wider surveyed area (which extends to the highway outside 9 Plasturton Avenue), officers do not accept that it can be reasonably assumed that potential customers would be prepared to park up to 330m away and walk such a distance to the store. Given the context of the proposal and concerns noted above, it is considered that the application fails to demonstrate how satisfactory short term parking arrangements for the retail use would be effectively secured without

8.18

102

exacerbating on street parking pressures and congestion within close proximity to the site and particularly at the junction of King's Road / Severn Grove, and this forms the basis of a recommended reason for refusal. 8.19 In respect of pedestrian and cycle movements, the proposal also fails to demonstrate the provision of a safe and convenient movement of pedestrians and cyclists at this location, without detriment to highway safety and the free flow of traffic. These matters form the basis for a further reason for refusal. In respect of deliveries, in addition to the proposed single yellow line to facilitate on-street parking, the Applicant proposes to: enter into a Service Management Plan to apply to all vehicles greater than 8m in length, restrict the vehicle length to no greater than 10.7m, set out a delivery programme and restrict deliveries to specified hours. The Operational Manger Transportation notes that it is not the Council’s practice to provide Loading Bays for individual uses or to share the space with short stay parking /limited waiting, and that the proposed introduction of a single yellow line to facilitate on street servicing can not be relied upon. Moreover, even if permitted, the availability of the proposed single yellow line for use by delivery vehicles can not be relied upon either, for a number of reasons. If permitted, the single yellow line restriction would allow Disabled drivers to park there for up to 3 hours. Visitors may also be tempted to ignore restrictions and park on the proposed yellow line and, indeed, the existing double yellow lines at the junction. Furthermore, the proposed yellow line may also be legitimately used by other businesses in the area. The availability of the proposed single yellow line for deliveries would, thus, be restricted, which would result in obstruction to all users of the adjacent roads, to the detriment of highway safety and free flow of traffic. In respect of delivery vehicle size, the Operational Manager Transportation notes that, whilst the 10.7m vehicle can negotiate Severn Grove and King’s Road, should one vehicle be parked out of place, then the delivery vehicle could not successfully manoeuvre. A 9.6m ‘pantechnicon’ delivery vehicle would be the maximum recommended size of delivery vehicle. Planning officers also have some concern it may be difficult to enforce delivery van size. Taking the above into consideration, it is considered that the proposal would give rise to and exacerbate on-street parking pressure and congestion by service and delivery vehicles associated with the retail use by reason of the limited space available, and that this would give rise to obstruction to all users of the adjacent roads, to the detriment of highway safety and free flow of traffic. The above concerns are reflected in a further reason for refusal. No changes have been made to the layout of the rear yard, which was considered not to be ideal in relation to car and cycle parking, despite the Agent having been given the opportunity to address the concerns previously raised by officers. This formed the basis for a third reason for refusal in the February 2012 Committee report and forms the basis of a further reason for

8.20

8.21

8.22

103

refusal now. To clarify matters, a disabled parking space was requested by the planning officer. The Operational Manager Transportation has confirmed that it is unlikely that a visitor to the store would use the disabled parking bay subsequently proposed due to its location and third parties have objected to its design. It is anticipated that disabled users would either use double yellow lines (where loading is permitted) or Resident Parking Bays, which they can use for up to 3 hours. Whilst the standards set out in the SPG call for 3 disabled parking spaces, it is considered that it would be difficult on sustain a refusal, in this instance, on grounds of a lack of disabled parking. Refuse matters The Agent has confirmed that: all waste associated with the foodstore would be stored within the retail element of the building, that there is sufficient floorspace to do so, that all waste would be collected by ‘merchandise’ delivery vehicles on trolley cages, and that there is no reason for waste to be presented to the highway for collection, other than on designated days of domestic collection when bins will need to be presented kerbside on Kings Road. Whilst it is noted that the proposal is contrary to the SPG in not identifying the floor space assigned to waste storage on plans, it is accepted that waste can be dealt with on site, subject to a condition to require the arrangements proposed by the Agent, noted above, and the submission of a detailed waste strategy. It is noted that the above approach was accepted in respect of application 11/2053dci at 97-99 Albany Road and 1A Angust St, Roath and that, as a result, it would be difficult to sustain an objection on waste management grounds. The lack of objection from waste management is noted, as is their advice that, if necessary, Waste Enforcement, reserve the right to issue a s47 notice (Environment Protection Act 1990) whereby the day and time for collection can be determined by the Local Authority. Equalities Impact Assessment and Accessibility matters The DAS, as amended, is considered to be acceptable and to satisfy the minimum content requirements of the legislation. In response to representations made, it is noted that a DAS is not part of the planning application (TAN 12, para A1.1). The public access arrangements now comprise a front entrance to the retail unit at the corner of King’s Road and Severn Grove, and a rear entrance to the retail unit and sole entrance to the flats accessed from within the rear yard. No provision would be made for on-site customer car parking, with the exception of a single disabled car parking space to the rear, and 3 cycle parking spaces are provided adjacent to the main entrance. The following concerns are raised in relation to the proposal: (1) The unacceptable location and design of the disabled parking bay, should it be used for customers of the proposed retail development.

8.23

8.24

8.25

8.26

104

(2)

(3)

The proposal has failed to effectively demonstrate that the proposal would be acceptable in relation to highway safety, parking impact and deliveries. As a result, the application may give rise to traffic congestion and attendant highway safety problems, for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and particularly for those most vulnerable in society, including children, the elderly and those with disabilities. Representations raise particular concerns in relation to the existing situation, including lack of parking spaces for residents and users, the narrow one lane only roads, traffic and congestion, lack of passing spaces, uneven pavements, reduced visibility at junctions, highway safety risks for all users, but particularly for children, the elderly and disabled people. The pavements surrounding the site are uneven, particularly around the lime tree on Severn Grove due to root growth and pavement movement, which will impede access by all. The agent is aware that third parties have raised matters such as the enhancement of paving in the locality and has stated their willingness to continue a dialogue over s106 matters. However, such discussions have not progressed in light of the recommendation to Planning Committee.

8.27

Taking the above into consideration and in terms of Equalities Impact Assessment, there may be abnormal differential impact on relevant equality strands, for reasons noted above. It is noted that the concerns set out in points 1 – 2 above form the basis for reasons for refusal. In the event that approval was recommended, a condition could be imposed to require access facilities to and within the site for disabled persons (but not within the building). Density of Development /Over-development Whilst there are no concerns over the scale and massing of the proposed development, as noted above, there are concerns that the proposal would constitute over-development of the site, simply by virtue of its failure to demonstrate adequate supporting facilities in the form of effective access, parking and servicing arrangements. Whilst the acceptability of the site for 14 flats has been established under pp 10/232w and the site benefits from a certificate of lawfulness for retail use, the acceptability of a combination of the uses on the scale proposed has not been effectively demonstrated. Planning Inspectors have commented elsewhere that a proposal should be viewed as overdevelopment if the supporting facilities are inadequate. This forms the basis for a fifth reason for refusal. Representations The representations received are noted. Many relate to issues considered in the analysis above, and I would comment as follows in relation to the issues not addressed above:

8.28

8.29

105

8.30

Whilst it is assumed that the retail unit would be occupied by a convenience store for testing purposes in both the submitted Retail and Transport Statements, limited weight is given to the assertion that the occupier would be a Co-op given the assertions to the contrary from the Co-op. The question as to whether ‘abandonment’ has occurred is a complex legal matter which officers are not in a position to comment on at this time. The drawings submitted are considered adequate to allow consideration of the buildings in context. The footprint of the building reflects that of pp. 10/232w at first floor level, contrary to the representation made. The signage shown on the drawings does not form part of the proposal; a separate application under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement Regulations) 1989 may be required for their display. The sale of alcohol is a matter for the licensing regime. Clutter associated with the retail unit could be controlled by condition and any future waste strategy. Delivery times and delivery vehicles sizes could be controlled by condition (in addition to other matters). It would not be reasonable to impose a condition restricting the range of goods to be sold in this instance. Whilst welcomed, it would be unreasonable to require the proposed housing to meet lifetime home standards. The opening hours recommended by Pollution Control are set out above. South Wales Police have raised no objection in relation to problems of crime and disorder. The Environment Agency and Drainage Services have no objection to the proposal in relation to flood risk or drainage. The impact on house prices, saleability, party wall matters and the impact of rats on health and safety are not planning matters. The FOI request was duly responded to. In relation to the suggestions for alternative uses of the site, the Council has a duty to determine each individual application on its own merits. There is no requirement for affordable housing given the number of units proposed. A social impact assessment is not a planning requirement. The Council has recently reinstated the correct and existing Traffic Order in the form of double yellow lines at this location. The proposal involves the reuse of brownfield land; it is not understood how the proposal could be deemed to constitute ‘land grabbing’. Conclusion The application is recommended for refusal, for the reasons noted above.

8.31

8.32

8.33

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

MEMBER AND AM OBJECTION COMMITTEE DATE: 05/12/2012 APPLICATION DATE: 23/04/2012

APPLICATION No. 12/691/DCI ED: APP: TYPE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: BUTETOWN

Full Planning Permission

Cardiff Bay Wakeboarding BUTE EAST DOCK, HEMINGWAY ROAD, ATLANTIC WHARF USE OF FORMER DOCK FOR WAKEBOARDING AND WATER SKIING AND INSTALLATION OF CABLE TOW SYSTEM ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That, subject to persons having a relevant interest in the application site securing a signed Unilateral Undertaking under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in section 9 of the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer’s report, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. The facility hereby permitted shall only be used by members of the public between 09:00hrs and 20:00 between 25 March and 31 October (inclusive) and shall be discontinued within 5 years of the date of first opening to members of the public. The land shall be restored to its former condition before the development hereby approved was implemented, which shall include the removal of all new structures hereby approved from the application site within six months of the cessation of the use hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the use of the premises does not prejudice the amenities of the area. Prior to the submission of any application to remove or vary condition 1 above, a noise assessment report based on environmental noise measurements undertaken at the application site during the 5 year trial period shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to allow the noise impact to be comprehensively assessed. The noise assessment methodology shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the assessment and the assessment shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed methodology. Reason: To ensure that the use of the premises does not prejudice the amenities of the area.

2.

113

3.

In the event that the use hereby approved ceases to operate on a permanent basis prior to the 5 year trial period noted in condition 1 above, the land shall be restored to its former condition before the development hereby approved was implemented, which shall include the removal of all new structures hereby approved from the application site within six months of the cessation of the use hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of the area. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered 5226-R1 (Site Location Plan), 5226-001 (Site Layout Plan), 5226-002 (Pylon Anchor Installation Sections and Cable Clearance), attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the letter from the agent dated 11/07/2012, the email from the Agent dated 30/05/2012 titled ‘East Bute Dock Ecology’, the email from the Agent dated 08/11/2012, the email from the Agent dated 12/11/2012, the email from the Agent dated 14/11/2012, Installation Plan (29th March 2012), Operational Plan (29th March 2012), Revised Water Quality Management Statement (July 2012), Transport Statement (June 2012), drawings of Pylon 1 - 5 (stamp dated 11/07/2011), plan of Bespoke Dock Connector (stamp dated 11/07/2011), plan of Mast Food Concrete Ring / Prinzipskizze Mastfub (stamp dated 11/07/2011), plan of Pylonaker HEB (stamp dated 11/07/2011), plan of Starting Platform Water (stamp dated 11/07/2011), drawing of illustration of Boat Pick up Points (stamp dated 11/07/2011). Reason: The information provided forms part of the application. The use of Bute East Dock for water skiing and wakeboarding shall not take place until the supporting facilities proposed in The Boat Shed – which shall include but not be limited to a reception, equipment storage facility, changing rooms, locker area and shower and toilet facilities – have been completed and are available for use by users of the water skiing and wakeboarding facility hereby approved. The supporting facilities noted above shall be available for use by users of the water skiing and wakeboarding facility during the times of operation that are the subject of condition 1 of this consent. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and adjoining residents. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place until 18 no. car parking spaces in The Wharf car park are available for exclusive use by the operators of the

4.

5.

6.

7.

114

facility hereby approved and their clients and staff during the times of operation specified in condition one of this consent. Reason: To make provision for the parking of vehicles clear of the roads so as not to prejudice the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic. 8. Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, no development shall take place until a scheme showing details of the land based pylon anchors – to include the precise location and fixing detail and allowing for a minimum 3m headroom under the anchor wires and to include details for the reinstatement of the path/land following installation - has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be brought into use until the approved scheme is implemented. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory finished appearance to the development and to facilitate access to the cycle/footpath and other infrastructure situated on or adjacent to the path. Where any of the pylon or anchor locations agreed under condition 8 are situated within the adopted public highway, no development shall commence on those elements until the Applicant has secured a stopping –up Order under s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety and to allow vehicular access and maintenance. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the hydraulic compressor and brake resistor shall be housed inside the Boat Shed and shall be enclosed with sound proofing material prior to their use on the premises in accordance with a scheme which shall first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining and nearby residential properties are protected. H7G Plant Noise No amplified music shall be played through any public announcement system installed as part of the use hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected. Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, no development shall take place until a scheme showing details of the starting platform and associated gate system– which shall include details of the colour and materials, details of any alterations to the dockside railings and any

9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

115

start hut / canopy and seating- has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be brought into beneficial use until the approved scheme is implemented. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory finished appearance to the development. 14. No development shall take place until a schedule showing details of CCTV cameras to monitor the external areas of the proposed facility has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the area are protected, and to prevent crime and disorder problems. No development shall take place until a schedule showing full details of proposals for the external storage of equipment or external display of goods during the installation phase, during the months of operation and outside of the operational period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, details showing the scale and location of any storage containers, boats, floating work platforms, tables and chairs, parasols, advertisement boards and a timetable for their use and, where applicable, removal from site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the area are protected, and to prevent crime and disorder problems. C7S Details of Refuse Storage No development shall take place until details of access facilities for disabled persons, including chair wakeboards, toilet and changing facilities, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; the development shall not be brought into use until the approved scheme has been completed. Reason: To ensure adequate facilities are available for disabled persons.

15.

16. 17.

RECOMMENDATION 2: No development should commence until such time as the applicant has secured a license under S178 of the Highways Act 1980 for all overhead cables and other structures where they oversail the adopted highway. Maintenance of the license under s178 of the Highways Act may require a structural certificate to be submitted annually to confirm that the pylons, cables etc are fit for purpose. Further information regarding the s178

116

license requirements is available from Steve Rees, Cardiff Council on (029) 2078 5363. RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for (i) (ii) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils, aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates / soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site: • • • Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances. Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and

(iii)

the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.

Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land. The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination. RECOMMENDATION 4: That the applicant be advised that by law (Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 34) all commercial premises have a duty of care to ensure that their waste is transferred to and disposed of by a registered waste carrier. Owners or developers of commercial developments/properties who require Cardiff County Council to collect and dispose of their waste can contact the commercial services department on 029 20717500.

117

RECOMMENDATION 5: Wild birds and their nests are protected by law from disturbance and destruction. The nature of this proposal requires that floating pontoons could be left unused on the water over winter. If, in the spring when the facility is re-opened any bird species have started to nest on these pontoons they must be left undisturbed until the young have fledged. In this case an alternative route should be created as set out in email ‘East Bute Dock Ecology’ sent from Gareth Stevenson on 30/05/2012. These comments contribute to this Authority’s discharge of its duties under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, wherein: 1) Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. 2) conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat. RECOMMENDATION 6: The Environment Agency advise that: • any incidents of blue-green algae on watercourses or private waters (such as lakes) should be reported to their incident hotline on 0800 80 70 60. This will allow them to respond appropriately by taking samples and to carry out their notification responsibilities in relation to public health. They advise that there is a useful guide called 'Blue-green algae' available from our online publications catalogue, which describes the characteristic features of blue-green algae, how algae affects the public and what the public should do if they see it. This can be downloaded here: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/?lang=_e construction activities have the potential to cause serious pollution or impact on the bed and banks of a watercourse and on the quality and quantity of the water. Please refer to Pollution Prevention Guideline 5 – Works or maintenance in or near water: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/PMHO1107BNKG-ee.pdf?lang=_e The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations. If any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably permitted facility. If any waste is to be used on site, the applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate waste exemption or permit from us. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Management team at Cardiff Office on 029 2024 5188 or refer to guidance on our website http:// www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste.

118

1. 1.1

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This is a full application, as amended, for the use of the former dock for wakeboarding and waterskiing and the installation of a motorised cable tow system. Wakeboarding is a fast growing water sport which involves a rider on a single board, as opposed to water skiing on two. The cable tow system allows riders to be pulled along the water by a suspended cable, rather than by motor boat. The cable-tow system would consist of an elevated cable that would move through a network of five pylons to provide a returning ‘course’ approx 735m long. This would run in an anti-clockwise direction, south from the boat shed. Each of the five pylons would, in turn, be supported by two pylon anchors. The course and associated cable system would be positioned in the central section of the dock, involving a section of the dock approx 480m long. The main cable forming the ‘course’ would be positioned 9.6m above the water surface and approx. 30m from the waters edge to allow for the carving ‘sweep’ action of skiers. The pylons – the highest part of the system – would rise to a maximum height of 13.4m above the water level (pylon 5). The ground based pylon anchor posts would be approx 3.3m high above ground level. The pylons and anchors would be constructed from galvanised steel with a matt silver/grey appearance. The start point would be accessed off the western edge of the dock, from a gated starting platform (approx 16m x 5m) adjacent to the Boat Shed. This would be finished in hardwood boards and a temporary ‘start hut’ erected over the operator’s console. Water exit platforms would be placed at intervals around the western (10 no) and eastern (11 no) sides of the dock. These would comprise of modular floating blocks secured together to form a 3m x 1.5m platform. A boat pick up point (approx 5.9m x 1.93m) would also be positioned at the western and eastern side of the dock. The platforms would be of a grey colour HDPE plastic material and would be secured to the handrail around the edge of the dock by bespoke dock connectors. No ‘sliders’ and ‘kickers’ are proposed as part of the course. No new buildings are proposed. The existing Boat Shed building, currently used as a gym, would be used to provide a reception, office, equipment storage facility, a class room/ video presentation area, changing rooms, locker area, shower and toilet facilities, and equipment washing facilities. CCTV is proposed to cover the front entrance of the Boat Shed, the reception area, the cable system control area and the start platform area. The system would be propelled by an electrically powered mechanised drive that would be manually controlled. The cable system would require a dedicated 400v electrical supply, a brake resistor and hydraulic compressor

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

119

which would be housed in the ‘technical room’ which would be soundproofed and positioned inside the Boat Shed. 1.6 During installation, plant and tools would be kept securely in the Boat Shed, avoiding the need for any temporary cabins. To enable installation, a temporary floating work platform (6m x 4m) with scaffolding above - to allow a working height of 9-10m - would be erected. This would be dismantled after installation and only re-erected for pre-season maintenance and winterisation of the system or if the cable or pylon heads become damaged and need replacing mid season. The scaffolding would be hired on demand and, when not required, the floating platform would be removed from site. It is noted that an engineer would be able to climb up the pylons and perform routine maintenance work without the need for the floating work platform. During operation, equipment would be stored within the Boat shed. When the system is not in use during the winter months, it would be partially decommissioned, involving the removal of the driven cables, the trailing rider wires, all electrics and the motor unit, the start hut / canopy and all exit pontoons. These would be stored securely off site, along with all rental equipment and boats. All structural cables between the pylons and their respective anchors would remain. In the event that the development becomes redundant, the Agent advises that none of the scheme would result in irreversible works. The 5 main pylons would be free-standing on the dock floor and are relatively easily removed. The start platform could also be removed, but would be mounted upon caissons in the dock and the pylon anchors would be cast into concrete pads, both of which would amount to more permanent forms of development requiring works for their removal. A maintenance and safety boat, equipped with a 15/20hp four-stroke engine would be used, together with a recue vessel to perform fast response rescues. The latter would be used for emergency use only and would not operate at any other time. Both vessels would be removed from the site for secure storage during winterisation. A public address system would be in place, but would only be used in times of emergency / system failure to assist riders to safely exit the water. The existing Wharf pub car parking would be shared to provide 18 car parking spaces and 4 disabled parking spaces. Six cycle parking spaces, and coach and mini bus parking would be accommodated. There would be ramped access down to the water from the dock side, and the Applicant proposes to repair the pathway between the Boat Shed and the start platform.

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10

120

1.11

The facility would operate from late March to the end of October. Opening hours would vary, with the longest days being 9am to 8pm Monday to Sunday, including Bank Holidays. The development is anticipated to generate up to 100 customers a day at peak times during summer months. Visitor numbers are noted to be self limiting as the apparatus is restricted to 9 riders at any time, with an average stay involving a two hour session, including training and training/safety briefing. No formal events are planned through the proposals, but if these should arise it is noted that they would take place at weekends when other trip demands in the area are reduced. The application is supported by a covering letter, Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Installation Plan, Operational Plan, Noise Impact Assessment, a Water Quality Management Statement, Water Sampling Results for 2011 and 2012, An Analysis of Cardiff Bay Water Microbiology Results 2011-2 by Minton Treharne & Davies Limited, British Water Ski & Wakeboard Environmental Policy Note on Wash, additional information on East Bute Dock Ecology, and a Cardiff University Bute East Dock Otter and Mink Survey and other additional information. The following matters are raised: i. The cable ski concept – not found anywhere else in Wales - provides for the enjoyment of surface water sports without the need for noisy and polluting towing craft, and provides for a ‘landmark’, low impact leisure facility in an underutilised water resource in the heart of Cardiff Bay that will encourage healthy lifestyles for all. The proposals will not give rise to disturbance of potential nesting bird sites, with the only disturbance to the water surface being from the rider’s ski or wakeboard. The British Water Ski and Wakeboarding Association policy note addresses the effect of ski wash and it is demonstrated that the wash created has an average height of only 25mm at a distance 20m from the centre line of the cable. This is noted to be almost negligible in relation to the existing surface water conditions at the dock and the variable effects of wind based currents, and that the effect of wake on any nearby nesting birds would be minimal. There are over 200 cable sites worldwide using the system proposed, with the closest being the Cotswolds Water Park, which is internationally and nationally important for wintering wildfowl, has up to 200 species of bird visit each year, has a thriving otter population and expanding water vole population and is regionally important for dragonflies. The cable system’s electric motor guarantees that neither the water nor air is polluted. Studies have found that waters get oxygenated by the action of skiers and wake boarders on the water’s surface which help with regeneration.

1.12

ii.

iii.

iv.

121

v.

vi. vii.

viii.

ix.

x.

xi.

xii.

xiii. xiv.

xv.

If a bird were to set up a nest on the proposed exit points, the operator would cordon off the exit point and create another at a safe distance away from the nest to ensure that the nest would remain undisturbed. The Cardiff University Otter and Mink Survey confirmed no field signs of otter or mink in the dock or adjoining canal. The proposals will make use of the existing Wharf pub parking and catering facilities, with the facility providing additional footfall for the pub. Cardiff Bay Wakeboarding would be accredited by British Water Ski & Wakeboard and the site would be operated according to the British Water Ski Code of Practice for Cable Tow Waterskiing and the British Water Ski Cable Tow Operator Standards. All CBW cable operators would be qualified to British Water Ski standards and be members of British Water Ski. Staff will manually operate the mechanised drive, deal with equipment, tuition and safety, as well as the routine cleaning and care of the water body of the dock. As part of the installation process, a commercial diver would be used to clear the dock of rubbish and weed. The walkway surrounding the course would be inspected and maintenance carried out. All terrestrial litter would be removed from the dock and from around the dock to the boundary of the walkway. The assessment of noise levels generated by the equipment in use is predicted to be significantly less than the measured background noise levels in the area (measured during a typical Sunday) and concludes that the noise from the development would not have a material impact on the nearest noise sensitive properties. The movements of water skiers will occur well below the level of windows to habitable rooms so little visual intrusion or distraction will arise. The following benefits are noted: to community safety arising from the proposed use and associated increase in the level of activity and overlooking, the benefits arising from the use of a brownfield site in a sustainable location. The proposal would require 6 full time employees. The proposal would not add to the existing drainage levels as there would not be any increase in the provision of sanitary facilities or nonpermeable surfaces. The Applicant has taken advice from the British Disabled Waterski and Wakeboard Association (BDWSA) and will have specifically adapted equipment such as chair wakeboards to allow use by disabled users. Full use by disabled people is entirely feasible as the start platform would be accessed via just a short ramp from the dock side allowing easy access for all users. BDWSA members currently use the cable system in Datchet with success and will visit the site before opening to the public to assess and advise on suitable use by their members.

122

xvi.

Various proposals in respect of construction, training, safety and incident management, which are not reported here as they are not a planning matter.

1.13

With respect to water quality, and its monitoring and management, a revised Water Quality Management Statement and additional information has been submitted, which note: • • if water quality at the site is reduced and considered a possible danger to users, the site will be closed until the quality improves. CBW has taken advice from Cardiff Council’s Environmental Department, Cardiff Harbour Authority and Public Health Wales and has been testing the water quality in Bute East Dock since March 2011. They are also involved in a study with Cardiff University monitoring the nutrient levels in the dock with regard to blue / green algae growth. The water will be tested weekly for Faecal Coliforms and Streptococci, with samples being sent to the National Laboratory Service in Exeter. CBW will adopt a similar system as Cardiff Bay where the water quality will be classified daily as being excellent, good or poor, with daily classification and water quality results to be published in the CBW office. The minimum age for customers is 10, with each customer to read and sign a medical consent form and safety and risk declaration at each visit to the course. Customers will be asked to inform CBW of any illnesses contracted within 24 hrs of using the site and CBW would immediately report all illnesses back to Public Health Wales via a health survey form. CBW would monitor the water for Blue / Green algae and samples would also be sent to Cardiff University. Measures would be taken during the operational season to stop algae blooms. The analysis of Cardiff Bay Water Microbiology Results 2011-12 by Minton Treharne & Davies Limited concluded that the analysis of the data covering the periods April to October 2011 and April onwards in 2012 demonstrated a high proportion of ‘good’ results with the remainder being classified as ‘satisfactory’, apart from a single ‘bad’ coliform result. Water quality analyses have been provided to ascertain whether these meet bathing water quality standards, which they do. There are acknowledged risks in the use of the dock for immersion activities arising from water quality incidents following periods of heavy rain fall. This is an issue which also affects Cardiff Bay and it is incumbent on the Applicant to monitor bacteriological conditions and to restrict activities where necessary in order to minimise risks to public health. This is ultimately a private matter for the Applicant to ensure that he is properly indemnified against pollution incidents arising.

• •

123

The greatest risk to the daily functioning of the proposals is from the occurrences of blue green algae, the presence of which may force a temporary closure and a risk assessment method statement has been submitted to illustrate how water quality monitoring and notification will manage public health risks.

1.14

New and amended plans were submitted to provide a full set of drawings of the system and to provide for overhead clearance of the path around the dock. Additional information set out in paragraph 1.12 was also provided. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application site comprises the water body of the dock, sections of the dock edge walkway to which pylons anchors would be fixed, the Boat Shed, the Wharf pub car park and a route from the car park to the dock. The dock no longer forms part of the operational docks and is subject to occasional sporting and leisure uses, including charity rowing events, and attracts a mix of users, including walkers, runners and anglers. There is a walkway surrounding the dock, not all of which is adopted and part of which forms part of the Wales Coastal Path (the footway along western edge of the dock from County Hall to the dock feeder canal south of The Wharf). A section of the footway - to the north of County Hall and adjacent to the vacant plot – which forms part of the site is in a poor state of repair, with loose and missing paviours and is generally overgrown. The dock is characterised by a sense of openness, with view across it framed by a mix of high density development around its edges. To the west of the site lie high density housing development situated off Schooner Way (including Henke Court), The Wharf Pub, The Holiday Inn Express hotel, County Hall and a private car park. Henke Court would be separated from the towing cable by a distance of approx 37-39m, the hotel by approx 35m, and County Hall by approx 120m. The ‘ground floor’ apartments at Henke Court and their terraces are raised above the footway at a height of approx 2.25m, and are positioned approx 8m from the dock edge and approx 2.5m above water level. Further residential and office development are positioned to the north, approx 290m from the ‘course’. To the east of the site is the A4232 Central Link Road, a raised dual carriageway, with industrial land beyond, including the steelworks. The residential development to the south – The Waterquarter - would be positioned approx 230m from the ‘course’. A ‘travelling’ crane has been relocated adjacent to the eastern edge of the dock, reflecting its industrial heritage, as does a barge, positioned adjacent to the Wharf pub.

2. 2.1

2.2

2.3

124

2.4

The Grade II listed Bonded Warehouse, converted to offices, is located at the northern end of the dock. The Grade II listed Spillers & Bakers building is located to the west, on the corner of Schooner Way and Llansannor Drive. In addition to the existing development around the site, planning permission has been granted for a crèche and café on land to the north of the Boat Shed (12/380dci) and the Council has resolved to grant planning permission for a partial change of use of The Wharf to a hotel (11/1890dci). SITE HISTORY The following applications are relevant: 89/929R – ‘Public house / restaurant, lettable floor space, boat shed / changing facilities’ – approved 26/07/1989. 97/00247c - ‘Cable tow for watersports’ - refused 30/10/1997 for the following reasons: i. The proposal fails to provide for adequate car and coach parking particularly at peak times, which would result in on-street parking and congregation, to the detriment of highway safety and residential amenities. The proposal, by virtue of its scale, and nature of operation would give rise to nuisance and disturbance which would be detrimental to the residential amenities of nearby residents and or the amenities of other occupiers. The proposal by reason of its size, siting and design is considered a visually obtrusive form of development which is detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. Insufficient information has been submitted to allow the Local Planning Authority to properly assess the proposal in terms of water quality, health and safety issues and suitability of the proposed use for the dock.

2.5

3. 3.1

3.2

ii.

iii.

iv.

3.3

Related site history: Part of land at Schooner Way, Atlantic Wharf 12/380dci- Proposed construction of crèche and café – approved subject to s106. The Wharf, 121 Schooner Way 11/1890dci - Partial change of use of first and second floor from A2 office to C1 hotel with the formation of new external doors from ground floor of A3 public house –approved 06/01/2012.

125

4. 4.1

POLICY FRAMEWORK The application site is identified as unallocated ‘white land’ on the City of Cardiff Local Plan proposals map, with Bute East Dock noted on the proposals map to be ‘disused’. It lies outside, but immediately adjacent to the boundary of the Inner Harbour Principal Business Area and the land does not fall within the operational docks, as defined on the proposals map. Paragraph 7.4.6 of the Local Plan notes that Bute East Dock and the associated feeders and canals are an essential part of the operational infrastructure of the docks which need to be maintained. The dock is also identified within the boundary of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. The site falls within the Butetown area of the City Centre Strategy (2007-2010). Relevant City of Cardiff Local Plan policies: 10: Contaminated or Unstable Land 11: Design and Aesthetic Quality 17: Parking and Servicing Facilities 18: Provision for Cyclists 19: Provision for Pedestrians 20: Provision for Special Needs Groups 45: Sport, Recreation and Leisure Facilities

4.2

4.3

Relevant Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003) policies: 2.20: Good Design 2.24: Residential Amenity 2.30: Commercial Leisure Development 2.47: Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation 2.48: Biodiversity 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements 2.51: Statutory Listed Buildings 2.64: Air, Noise and Light Pollution 2.74: Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development

4.4

Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance and other guidance: ‘City Centre Strategy’ (2007 – 2010) ‘Safeguarding Land for Business and Industry’ (2006) ‘City Centre Northern Professional Office Area Planning Brief’ (March 2000) ‘Waste Collection and Storage Facilities’ (March 2007) ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards’ (January 2010) ‘Cardiff City Centre Conservation Area Appraisals’ (2009)

126

4.5

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, November 2012) 4.2.2 The planning system provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development to ensure that social, economic and environmental issues are balanced and integrated, at the same time, by the decision-taker when preparing a development plan and in taking decisions on individual planning applications (see Chapter 3). TAN11: Noise TAN12: Design (2009)

5. 5.1

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES The Operational Manager (Waste Management) advises that a location for the storage and collection of waste and recycling, and presentation for collection must be included on site plans and retained thereafter, and provides advice on commercial contracts. It is advised that litter and cleansing of the wharf and canals is an on-going problem, with a lack of clarity as to who is responsible, noting that any improvement with cleansing is welcomed. The Operational Manager (Transportation) has no objection to the amended plans and Transport Statement, noting that the level of vehicle trips and parking likely to be generated can be comfortably accommodated on the adjacent road network and on-site car park, respectively, subject to the following conditions and advice: • A condition to require details of the precise location and fixing details to be submitted for approval prior to development, to include a minimum 3m headroom under the anchor wires, given 4 of the land based pylons are sited within the adopted public highway and all 7 represent potential obstructions to the pedestrian use of the dock edge path. The dock edge footpath facilitates lighting and other maintenance access and any submission under the above condition must allow vehicular navigation of the footpath. No development should commence until a stopping up order under s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been secured or other such licenses and/or agreements that may be required in relation to the installation of the pylons within the adopted highway. No development should commence until the Applicant has secured a licence under s178 of the Highways Act 1980 for all overhead cables and other structure, where they oversail the adopted highway. Maintenance of the license may require a structural certificate to be submitted annually to confirm that the pylons etc are fit for purpose. A S.106 contribution to encompass the clearance of undergrowth, reinstatement of the surface, repair of lighting on the footpath between the Holiday Inn and County Hall, given the additional pedestrian traffic.

5.2

127

A s106 contribution of £3,120 towards the assessment and implementation of new and revised Traffic Orders as may be required as a consequence of the operation of the development, with the contribution to be used to assess the requirement for resident parking or extension of existing parking restrictions.

5.3

It is advised that the above conditions will avoid any interference with the use of the Wales Coastal Path. It is also noted that the previous application 97/247c was based on the 1993 parking guidelines which required a minimum level of parking to be provided with most forms of development and that this application must be assessed on the 2010 guidelines, which do not require a minimum level of car parking provision within the City Centre and Bay Core Area. As such, it is advised that the proposed development would be policy compliant in terms of car, coach access and parking and any objection on this basis would be unsustainable. The Public Rights of Way Team advises that the proposal will not impinge on the Wales Coastal Path. Public Protection has no objection and initially advised that: Wakeboarding will involve the user being exposed to water either through accidental immersion or through facial contact with water spray. It would appear that the degree of exposure and the frequency of body and head immersion will be dependent the ability of the user and their familiarity with the activity. Water sampling undertaken at Bute East Dock has provided some insight into the bacteriological content of the water at Bute East Dock. The results confirm the presence of faecal coliforms and faecal streptococci which indicate that the Dock water is exposed to sewage contamination. This is unsurprising given the location. Therefore if Planning Permission is given any water activities involving partial/whole body immersion and excessive water exposure to the face will involve a risk in acquiring gastrointestinal infections. All users and potential customers should therefore be adequately informed of those risks before undertaking the activity and Health and Safety Risk Assessments must include assessment of bacteriological hazards and risks associated with being a user and being a member of staff. The risk assessments should also: • consider that the risk of infection maybe greater in certain population groups such as immuno compromised individuals, children under the age of 6 etc. Control and preventive measure may therefore differ within the customer population. consider that certain weather conditions may require that the activity does not take place.

5.4

5.5

The organisers need to take these issues into consideration.

128

You maybe aware that much work has been undertaken by Cardiff Harbour Authority on managing the bacteriological risks associated with water activities in Cardiff Bay and the White Water Rafting Centre. The organisers would find value in referring to The Harbour Authority. If this application is approved, the Applicant will have responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to protect the health, safety and welfare of his employees and customers. This will involve undertaking risk assessments, developing safety procedures, training staff and potentially ceasing the activity under certain conditions, for example the presence of blue green algae in the Dock. As well as powers under this Act, the Council have additional powers under the Health Protection Regulations 2010 where the Council can require action or prohibit an activity to protect or prevent an infection that presents or would present significant harm to human health. Following the submission of additional information, Public Protection advise that their comments remain unchanged. With regards the submission of the Operational Plan and proposed weekly monitoring to ensure compliance with bacteriological parameters in line with the Bathing Water Standards, Public Protection advise that this would form part of the health and safety risk assessment and that, from a communicable disease point of view, the more important issue is that the appropriate action is taken following receipt of these results. 5.6 Pollution Control – Contaminated Land Team have no objection overall. An advisory notice relating to contamination and unstable land was initially advised, noting that they have no records indicating there to be contamination within the underlying sediments which might justify the inclusion of conditions. Pollution Control Division subsequently advised that the review of the results of chemical analysis of the water and sediment has shown no obvious risks, as the water quality meets the Environmental Quality Standards for freshwater bodies. With regards chemical concentrations in the sediment, it is advised that these are hard to compare as currently there are no set criteria for chemical quality of sediments in the UK. From a human health perspective, due to the nature of the proposed activities, they would not anticipate there to be any significant exposure of the participants to the sediment. With regards bacteriological issues, Pollution Control advise that this has been assessed by colleagues in Public Protection. Bacteriological results indicate that for the majority of the monitoring the results indicate that the water quality meets the excellent bathing water standard, with only 4 failures of this standard, and one incident where good quality was breached. It is noted that the Applicant has submitted an Operational Plan and that, in accordance with this, will be undertaking weekly monitoring to ensure

5.7

5.8

129

compliance with bacteriological parameters in line with the Bathing Water Standards. 5.9 Pollution Control Division – Noise & Air – has no objection, subject to the recommended conditions. In respect of the noise assessment and objections raised, it is noted that the noise assessment was done in accordance with British standard 4142 and a detailed technical justification provided of the parameters used. It is noted that the report takes into account the worst case scenario for the noise generated from the cable tow equipment, along with comparison against perceived lowest back ground measurement within the operating hours (it would be reasonable to assume the background noise measurements would be higher during peak hours over the weekdays). It is noted that the sound scape for the site is dominated by the road traffic produced on the duel carriage way adjacent to the dock. With regards to noise generated from people using the cable tow system, it is noted that other noise surveys undertaken representing similar sites state that noise is generally centered around the launch/waiting area for the site. While some screams from failed launches are recognised, this noise is noted to be localised to the launch area, as apposed to turning locations or during the middle of run. It is documented that once away from friends at the launch area and at a constant speed of the cable tow, the only noise was from the skis in the water while being towed around. It is considered that the proposed position of the launch area would provide sufficient attenuation of this noise. Pollution Control also advise that it is also envisaged that people will not be using the site for every run possible so the maximum number of runs where a LAmax would be achieved at 70db could be reduced. It also needs to be considered that not all participants will reach the full length of the course falling off at various stages. It would be reasonable to expect some water noise from this, however, this is unlikely to lead to significant disturbance. Regarding, the comments raised with regards to the original application, Pollution Control advise that some comparisons can clearly be made. However, the availability of data from comparison sites along with the access to site specific noise reports are now available to make a more detailed analysis of the noise predictions. The intensification of use of the link road running along side the dock would likely to have dramatically changed the noise climate since the original application. The Regeneration Team advise that policy 45 identifies that proposals for the development of sport, recreation and leisure facilities will be favoured in other locations if there is no need to preserve the site for its existing or allocated use when assessed against relevant policies of the plan. Given the site’s location, the proposal is considered acceptable in land use policy terms, subject to detailed design, amenity and transport considerations.

5.10

5.11

5.12

130

5.13

Strategic Policy (Ecology) provided initial advice on the bird species that rely on the dock for breeding and overwintering, advising that they would not encourage development that would affect their ability to overwinter here. It was noted that all breeding birds are protected from disturbance while nesting under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: Part 1, 1(1)(b), and that it is an offence to intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built. As the centre will not be running regularly all year, it is considered highly likely that the situation will arise that birds have started nesting during a closed period, then, when the centre is opened the new activity will disturb the nesting. Operating the centre after birds have started nesting, knowing the potential affects on those nests could be seen as deliberate disturbance. It was noted that the proposed platforms are likely to attract nesting birds if they are not in use at the beginning of the breeding season, again, if they are used after nesting has started this will constitute disturbance. Further information was requested on how the edges of the dock would be protected from wake disturbance in order to avoid disturbing birds nesting at the waters edge, and any deterrents to prevent birds using the floating platforms, or a contingency in case a platform is out of use due to bird nesting. No objections were raised in relation to the amended plans and additional information, and an advisory notice recommended relating to the legal protection surrounding wild birds and their nests. It is advised that the Otter survey is sufficient to ensure no European Protected Species would be affected and that a full habitat is not necessary. On the basis of the information submitted, it is noted that the only habitat to be affected is the water and that the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable response to the potential impact of birds breeding on the water, and that there are no other issues to be addressed. Legal Services advise that the Council has a license from ABP which allows the Council and those authorised by the Council to use the surface of the dock for recreational and leisure activities. ABP’s consent as owner of the dock would be required for the proposal. Strategic Estates advise that the Council has a 30 year lease / license that was assigned from the Land Authority for Wales and will expire 4th November 2015 and that this lease / license provides the Council with authority to issue sub-license for surface water leisure activities as was envisaged at the time of the original regeneration of the area in the early 1980s. Advice is provided on maintenance responsibilities, noting that the Council has had to deal with a large number of complaints in relation to Bute East Dock, particularly over surface water litter and monitoring and managing water quality. It is noted that negotiations with ABP would need to take place to renew the license / lease if the application is successful, to accommodate the facility and resolving the management of surface water litter and water quality. If approved, Strategic

5.14

5.15

5.16

131

Estates believe that the proposal will, in principle, make better use of the water as was originally conceived, provide the citizens of Cardiff with a new leisure facility, create jobs, provide an additional income stream and result in better cleansing and management of the dock and its’ environs. 5.17 Drainage Services note that there are no drainage issues to comment on as the proposal is looking to make use of existing services. The Harbour Authority advise that they have no comments to make as the area lies outside their jurisdiction. The Council’s Access Officer and the Chief Officer Projects, Design and Development have not responded. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES Welsh Water has no comments. The Environment Agency provided the following initial comments: • • • • Flood Risk – risk could be acceptable subject to the developer being made aware of the flood risks Drainage – recommends drainage conditions to prevent pollution from the car park and given lack of details for proposed toilets Fisheries – effect on fish is likely to be minor, but the scheme will almost certainly affect angling. Discussions should take place with ABP who own the fishing rights. Waste Management – the site has issues with large amounts of fly tipping and the EA advise that all fly tipping be removed from site prior to development. Advice for the Applicant is provided in relation to waste materials.

5.18

5.19

6. 6.1 6.2

6.3

The EA provided the following new comments on the amended plans: • Water Quality – it is useful to understand the input of contamination from the mains sources, but be aware there may be other smaller discharges into the dock via, for example, drainage from highways and residential development. It is recommended that the Authority consider designating the dock as a bathing water if it is to be regularly used for water sports – this is a suggestion only not a requirement. Biodiversity – the otter survey results show otter are not present and the EA have no further comments or concerns from a biodiversity perspective. Blue Green Algae – Information is provided on incidences of blue green algae blooms, notably in 1999 and 2000 when the warning threshold was exceeded and was regarded as a public health risk. It is

• •

132

recommended that colleagues in Environmental Health are consulted to understand how to manage and mitigate the risks and that incidents of blue-green algae be reported to the EA. 6.4 Associated British Ports note that they are aware of the proposal having received notice from the Applicant’s agent and the Planning Authority. They advise that the Council has responsibility for the management of the water area of the dock, but that ABP’s consent would be required as freeholder and no formal approach has been received from the Applicant and that they are not able to comment at this stage, other than to urge the applicant to contact ABP. It is noted that there are a number of matters which ABP would wish to discuss from a safety, environmental, engineering and legal perspective, for example. South Wales Police have no objection, but ask that the following points be given due consideration: the rescue vessel be adequately secured to prevent unauthorised use, the CCTV system to cover the boat docking area, and the pylon anchor points to be constructed in such a way as to eliminate the risk of unauthorised persons climbing or scaling the cable. Western Power Distribution provide a plan showing of and advice relating to existing WPD electricity / surf telecom apparatus in the vicinity of the site, a copy of which has been sent to the Agent. REPRESENTATIONS 843 neighbouring residents and occupiers were consulted, and the application advertised by means of a press and 15 site notices. 93 letters of have been received in response to the application, as originally submitted, from the owner/occupier of 39 Water Quarters, 56 Picton Rd, 57 Silver Birch Close, 77 Corvette Court, 90 Shakespeare Av, Bute Building King Edward VII Av (x2), 2 Kirby Court (x2), 21 Roxby Court, 11 Blake Court, 20, 70, 168, 174 (in capacity as a director of Waterquarter Management Company and expressing the views of the board of 7 Directors and believing they act in the interests of all 198 apartments x5), 193, 235 Galleon Way, 4 Windlass Court, 30 City Wharf, 6, 70 (x2) Schooner Way, 3 Jellicoe Court (x2), 2A Celebrity Drive, 172 Adventurers Quay, 6 Windglass Court, 2, 4 Earl Cunningham Court, 42 Spillers and Bakers, 29 City Wharf, 1 Anson Court (x2),149 Galleon Way, 2, 4 Jellicoe Court, 50 Tyndall St, 73, 117 Galleon Way, Flat 2 Keyes Court, 32 Llansannor Drive, 3, 3 & 4, 5, 8, 10, 20, 21, 25, 27, 30 (x4), 54, 79, 84, 89, 106, 108, 111 (x2), 165 Henke Court (x2), 40 Rigarossa Henke Court (x2), 42 Quayside Block - Henke Court, undisclosed no Henke Court (x4), undisclosed no Blake Court, undisclosed no The Waterquarter, undisclosed address Atlantic Wharf, undisclosed no York Court (x3), undisclosed no Jellicoe Court (x3), a business in Beaufort Court, an occupier of County Hall (x3), 4 x address withheld, which raised the following issues and objections:

6.5

6.6

7. 7.1

133

i. ii.

iii. iv. v.

vi. vii. viii.

ix. x.

xi. xii.

xiii.

xiv. xv. xvi.

Inappropriate development in this location, better suited to Cardiff Bay and the International Sports Village Harmful environmental impact, with a full EIA and marine geophysical survey required and likely offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Harm to quiet enjoyment of the dock and impact on other leisure uses and users, with insufficient information to assess impact Need for the development to be considered as part of a larger overall plan for the dock Harm to views, visual amenity and historic features of the dock, with particular concerns over the inaccurate DAS visual assessment, the impact when closed up, the design of starting platform and potential clutter. Objection to the detailed positioning of the course, rather than the principle. Need for all equipment to be removed and the site restored to its previous state in the event the business fails Harm to quality of life and amenities of adjoining residents and occupiers, including visual disturbance Noise disturbance, including from equipment, PA system, motor boats, users and spectators, with various criticisms of the noise assessment, particularly in not accounting for noise from people, the PA or motor boats, and concerns that the background noise level is an unfair baseline and the assessment only based on one background noise level assessment Harm to privacy from overlooking Increased traffic and parking problems, pedestrian congestion, and risks to highway safety - from new developments, illegal parking, driver distraction, and existing poor access, with concern that the shared parking spaces may not be available Impact on Wales Coastal Path Harm to health and safety of users, from the presence of rats, needles and toxic algae, the risk of leptospirosis, aural problems and enteric diseases, with the water exit platforms likely to encourage unauthorised swimming, concern that riders would collide with the water’s edge and the need for a proper risk assessment on water quality and for the Applicant to accept full responsibility in criminal and civil law Increased litter problems, noting that there are already disputes about who is responsible for clearing the dock of rubbish and that local volunteer groups are forced to organise clean ups Lack of provision for toilets Impact on property prices and saleability Inadequate consultation by the Applicant in only consulting related business partners. The application site abuts land leased to Waterquarter Management Co., which owns land right up to the edge of the Dock – no conversations have taken place between the Agent and Waterquarter Management Co. The Council should have consulted

134

xvii.

xviii. xix. xx. xxi. xxii. xxiii. xxiv. 7.2

Other criticisms of the DAS, with no reference paragraph 7.4.6 of the Local Plan, in incorrectly stating that only Henke Court would be affected, that power boats use the dock, that the pub is poorly patronised, and that benefits to public safety and crime reduction are unproven The Operational Plan notes that in later years it is proposed to have a walkway across the dock, with further details requested There is no need for the facility, no suitable alternative sites have been assessed and the facility would not be unique in Wales The reasons for refusing a similar planning application (97/247c) remain relevant today Poor quality drawings and lack of illustration of the north view looking from the Waterquarter and no plans of supporting facilities Query as to how the proposal even can be entertained Increase in anti-social behaviour Concern comments have not been made available on-line.

10 letters of support have been received from the owner/occupiers of 88 Schooner Way, FF Flat 7 Morlais St (x2), undisclosed house number Blake Court , Unit 4 Court A Atlantic Wharf (x2) and the British Water Ski and Wakeboard (BWSW - the UK governing body of water skiing and wakeboarding), the Penarth (Wales) Water Ski Club, the president of the Kitesurf and Wakeboarding Society for Cardiff University, the Waterfront Partners Cardiff Bay, which raised the following points: The proposal would meet an identified strategic need for additional cable tow ski facilities in Wales, with the nearest facility being in the Cotswolds, to be benefit of beginners and elite users, the city’s leisure/sporting offer, local businesses and the economy, with potential for events and competitions and cable wakeboarding on the short list for inclusion in the 2020 Olympics and reflecting Cardiff’s title of European Capital of Sport 2014 xxvi. Cable tow facilities have encouraged a fast growing youth following, providing affordable exercise, fitness and training for young people xxvii. The proposal would ensure the daily availability of facilities due to its sheltered and accessible position. It is noted that skiing in the Bay is reliant on favourable wind and surface water conditions, with sessions abandoned when wind strength provides challenging conditions, leading to disruption and loss of revenue to clubs and surrounding businesses, with users travelling to Cirencester and Dachet in England to use other cable ski systems. It is also noted that boat based wakeboarding on offer is through Penarth Ski Club, but costs are too high and only allow for one user at a time. xxv.

135

xxviii. Cable tow facilities represent an affordable and accessible form of waterskiing and wakeboarding, and is non-polluting, quiet with minimal environmental and acceptable noise impact and is supported by the EA xxix. BWSW believe the facility will meet BWSW kite mark standards and request a planning condition to require the site to gain BWSW accreditation to ensure standards of provision xxx. Beneficial use of an under used and neglected resource, with the facility only using part of the dock xxxi. limited impact on anglers, who tend to fish at night, with benefits through oxygenation of the water and help eliminate algae, to the benefit of wildlife and fish xxxii. reduction in anti-social behaviour xxxiii. upkeep of walkways, lightings and railings welcomed xxxiv. the area appears poorly used and maintained, with a litter problem and the proposal will result in improved maintenance of the dock, with proposals for the removal of litter and measures to make the area safer xxxv. water quality appears satisfactory from submitted information xxxvi. no significant impact on traffic and parking, as the pub car park is underused. 7.3 Following consultation on amended plans and additional information received, 19 letters of objection have been received from the owner / occupier of 2 Kirkby Court (x2), 6 Schooner Way, 49 Adventurers Quay, 70, 73, 149 Galleon Way, 2 Rigarossa Quayside, 54 (x2), 79, 108 Henke Court, 42 Quayside Court, 2 Keyes Court, 7 Blake Court and 3 x addresses withheld. These repeat objections initially raised, and the following new objections: xxxvii. The amended plans and additional information do not address the objections and the differences have not been highlighted making assessment difficult xxxviii. Other wakeboarding sites in the UK are situated in lakes in country parks and not in residential areas xxxix. Significant weight should be given to local opposition xl. The Boat Shed gym is popular and would be a loss. 7.4 Following consultation on amended plans and additional information received, 1 letter of support has been received from the owner / occupier of 59 Henke Court. No new points were raised. A petition in support of the proposal has been submitted by the Agent with 218 entries. The Agent is not afforded a right to speak as the petition due to the lack of signatures or postal addresses. Cllr Cook objects to the application, as originally submitted, on grounds of harm to bird and aquatic life in the dock and lack of assessment of impact on wildlife, and re-states his objection to the amended plans.

7.5

7.6

136

7.7

Eluned Parrott AM objects to the application on grounds of unacceptable noise and visual impact, increase in traffic, congestion and parking problems, and harmful effect on wildlife. The Local Member was consulted and no representations were received. ANALYSIS The main issues are: (i) the principle of the development

7.8 8. 8.1

8.2

The dock is identified as being ‘disused’ and does not fall within the area designated as operational docks on the Local Plan Proposals Map. Moreover, the site appears as ‘white land’ on the Proposals Map, meaning that it is not allocated for any particular land use, nor is any existing use afforded policy protection. Policy 45 identifies that proposals for the development of sport, recreation and leisure facilities will be favoured in ‘other locations’ if there is no need to preserve the site for its existing or allocated use, subject to detailed considerations, including whether the proposal would harm the vitality and viability of a principal business area or an approved urban regeneration scheme. The proposal would be well located in an ‘other location’, as assessed under policy 45 of the Local Plan, immediately adjacent to the Inner Harbour Principal Business Area, as defined on the Local Plan Proposals map, and between the Bay waterfront area and the core of the City Centre. It is also situated within the established City Centre Strategy (CCS) boundary, within the Butetown City Centre Strategy area. Strategic CCS objectives for the Butetown area include to ‘provide significantly improved community facilities in the area’, to ‘improve the quality and the community use of public open spaces and the public realm in the area’ and to ‘reclaim water frontages and realise their full potential for development, recreation and nature conservation’. Strategic CCS Leisure and Tourism objectives include ‘to raise Cardiff’s profile at the regional, national and international level as a place to live, work, shop, visit and invest’ and to ‘promote leisure uses .. whilst minimising any harmful social, economic and environmental effects’. The proposal would accord with the above policy and City Centre Strategy objectives. It would help realise the potential of the dock as a leisure resource, would provide a unique cable tow wakeboarding and waterskiing facility in Wales, which would contribute to Cardiff and the Bay’s leisure and sporting offer, and its development as a major tourism and sporting destination. The proposal would not harm the vitality and viability of a principle business area or approved urban regeneration scheme.

8.3

8.4

137

8.5

In considering national policy on leisure, set out in Planning Policy Wales, and the relevance of considerations of need and the sequential approach to site selection, it is noted that the guidance specifically relates to ‘retail, leisure or other uses best located in a town centre’ (para 10.3.1). The proposed facility could not be located within the city centre Principal Business Area, and the proposed location is considered acceptable, in terms of the sequential approach, being well located immediately adjacent to the Inner Harbour Principal Business Area and within the City Centre Strategy Area. Taking the above matters into consideration, the proposed use of the dock for wakeboarding and waterskiing would be acceptable in land use policy terms. Whilst the proposed use would rely on the availability of the Boat Shed, which would, in turn, involve the loss of the existing gym facility based in the Boat Shed, a refusal on such grounds could not be sustained. Matters of detail are considered below. (ii) impact on visual amenity, and listed buildings and their setting

8.6

The proposal involves erecting a number of structures on site, including a cable tow system, 5 pylons, 10 supporting pylons, a start platform, 21 no water exit platforms and 2 boat pick up platforms. These are utilitarian and functional in nature, simple and lightweight in form, in an appropriate colour and of an appropriate material and of an acceptable height. No new buildings are proposed, with the existing Boat Shed building providing supporting user and equipment storage facilities. The Agent has confirmed that the cable system would be partially decommissioned during ‘winterisation’, as detailed above, and that the structures can be removed from the site with relative ease in the event that the business closes permanently. Whilst the structures would be visible from both long and close views, officers are of the view that the appearance of structures would not be out of keeping with the aesthetic of the former dock, that the height of the structures would be acceptable, taking into consideration the height and massing of the surrounding buildings and the crane positioned on the eastern edge of the dock, and that the proposal would not be visually intrusive, would not detract from the open views of the Dock or the setting of the listed buildings adjacent to the Dock, subject to the recommended conditions. It is also noted that the agent has agreed to repair and upgrade a section of the highway north of County hall and to general maintenance of the area, which will enhance the appearance of the area. A condition is recommended to require further details of the starting platform, including any operator canopy, to be submitted to ensure its appearance is acceptable. Conditions are also recommended to control how the equipment would be managed and stored during operation and winterisation, to avoid clutter on site, and to require the land to be restored to its former condition when the operation ceases. A condition is also recommended to require the supporting facilities proposed within the

8.7

138

Boat Shed to be provided before the use commences, to avoid any potential for partial implementation without the provision of the supporting facilities. (iii) whether the proposal would make satisfactory provision for access, parking and circulation

8.8

The Operational Manager Transportation has no objection, subject to the recommended conditions, advisory notices and S106 matters. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on moving or parked traffic, taking into consideration the following: that the facility is located in a sustainable transport location - within walking distance of bus stops, and is accessible by foot and cycle, that users of the facility may hire all equipment and so avoid having to travel by car, the proposed use of 18 no. dedicated car parking spaces in The Wharf car park and associated condition to require their provision, numbers of staff and users, and the agreed s106 contribution towards the assessment of the requirement for residential parking and/ or the extension of existing parking restrictions, as noted in Section 9. The Applicant has also agreed to the undertake repairs to the section of the footway between the Holiday Inn and County Hall, between the Boat shed and proposed start platform, and to provide a s106 contribution towards the assessment of the requirement for residential parking and/ or the extension of existing parking restrictions, as noted in Section 9. A condition and advisory notices are also recommended to ensure that there would not be any pedestrian or vehicular conflict with the supporting pylons. Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Operational Manager, Transportation, it would be unreasonable to impose a condition to require the applicant to secure the S178 licence under the Highways Act 1980 and this is the subject of an advisory notice. Taking into consideration the recommended conditions, there would not be any unacceptable impact on the Wales Coastal Path. Whilst application 97/247c was refused on parking grounds, it is noted that this application was determined on the basis of 1993 parking guidelines, which required a minimum level of parking to be provided with most forms of development and that this application has been assessed on the basis of the 2010 guidelines, which do not require a minimum level of car parking provision within the City Centre and Bay Core Area. The Operational Manager Transportation has advised that any objection on parking grounds could not be sustained. (iii) whether the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers

8.9

8.10

The proposal would not give rise to a loss of privacy from overlooking or visual disturbance for residents living in the immediate area, taking into consideration the height of the riders heads above the water surface, the

139

height of the nearest terrace / opening above ground level (approx 2.25m), and the separation distances involved. 8.11 Pollution Control has considered the potential for the facility to give rise to noise disturbance and has no objection. Conditions are recommended to control the opening hours, months of operation, sound proofing of the compressor and plant noise, and to prevent the playing of amplified music through the PA system. Whilst it is considered that there is insufficient grounds to support a refusal of the application on grounds of noise impact, a temporary 5 year consent is recommended to allow for a ‘trial run’ of the development and a condition recommended to require the noise impact to be comprehensively assessed during operation, based on an appropriate noise assessment to be submitted by the Applicant at the relevant time for resubmission. It is considered that this would accord with advice in paragraph 111 of Circular 35/95, taking into consideration the unusual nature of the use. It would allow the real noise impact to be assessed, allowing the authority to be sure of its effect. A 5 year period is recommended having regard to the capital expenditure necessary to carry out the development. The proposal would not unacceptably impede the activities of other dock users, subject to the recommended conditions and taking into consideration the size of the dock and area remaining beyond the ‘course’. (iv) 8.13 water quality

8.12

Water quality data, an analysis of the results and a Water Quality Management Statement has been submitted, and the Council’s Public Protection service, Pollution Control and the Environment Agency have not raised any objections on grounds of water quality. It is noted that the Applicant will have responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to protect the health, safety and welfare of his customers and employees, and that the Council have additional powers under the Health Protection Regulations 2010. It is considered that these legislative regimes would be sufficient to manage the identified risks and that a refusal could not be justified on grounds of water quality. (v) impact on biodiversity

8.14

The impact of the proposal on biodiversity, including wildlife, birdlife and fish, would be acceptable. Further to the submission of the otter and mink survey and amended plans/ additional information, the Council’s ecologist has raised no objections, subject to an advisory notice relating to the legal protection surrounding wild birds and their nests. The EA has confirmed they have no concerns from a biodiversity perspective. The proposal was screened with regard to the need for the preparation of an Environmental Statement to accompany the application, in accordance with the Town and Country

140

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and it was concluded that the application does not give rise to such a need. (vi) whether the proposal provides adequate facilities for the storage of waste and materials for recycling.

8.15

A condition is recommended to require details of refuse management facilities. (vii) Accessibility and Equalities Impact Assessment

8.16

The Applicant has taken advice from the British Disabled Waterski and Wakeboard Association (BDWSA) and confirms that they would have specifically adapted equipment, such as chair wakeboards to allow use by disabled users. It is noted that BDWSA members currently use the cable system in Datchet with success and would visit the site before opening to the public to assess and advise on suitable use by their members. A condition is recommended to require details to be submitted to demonstrate that the facility would cater for the needs of disabled users. There would be ramped access down to the water from the dock side, and the Applicant proposes to repair the pathway between the Boat Shed and the start platform, and between the Holiday Inn and County Hall. Taking the above into consideration, the proposal would have no apparent abnormal differential impact on relevant equality strands. (viii) Other Issues

8.17

The proposal would make use of existing facilities in the area, including the restaurant facilities at Wharf, and contribute to the local economy and employment. Responses to consultation

8.18

The responses to consultation are duly noted. Many of the objections received related to the key issues considered above, and I would comment as follows in relation to the issues not addressed above: Each application should be determined on its individual merits and the Council has an obligation to determine the application before it. The concerns over the DAS are noted. Toilets and changing facilities would be provided within the Boat Shed, and a condition is recommended to ensure the provision of various supporting facilities. The impact on the health and safety of users, impact on property prices and saleability are not material planning considerations. There is no legal requirement for the Applicant to consult third parties and the Council have met the statutory requirements in respect of

141

publicity. The application does not include a proposal for walkway across the dock - any such proposal would need to be the subject of a new planning application. The drawings submitted are sufficient to allow the impact of the proposal to be considered. An illustration of the north view from the Waterquarter has been submitted as additional information. The proposal would not result in an increase in anti-social behaviour, taking into consideration the recommended conditions. A condition requiring that the facility meet BWSW kite mark standards would not meet the established tests for conditions set out in Circular 35/95. The drainage condition recommended by the EA is not necessary as the proposal would make use of existing services and parking. It is noted that wakeboarding facilities are not just located in country parks and that there is a cable tow wakeboarding facility on the western end of the Royal Victoria Dock, London. A mix of development surrounds the site, including a cluster of residential towers, a hotel, the Excel centre, a small restaurant, studios and a residential development. 9. 9.1 CONCLUSION AND S106 MATTERS The proposal is recommended for approval, subject to the recommended conditions - including a 5 year temporary consent - and persons having a relevant interest in the application site securing a signed Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the following matters: • That the Applicant would undertake the clearance of undergrowth, reinstatement of the surface, and repair and make operational the lighting on the section of footpath between the Holiday Inn and County Hall, and to repair the footway between the Boat Shed and proposed start platform. (Information on the scale of the likely costs of works to the footway lighting has been requested by the Applicant and is awaited.) A s106 contribution of £3,120 towards the assessment and implementation of new and revised Traffic Orders as may be required as a consequence of the operation of the development, with the contribution to be used to assess the requirement for resident parking and/or the extension of existing parking restrictions.

9.2

In addition to the need to secure planning permission, it is noted – for information - that the Applicant would also need to secure a number of other consents and permissions in order to operate. This would include agreement from the various landowners to implement the planning permission and associated repairs to the footway and lighting (which do not form part of the adopted public highway) and ABP’s response, noted above, is notable in this regard. A stopping-up Order under s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act would also be required in respect of any structures situated within the adopted public highway, in addition to a s178 license under the Highways Act

142

1980 for all overhead cables and other structures that oversail the adopted public highway, as noted above. A license to use the dock for the surface water activity would also be required.

143

144

145

146

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/691DCI 11/07/2012

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12/691DCI 12/11/2012

155

156

157

158

159

LOCAL MEMBER COMMENTS
COMMITTEE DATE: 05/12/2012 APPLICATION No. ED: APP: TYPE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 12/1137/DCI SPLOTT Full Planning Permission APPLICATION DATE: 23/07/2012

Mr Sarhan Investments Ltd CARDIFF ARMS HOTEL, 63-65 RAILWAY STREET, SPLOTT, CARDIFF, CF24 2DF PROPOSAL: CONVERSION TO 9 APARTMENTS & DEMOLITION OF GROUND & FIRST FLOOR EXTENSIONS ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer's report planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. E7A Specified Use of Premises 3. Details of re-surfacing works to the footway adjoining the south western (cul de sac) boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved works shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the beneficial occupation of the development. Reason: In the interests of amenity and the safety of pedestrians. 4. C2N Drainage details 5. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plan numbered ADY6/3/Rev B, ADY6/2/Rev B and ADY/6/22 received on 23rd October, 2012. Reason: 6. The refuse storage facilities hereby approved shall be provided before the development is brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be retained for the future use of the occupiers. Reason: To secure an orderly form of development and to protect the amenities of the area. 7. The cycle parking spaces hereby approved shall be implemented prior to the development being put into beneficial use. Thereafter the cycle

160

parking spaces shall be maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles. 8. The private amenity area shown on dwg. ADY/6/22 received on 23rd October, 2012, shall be laid out in accordance with the approved plans prior to the beneficial occupation of the flats hereby approved and, thereafter shall be retained for the use of occupants of the development. Reason: To provide for the amenities of the future residents. 9. The means of site enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being put into beneficial use. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the area are protected. RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations. RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for (i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils, aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates / soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site: • Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. • Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances. • Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and (iii) the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.

161

Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land. The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination. RECOMMENDATION 4: That the applicant be advised that no work should take place on or over the neighbour's land without the neighbour's express consent and this planning approval gives no such rights to undertake works on land outside the applicants ownership. 1. 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This planning application relates to the Cardiff Arms Hotel in Railway Street, Splott, where planning permission is sought to convert the vacant premises to provide 6 no one bedroom flats and 3 no. two bedroom flats over the three floors of the building. Existing single storey annexe structures at the rear, adjoining the boundary with the neighbouring property at 67 Railway Street, are to be demolished. An amended layout plan shows the provision of a large amenity area at the rear of the site, incorporating refuse storage and cycle parking facilities. No extensions of the building are proposed. External alterations are limited to the formation of a number of new windows at ground floor level. It is not proposed to provide any off-street parking within the scheme. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application site is occupied by the Cardiff Arms Hotel, a vacant Victoria public house which is currently boarded up and in a poor state of repair. To the rear of the building there is a yard which is enclosed by high walls and partly occupied by builder’s rubble from a partly demolished rear extension. The building is located at the corner of Railway Street and Adelaide Street which ends in a short cul-de-sac adjacent to the side elevation of the building. To south west of the site lies a park which originally contained a play area, amenity space and planting, open in 1991. However, after repeated vandalism the park was close in 2005. To the west of the park lies the main London to Cardiff railway line. On the south side of the cul-de-sac, opposite the side elevation of the public house, lies Sidney Court; a relatively modern 2½ storey flat development.

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5 2. 2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

162

3. 3.1 4. 4.1

SITE HISTORY A93/116R – Advertisement, granted 9/8/1993. POLICY FRAMEWORK The following policies of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (adopted 1996) are relevant to the determination of this application. Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) Policy 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) Policy 18 (Provision for Cyclists Policy 19 (Provision for Pedestrians) Policy 31 (Residential Open Space Requirement)

4.2

The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant to the determination of the application. 1B (Achieving Good Design) 1B (Car Parking) 2.20 (Good Design) 2.21 (Change of use or Redevelopment to Residential Use) 2.24 (Residential Amenity) 2.26 (Provision for Open Space, Recreation and Leisure) 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements) 2.74 (Provision of Waste Management Facilities in Development)

4.3

Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance : Access, Circulation and Parking (January 2010). Supplementary Planning Guidance : Waste and Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Residential Design Guide (2008) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Infill Residential Development (2011) National Planning Policy Advice is contained in Planning Policy Wales Edition 4, February 2011 TAN 15: Development and Flood Risk. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES The Operational Manager, Environment (Pollution Control) requests condition E7G (Railway Noise) and Informatives R1 Construction Site Noise, R4 Contamination and Unstable Land Advisory Notice. The Operational Manager, Transportation advises that although no off-street parking is proposed, this is considered acceptable in this instance, mindful of the sustainable location with ready access to public transport, shops/services etc, and having regard to the likely parking generation that would have been associated with the existing use of the premises as a public house with 8 bedrooms above.

4.4

5. 5.1

5.2

163

The Officer requests a condition relating to the provision of cycle parking (1 per flat). He advises that the existing frontage footway is not in the best condition and is likely to be damaged by the demolition and construction works. Therefore, in the interests of amenity and safety of future residents, the Officer has requested a further condition relating to its improvement, in line with other similar schemes which have been implemented in the vicinity of the site 5.3 The Operational Manager, Parks advises that as no public open space is being provided on site, the applicant is required to make a financial contribution towards the provision of open space off-site, or the improvement of existing open space in the locality. The Officer has calculated the contribution to be £12,397 based on 9 new apartments and that the former public house provided no permanently occupied accommodation. The request for a financial contribution has been justified in relation to Community Infrastructure Levy regulations. The Operational Manager, Waste Management, has provided guidance on the appropriate requirements for the storage of waste and recycling facilities. (Note a copy of the Officer’s comments have been forwarded to the Agent who has incorporated the requirements into an amended layout plan). The Operational Manager, Drainage recommends that Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru be consulted on the application as records indicate the possibility that public sewers are present within the site.

5.4

5.5

6.1

Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru recommends drainage conditions to ensure no detriment to existing residents, the environment and to the Company’s assets. The Company also provide details of a public sewer crossing the site where no building would be permitted within 3.0 metres either side of its centre line. A copy of these comments has been forwarded to the Agent for his information. The Environment Agency advises that the application site lies partly within zone C2 as defined by the Development Advice Maps referred to under TAN 15 : Development and Flood Risk. However, as the site plan indicates that no development will take place within the fluvial flood plan; the Environment Agency offers no adverse comments from a flood risk perspective. REPRESENTATIONS Neighbouring occupiers have been notified of the application and a notice has been displayed on site. No representations have been received. Councillor Gretta Marshall, on behalf of Splott ward members, requests that consideration be given the adequate parking for the apartments and also to an element of social housing within the scheme.

6.2

7. 7.1

7.2

164

8. 8.1

ANALYSIS The application proposes the conversion of the vacant public house to 9 no. flat units. Given that the application site falls within a residential area, its conversion to residential use raised no land use policy concerns. The main planning issues are to relate to the following matters: (i) The effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene and the general amenities of neighbouring and nearby occupiers. The acceptability of the proposed development in respect of highway safety and parking provision. Whether the proposed development will provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers. Open space contributions.

8.2

(ii)

(iii)

(iv) 8.3

In respect of the first issue, no extensions of the building are proposed and the only external alterations relate to the insertion of a limited number of windows at ground floor level. The proposal is therefore considered to raise no significant design issues. It is not considered that the proposal would impact unacceptably on the amenities of neighbouring and nearby occupiers, subject to the retention of an appropriate wall/enclosure along the boundary with the attached property at 67 Railway Street following the demolition of the rear extensions, so that the privacy of the adjoining occupier is maintained (Condition 9 refers). The Operational Manager, Transportation has advised that no on-site parking provision would be required in this instance, mindful of the sustainable location and the likely parking generation that would have been associated with the use of the premises as a public house with bedrooms above. The building occupies a corner location adjacent to a short cul-de-sac where there appears to be adequate opportunity for on-street parking. In the interests of the amenity and the safety of future residents, the Officer has requested that a footway adjoining the site, which is in a poor state of repair, should be improved in line with other similar schemes which have been implemented in the vicinity of the site. This matter which has been discussed with the Applicant’s Agent, and is addressed under condition 3. The proposed flats are considered to provide an acceptable living environment for future occupants, with each flat having an unrestricted outlook and exceeding 30 square metres in floorspace. At the rear of the site, the scheme provides for a generous area of private amenity space with facilities for refuse and cycle storage, in accordance with the Council’s guidelines.

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

165

8.8

As no public open space is being provided site, a financial contribution towards the provision of open space off site, or the improvement of existing open space in the locality, has been sought in line with the Council’s approved SPG : Open Space (2008). In accordance with the methodology outlined in the SPG, the Operational Manager, Parks has calculated the contribution to be £12,397. The Agent has subsequently confirmed that the applicant is agreeable to this request. The Ward Members’ request that consideration be given to an element of social housing within the scheme, is noted. However, the proposal falls below the relevant policy threshold for such consideration, as set out in the Council’s Affordable Housing Delivery Statement. The application is recommended for approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement in relation to the open space contribution and to the attached conditions.

8.9

8.10

166

167

168

PETITION COMMITTEE DATE: 05/12/2012 DATE RECEIVED: 24/09/2012

APPLICATION No. 12/1637/DCI ED: APP: TYPE: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: PLASNEWYDD

Full Planning Permission

Mr Gilbart 11 Crwys Road, Plasnewydd, Cardiff CONVERSION FROM COMMERCIAL UNIT & EXTENSION TO FORM 7 RESIDENTIAL FLATS ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. C01 – Statutory time limit This consent relates to the application as amended and supplemented by drawings numbered P319a L_002 rev A, P319a L_200 rev A, P319a L_211 rev A, P319a L_212 rev A & P319a L_220 rev A. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application. Before the flats hereby permitted are brought into beneficial use a 2m high wall enclosure shall be provided to the rear/sides of the external area in accordance with drawings numbered P319a L_200 rev A & numbered P319a L_220 rev A and thereafter retained. Reason: To ensure that the site is secured by an effective and visually appropriate means of enclosure. Before the flats hereby permitted are brought into beneficial use the undercover cycle stores shall be provided in accordance with drawing numbered P319a L_200 rev A ready for use to accommodate at least 10 cycles and thereafter retained. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles. Before the flats hereby permitted are brought into beneficial use, the refuse storage areas shall be provided in accordance with drawing numbered P319a L_002 rev A and thereafter retained. Reason: To protect the amenities of the area. Before the flats hereby permitted are brought into beneficial use, the amenity space with hard & soft landscaping shall be provided in accordance with drawing numbered P319a L_002 rev A and thereafter retained. Reason: To ensure that adequate amenity space is provided.

3.

4.

5.

6.

169

7.

The north west facing window panes of the projecting bay windows in the ground/first floor south west side facing elevations of Flats 3, 4 & 5 shall be non opening below a height of 1.8 metres above internal floor level and glazed with obscure glass and thereafter be so maintained. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected. C20 - Architectural Detailing No development shall take place until ground permeability tests have been undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and a drainage scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. No part of the development shall be occupied until the scheme is carried out and completed as approved. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development.

8. 9.

RECOMMENDATION 2: R1 Construction site noise RECOMMENDATION 3: R14 Welsh Water public sewer advisory. RECOMMENDATION 4: It is advised that the building hereby approved should meet the BRE Code for Sustainable Homes (Version 3) Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under Ene 1 (Dwelling Emissions Rate) is achieved. RECOMMENDATION 5: It is advised that residents are provided with a welcome pack detailing public transport information in order to encourage more sustainable modes of travel. Guidance is available from Miriam Highgate of Cardiff Council’s Transportation Services. (029 2087 2213). 1. 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The application seeks planning permission to convert and extend a three/four storey end of terrace commercial building to seven flats, with associated alterations. Existing dilapidated two storey flat roofed structures at the rear of the site would be demolished. The main structure would be extended to the rear by 3.2m, and a 2.5 storey extension would project by 8.7m from the extended main building at a width of 6m, with a pitched roof 6.6m high at eaves and 9.2m to ridge. A 1.5 storey extension would project 2m beyond the main extension at a width of 3.6m with a pitched roof 4.5m high at eaves and 6.1m to ridge. The extensions would be finished in painted render with a slate roof. Aluminium framed bay windows would be fixed to the north west side of the rear extension and the existing main building and the existing front entrance from Crwys Road would be altered to form a window matching the existing frontage. The accommodation would comprise of six two bedroom flats and a one bedroom flat, with the exception of the lower ground floor flats all flats would be dual aspect, the one bedroom flat would have a floor space of 35 square

1.2

1.3

170

metres and the smallest two bedroom flat would have a floor space of 43 square metres. All flats would be accessed via a shared entrance lobby from the side elevation at lower ground floor level, a new external staircase would provide access to lower ground level from Crwys Road. 1.4 An enclosed amenity area of approximately 87 square metres would be provided to the side/rear. Bin stores would be located at the south west end of the site and to the north east end adjacent to the entrance. Cycle storage would be located internally adjacent to the shared lobby and externally at the north east end of the site beneath the external staircase. The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement including a Sustainability Statement, the estimated sustainability rating/score for the proposed development is Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The front of the site is occupied by a three/four storey split level end of terrace Victorian building and the rear is occupied by a series of two storey/single storey flat newer corrugated roof structures. The site was previously used as a bathroom/kitchen/furniture retail store with a maisonette flat occupying the upper levels of the building fronting onto Crwys Road. Apart from a small forecourt adjacent to the pavement, there is currently no external space within the site. The site lies within the fringe of the Albany Road/Wellfield Road District Centre. The site is adjoined to the by a terraced building to its south east side which accommodates five flats at no. 9 Crwys Road and to the north west side by domestic rear gardens of dwellings at nos. 1-7 Crwys place. The rear of the site directly adjoins a two storey derelict building associated with a timber yard at the rear, which has planning permission (10/1936/DCI), subject to a legal agreement, for a development of 49 apartments. SITE HISTORY 12/86/DCI – planning permission sought for extension and conversion to nine flats, application withdrawn. POLICY FRAMEWORK The site lies within the Albany Road/Wellfield Road Centre as defined by the proposals map of the City of Cardiff Local Plan and the City Road District Centre by the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003). Relevant National Planning Guidance: Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, Feb 2011) Planning Policy Wales TAN 12: Design Planning Policy Wales TAN 21: Waste

1.5

2. 2.1

2.2

3. 3.1

4. 4.1

4.2

171

4.3

Relevant City of Cardiff Local Plan Policies: Policy 11: Design & Aesthetic Quality Policy 12: Energy Efficient Design Policy 17: Parking & Servicing Facilities Policy 18: Provision for cyclists Policy 19: provision for pedestrians Policy 20: Provision for special Needs Groups Policy 49: District & Local Centres

4.4

Relevant Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) policies: Policy 2.20: Good Design Policy 2.21: Change of Use or Redevelopment to Residential Use. Policy 2.24: Residential Amenity Policy 2.36: District and Local Centres Policy 2.57: Access, Circulation & Parking Requirements Policy 2.74: Waste Management

4.5

Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Design Guide (March 2008) Energy Efficient Design for New Residential Development (1995) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007) Access, Circulation & Parking Requirements (June 2006)

5. 5.1

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES Strategic Planning (Land Use Policy) - The application site falls within the Albany Road/Wellfield Road District Centre, as defined by the Local Plan Proposals Map. The application should be assessed against 49 of the Local Plan, the aim of which is to protect the predominant shopping role of the centre, and the vitality and viability of its frontages. Also of relevance is supplementary planning guidance ‘Albany Road/Wellfield Road District Shopping Centre’ (1998). The shop unit falls outside the primary shopping area, as defined by the SPG. Paragraph 4.11 states that outside the primary shopping area proposals for non-shopping uses (other than A2 and A3) will be judged on their merits, in accordance with the guidance given in criteria (i), (ii) and (iv) of Policy 49 of the Local Plan. Transportation – no objection, subject to a condition to require the cycle parking spaces to be provided and retained, and an additional recommendation that residents are provided with a welcome pack detailing public transport services. Pollution Control – no comments received. Waste Management – if the bins cannot be accommodated at street level they would be unable to provide them, it wouldn’t be fair or reasonable to expect residents to move bins up a flight of stairs. Given this, they would have to

5.2

5.3 5.4

172

have a bag collection which is far from ideal given the fortnightly general waste collection and the number of flats concerned. It is therefore expected that the owner/landlord provides temporary storage containers in the rear until collection, when bags can be presented on the kerbside by residents. 6. 6.1 EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES Welsh Water – advise that the site is crossed by a public foul sewer and request conditions requiring foul and surface water to be drained separately. REPRESENTATIONS Local Members were consulted, no representations received. The application has been publicised by letter, site and press notice, a petition of objection was received signed by 25 residents, the objection relates to significant increase in traffic and parking problems in the immediate area. A letter was also received from the occupier of no. 1 Crwys Place, objecting for the following reasons: 1) Size & privacy: The proposed building would tower over the houses in Crwys Place blocking all sunlight into a proportion of houses on Crwys Place; allows no privacy for residents of Crwys Place and would discourage residents of Crwys Place to utilise their own outdoor space. Damage to the amenity of the area: The plans do not include any parking provision for the flats and for visitors, tradesmen and deliveries. Parking is a real problem as the area is saturated with flats. Although Crwys Place is a privately owned road the lack of parking results in non-residents parking on a daily basis. The value and saleability of surrounding properties will be diminished. Noise pollution & safety: A walkway running parallel to the street backing onto rear gardens will increase noise levels and allows for access into the rear gardens of Crwys Place. The amount of rubbish would also increase considerably. Harm to housing: the proposed plans and photographs have deliberately ignored the impact of the build on those currently residing in Crwys Place and are misleading as they neglect to show residents private garden areas.

7. 7.1 7.2

7.3

2)

3)

4)

8. 8.1

ANALYSIS Land Use considerations The applicant states that the shop was last occupied by a tile shop, but has been vacant since the end of 2007. The unit has been marketed in an attempt to find a commercial occupier. As the shop is vacant it could not be said to be contributing to the shopping role of the centre at present. The proposed change of use would therefore not have a detrimental impact upon the shopping role of the centre.

173

The shop falls within a frontage of 5 units, of which two others were vacant, one was in A2 use and one double unit was in A1 hairdressing use at the time of the last land use survey in 2010. Given the length of time the unit has been vacant, and the poor shopping offer that exists within the frontage, it is not considered that the proposed change of use would have a detrimental impact upon the vitality or viability of the frontage. It is acknowledged that, should demand from A1 occupiers arise in the future, this could be accommodated within the other vacant units within the frontage. The loss of existing retail units within defined district and local shopping centres is generally resisted in land use policy terms. However, it is acknowledged that the site has been vacant for a considerable period of time and falls outside the primary shopping area identified in the SPG, where the guidance indicates a more flexible approach can be taken. In this instance it is not considered that the proposed change of use would have a detrimental impact upon the shopping role of the centre, or the vitality and viability of the frontage, such that refusal of planning permission on these grounds could reasonably be justified. The application raises no significant land use policy concerns. 8.2 Design considerations The rear extensions would be stepped down from and aligned with the main building at the front, presenting a comfortably subservient appearance, with a pitched roof to match the existing building at the front. The proposed aluminium framed bays and painted render to the entire north west side elevation would introduce a refreshing contemporary element, whilst the front elevation would retain its original character by retention of existing stonework and original window proportions. 8.3 Amenity Considerations The proposal would not result in any loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers, and in fact would result in less overshadowing of the rear gardens of nos. 1-7 Crwys Place than the existing scenario by replacement of the existing two storey structures adjoining the north west side boundary with a lower 2m high boundary wall. Although the rear extension would be 6.6m high at eaves it would be set back from the side boundary with nos. 1-7 Crwys Place by 3.2m, resulting in considerably less overshadowing than the existing structures. It is not envisaged that the ground and first floor side facing windows of the extension would give rise to any unacceptable overlooking of the rear residential gardens of nos. 1-7 Crwys Place, as these would be obscure glazed. It is not considered necessary for the side panels of the proposed bay windows to be obscure glazed as these would be angled at 90 degrees to the boundary with the gardens of Crwys Place. The proposal would also result in an improved impact upon the rear amenity area of the flats at no. 9 Crwys Road through significant reduction in length of two storey structure adjacent to the south east side boundary.

174

8.4

The proposed external amenity area of 87 square metres to the rear/side of the building is considered acceptable, this represents a vast reduction to the existing high proportion of site coverage. Internally, the volume of all flats comfortably exceeds the minimum floor space requirement of 30 square metres per unit and all bedrooms/living areas would have a reasonable outlook to the front or rear, or into the external amenity area. Access Considerations The access point to the accommodation via an external staircase from is considered acceptable due to the split level of the site. The Council’s Transportation Service has confirmed that no off street parking provision is necessary due to the site’s sustainable location.

8.5

8.6

Representations The petition of objection and objection regarding potential increase in traffic and parking problems is noted, however is not considered to warrant refusal of permission as the Council’s Transportation Service has confirmed that the proposal is acceptable, in accordance with the Access, Circulation & Parking Requirements. With regard to the representation raised from the adjoining occupier, the following comments are made: • The proposed building would have a lesser overbearing impact upon the houses on Crwys Place than the existing structures on site, resulting in an improved impact upon the adjoining the rear gardens as detailed within the above analysis. Furthermore, condition 7 would ensure that the ground and first floor windows directly facing Crwys Place would be obscure glazed in order to protect privacy; Impact upon property values is not a material planning consideration; The entrance walkway/steps to the flats would not pose any security risk to the rear gardens in Crwys Place as it would be sited at the north east end of the site, not adjoining the boundary with the rear gardens which are located further to the rear, condition 3 would ensure the replacement boundary wall with the adjoining rear gardens is provided and retained; The refuse storage provision is considered adequate, it is the responsibility of tenants to present waste to the entrance for collection; The additional sectional drawing submitted demonstrates that the proposed structures would have a lesser impact than the existing, as outlined within the amenity consideration analysis.

• •

• •

8.7

Conclusion It is concluded that the amended application is acceptable in accordance with the relevant policies, and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the proposed development, subject to conditions.

175

Responsibility is not accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing. All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.

rth No
1 L_111

0mm

50mm Original Sheet Size

L_110 4

A3

rth No

Corrugated roof

L_111

2

Corrugated roof

Corrugated roof

1

Sub station

2
Flat roof

L_110

CRWYS PLACE

Location Plan
1 : 1250

3

5

7

9

11

Planning Issue
date rev name chk note

Pavement (paviours)

1 L_110 -

design line partnership
Architectural Design: Planning - Building Control - Surveying - Listed Building & Conservation Consents

Systems House 89 Heol Don Cardiff CF14 2AT T 02920316857 M 07785582007 info@designlinepartnership.com
PROJECT

CRWYS ROAD

Proposed conversion & extension to form flats 11 Crwys Road Cardiff CF24 4NA
DRAWING TITLE

Site Plan as Existing

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

Site Plan as Existing
1 : 200

As indicated

14/12/11

Pete Legg

JG
REVISION

176

SITE AREA: 257m2

DRAWING NUMBER

P319

L_001

Responsibility is not accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing. All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.

0mm

50mm Original Sheet Size

A3

-SURVEY DISCLAIMER The site visit undertaken by Design Line Partnership Limited was of a non-destructive nature and did not establish the position of elements of structure which may become visible after the stripping out of wall, floor and ceiling finishes. Neither has the site visit attempted to determine whether the building is suitable for refurbishment or the extent of that refurbishment in respect of the presence of damp, rot, asbestos or any other building failure or deleterious material. No liability is accepted by Design Line Partnership Limited for any discrepancies in the survey information provided. All drainage and supply items must be surveyed by appropriate authorities. NOTE: Details in addition to those already indicated, must comply in all respects with the current Building Regulations, British Standards and Allied Legislation.

FINISHES KEY: 1 : GREY SLATE ROOFING & RIDGE TILES 2 : WHITE DOUBLE GLAZED UPVC WINDOWS & DOORS 3 : BLACK RAINWATER GOODS ON BLACK FASCIA 4 : STONEWORK EXTERNAL WALLS WITH BRICKWORK BANDING & QUOINS 5 : FAIRFACED BRICKWORK EXTERNAL WALLS 6 : WHITE SMOOTH FACED RENDERED EXTERNAL WALLS

Planning Issue
date rev name chk note

design line partnership
Architectural Design: Planning - Building Control - Surveying - Listed Building & Conservation Consents

Systems House 89 Heol Don Cardiff CF14 2AT T 02920316857 M 07785582007 info@designlinepartnership.com
PROJECT

Proposed conversion & extension to form flats 11 Crwys Road Cardiff CF24 4NA
DRAWING TITLE

Perspective View as Existing

North Perspective View
177

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

1 : 100
DRAWING NUMBER

14/12/11

Pete Legg

JG
REVISION

P319

L_120

Copyright © DLP Architecture Ltd. All rights reserved worldwide.

Responsibility is not accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing. All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.

0mm

50mm Original Sheet Size

A3

Kitchen / LV
18 m²

Bathroom
3 m²

Lobby
2 m²

Bedroom
12 m²

FLAT 6

Hall
11 m²

FLAT 5

FLAT 7

Kitchen / LV
18 m²

Lobby
3 m²

Kitchen / LV
20 m²

Planning Issue
date rev name chk note

Hall
6 m²

Bedroom 2
12 m²

Hall
7 m²

Bedroom 2
11 m²

Architectural Design - Feasibility - Planning - Building Control - Construction Details - Sustainable Design

Systems House 89 Heol Don Cardiff CF14 2AT T 02920316857 M 07785582007 info@designlinepartnership.com

Bedroom 1
14 m²

Bedroom 1
11 m²

PROJECT

Proposed conversion & extension to form flats 11 Crwys Road Cardiff CF24 4NA

Bathroom
4 m²

Bathroom
4 m²
DRAWING TITLE

Floor Plans 2 of 2 as Proposed

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

First Floor
1 : 100

Second F loor
178
1 : 100

1 : 100
DRAWING NUMBER

29/03/12

Pete Legg

JG
REVISION

P319a

L_201

Copyright © DLP Architecture Ltd. All rights reserved worldwide.

Responsibility is not accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing. All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.

0mm

50mm Original Sheet Size

A3
02_2nd 5400
Hall
7 m²

Bathroom
4 m²

01_1st 2700

Kitchen / LV
18 m²

Hall
2 m²

Hall
11 m²

Hall
6 m²

Bathroom
4 m²

AMENDED PLAN 12/1637/DCI

Bedroom 2

Kitchen / LV
19 m²

Hall
11 m²

Hall
6 m²

00_GF 0

8 m²

Bathroom
4 m²

22/11/12
FINISHES KEY:

Cycle Storage
4 m²

Bedroom 2

Kitchen / LV
21 m²

Bathroom
4 m²

Hall
7 m²

Hall
5 m²

Bathroom
4 m²

00_LG -2625

8 m²

S e c t i o n B-B
1 : 100

1 : GREY SLATE ROOFING & RIDGE TILES 2 : GREY ALUMIMIUM DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS & DOORS 3 : BLACK RAINWATER GOODS ON BLACK FASCIA 4 : STONEWORK EXTERNAL WALL WITH BRICKWORK BANDING & QUOINS 5 : WHITE SMOOTH FACED RENDERED EXTERNAL WALL : OPAQUE GLAZING

Planning Issue
22/11/12
date

A
rev

PL
name chk

Section D-D added
note

Hall
2 m²

Bathroom Bedroom
3 m² 12 m²

Kitchen / LV
2 18 m²

Bathroom
3 m²

Bedroom
11 m² Bathroom
3 m²

Outline of existing structure to be demolished Boundary wall
45°

Architectural Design - Feasibility - Planning - Building Control - Construction Details - Sustainable Design

Systems House 89 Heol Don Cardiff CF14 2AT T 02920316857 M 07785582007 info@designlinepartnership.com
PROJECT

Proposed conversion & extension to form flats 11 Crwys Road Cardiff CF24 4NA
DRAWING TITLE

Kitchen / LV
21 m²

Bathroom
4 m²

Bedroom
12 m² 9 CRWYS ROAD 11 CRWYS ROAD REAR GARDEN CRWYS PLACE TERRACE

Sections as Proposed

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

S e c t i o n C-C
1 : 100

S e c t i o n D-D
1 : 200

As indicated
DRAWING NUMBER

29/03/12

Pete Legg

JG
REVISION

179

P319a

L_212

A

Copyright © DLP Architecture Ltd. All rights reserved worldwide.

Responsibility is not accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing. All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.

Paving slabs

0mm

50mm Original Sheet Size

Shared Amenity Area
REFUSE STORE

92 m²

A3
Bedroom 2
8 m²

RWP

Grass with planting

Bedroom 2
8 m²
RWP

Kitchen / LV
21 m²

Kitchen / LV
FLAT 2
19 m²

AMENDED PLAN
Bathroom
3 m²

Bathroom
4 m²

12/1634/DCI
Bedroom
12 m²

Lobby
2 m²

Bedroom
11 m²

FLAT 4

22/11/12

Hall
7 m²

Shared Amenity Area
92 m²

Hall
11 m²

Lobby
5 m²

ENTRANCE

Cycle Storage
4 m²

SVP / RWP

SVP / RWP

Planning Issue
22/11/12
date

FLAT 3 FLAT 1

Kitchen / LV
20 m²

Kitchen / LV
19 m²

Lobby
3 m²

A
rev

PL
name chk

Cycle storage indicated for 10 no. cycles & bin store moved
note

Hall
5 m²

Bedroom 2
12 m²

Secure cycle storage (6no. +)

Hall
6 m²

Bedroom 2
12 m²

Architectural Design - Feasibility - Planning - Building Control - Construction Details - Sustainable Design

Systems House 89 Heol Don Cardiff CF14 2AT T 02920316857 M 07785582007 info@designlinepartnership.com
PROJECT

Proposed conversion & extension to form flats 11 Crwys Road Cardiff CF24 4NA Bedroom 1
14 m²
BIN STORE
DRAWING TITLE

Bedroom 1
14 m²

Floor Plans 1 of 2 as Proposed

4 m²

4 m²

BIN STORE

Bathroom

Bathroom

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

1 : 100
DRAWING NUMBER

29/03/12

Pete Legg

JG
REVISION

Lower Ground
1 : 100

180 Ground Floor
1 : 100

P319a

L_200

A

Copyright © DLP Architecture Ltd. All rights reserved worldwide.

Responsibility is not accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing. All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.

rth No
L_210 4

0mm

50mm Original Sheet Size

A3

rth No

REFUSE STORE

L_211

2

Grass with planting

3 2 L_212 L_212

1
Paving slabs Sub station

2

L_210

CRWYS PLACE

Location Plan

3

5

7

9

11
BIN STORE

1 : 1250

Planning Issue
22/11/12
date

A
rev

PL
name chk

Section D-D added & bin store moved
note

Pavement (paviours)

1 L_212

1

1 L_210 -

L_211

AMENDED PLAN 12/1634/DCI 22/11/12

Architectural Design - Feasibility - Planning - Building Control - Construction Details - Sustainable Design

Systems House 89 Heol Don Cardiff CF14 2AT T 02920316857 M 07785582007 info@designlinepartnership.com
PROJECT

Proposed conversion & extension to form flats 11 Crwys Road Cardiff CF24 4NA
DRAWING TITLE

CRWYS ROAD

Site Plan as Proposed

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

Site Plan as Proposed
1 : 200

As indicated

29/03/12

Pete Legg

JG
REVISION

181

SITE AREA: 257m2

DRAWING NUMBER

P319a

L_002

A

Copyright © DLP Architecture Ltd. All rights reserved worldwide.

Responsibility is not accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing. All construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.

0mm

50mm Original Sheet Size

A3

FINISHES KEY: 1 : GREY SLATE ROOFING & RIDGE TILES 2 : GREY ALUMIMIUM DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS & DOORS 3 : BLACK RAINWATER GOODS ON BLACK FASCIA 4 : STONEWORK EXTERNAL WALL WITH BRICKWORK BANDING & QUOINS 5 : WHITE SMOOTH FACED RENDERED EXTERNAL WALL : OPAQUE GLAZING

North Perspective View

South West Perspective View

Planning Issue
date rev name chk note

Architectural Design - Feasibility - Planning - Building Control - Construction Details - Sustainable Design

Systems House 89 Heol Don Cardiff CF14 2AT T 02920316857 M 07785582007 info@designlinepartnership.com
PROJECT

Proposed conversion & extension to form flats 11 Crwys Road Cardiff CF24 4NA
DRAWING TITLE

Perspectives View as Proposed

SCALE

DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

1 : 100
DRAWING NUMBER

29/03/12

Pete Legg

JG
REVISION

South Perspective View

W e s t P e r s 182e c t i v e V i e w p

P319a

L_220

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->