1st June 2011
20871513
To: Members of the Council
Dear Councillor
Planning Committee Wednesday 8th June 2011 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 Monday 4th July 2011. 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
Strategic Planning and Development Manager 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 8TH JUNE AT 2.30PM
AREA PAGES
EAST/HOUSEHOLDER 1 - 43
INNER 44 - 185
WEST/OUTER 186 - 346
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 2006- 2021 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:-
x 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; x The degree to which the policy is out of date for any other reason; x 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 The Plan was placed on deposit in Plan (to 2016) 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 1991- 2011
City of Cardiff Local Plan (including Adopted January 1996 Waste Policies)
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 Approved March 1963 (Area No. 2)
Mid Glamorgan Minerals Local Plan for In June 1996 Cardiff County Council Limestone Quarrying 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. PLANNING COMMITTEE 11TH JUNE 2011 Page App No. Location Description Decision Officer No. 1 11/00175/DCH 15 TY-GWYN ROAD, TWO STOREY REAR & SIDE EXTENSIONS AND PER ODJ PENYLAN, CARDIFF, EXTENSION TO BASEMENT WITH EXTERNAL CF23 5JF ALTERATIONS WITH NEW BOUNDARY WALL AND NEW ACCESS FROM TY GWYN ROAD BOTH WITH SLIDING GATES 13 11/00234/DCH 15 HEOL-Y-BRYN, SINGLE STOREY FRONT AND SIDE EXTENSION PER HMW RHIWBINA, CARDIFF, WITH TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH CF14 6HX JULIET BALCONIES TO REAR AND SIDE ROOF EXTENSIONS 24 11/00454/DCH LAND ADJACENT TO CHANGE OF USE OF VACANT LAND TO PER ODJ 52 PENNSYLVANIA, RESIDENTIAL GARDEN OF 52 PENNSYLVANIA AND LLANEDEYRN, BOUNDARY FENCE CARDIFF, CF23 9LN 33 11/00623/DCH 4 TY-FRY GARDENS, TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO THE SIDE AND PER ODJ RUMNEY, CARDIFF, REAR WITH JULIET BALCONY CF3 3NQ PLANNING COMMITTEE - 8 June 2011
Page No. App No. Location Description Decision Officer 44 10/01930/DCI EMPIRE HOUSE, MOUNT CONVERSION OF SEVEN STOREY OFFICE BUILDING TO PROVIDE 39 106 RJC STUART SQUARE, BUTETOWN SELF-CONTAINED FLATS INCLUDING CREATION OF TWO ADDITIONAL FLOORS AT ROOF LEVEL AND REAR EXTENSION. DEMOLITION OF FULL HEIGHT TOILET BLOCK EXTENSION AT REAR 66 10/02270/DCI EMPIRE HOUSE, MOUNT STUART CREATION OF 2 ADDITIONAL FLOORS AT ROOF LEVEL, MODIFICATION OF PERU RJC SQUARE, BUTETOWN REAR ELEVATION INCORPORATING EXTENSION, INSERTION OF WINDOWS TO SIDE ELEVATIONS AND MODIFICATION OF EXISTING FENESTRATION 79 11/00448/DCI 90 COWBRIDGE ROAD EAST, CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR TO RESTAURANT WITH REF MCH CANTON, CARDIFF, CF11 9DX ANCILLARY TAKE AWAY 85 11/00546/DCI LAND AT BRIDGE STREET MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OFFICE (B1) FLOORSPACE, 106 LAD SQUARE, BRIDGE STREET, RETAIL (A1) AND /OR FOOD AND DRINK (A3) FLOORSPACE, CAR AND CITY CENTRE CYCLE PARKING, HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING, PLANT ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING WORKS AND A NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM BRIDGE STREET 121 11/00563/DCI NORTH WEST SIDE OF THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF 'SKYFLYER' PER CJE BARRAGE, CARDIFF BAY, TETHERED AEROSTAT WITH VIEWING GONDOLA AND WINCH CARDIFF RETRIEVAL, CONSTRUCTION OF FIXED SEA PLATFORM WITH BRIDGE WALKWAY LINK THERETO TOGETHER WITH RESURRECTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FORMER 'TUBE' TO ACCOMODATE CAFE RESTUARANT, TOILETS, ASSEMBLY AREA, TICKET OFFICE AND CREW REST AREA ON NORTH-WEST SIDE OF THE BARRAGE CARDIFF BAY CARDIFF 152 A/11/00056/DCI NORTH WEST SIDE OF THE ADVERTISEMENTS/PROJECTIONS IN ASSOCIATION WITH SKYFLYER, PER CJE BARRAGE, CARDIFF BAY, GONDOLA, TUBE & PLATFORM CARDIFF 169 11/00594/DCI JUNCTION OF ST MARY THE INSTALLATION OF THE PIER HEAD CLOCK AS PUBLIC ART PER RJC STREET AND WOOD STREET, INCORPORATING DECORATIVE PAVING AND SEATING CITY CENTRE 179 11/00661/DCI 21 WHITCHURCH ROAD, CHANGE OF USE FROM A1 (SHOP) TO A3 RESTAURANT PER MCH GABALFA, CARDIFF, CF14 3JN PLANNING COMMITTEE 8th June, 2011 Page App No. Location Description Decision Officer No. 186 10/00846/W THE RETREAT, PWLLMELIN DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT 20 NO 106 OJJ ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, APARTMENTS 18 2 BED x 2 X ONE BEDROOM IN TWO CF5 2NL BLOCKS 3 STOREY RETAINING EXISTING TPO TREES AND LAYING OUT AMENITY GARDENS RETAINING EXISTING BOUNDARIES PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ACCESS OFF THE CHANTRY. 207 10/01209/DCO UNIT 5, THE AVENUE RETAIL REMOVAL OF CONDITION 19 OF 03/2923/R TO ALLOW PER OMR PARK, NEWPORT ROAD, THE UNRESTRICTED SALE OF CLASS A1 GOODS AT PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 UNIT 5 9AE 218 10/01665/DCO 56A & 56B PLAS MAWR EXTENSIONS TO CREATE THREE STOREY BUILDING REF OTW ROAD, FAIRWATER, COMPRISING 2 NO. RETAIL UNITS RETAINED AT CARDIFF, CF5 3JX GROUND FLOOR, 3 NO. SELF CONTAINED 2 BEDROOM FLATS AT UPPER FLOORS, 2 NO DORMERS TO FRONT ELEVATION, PLUS EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS 233 10/01722/DCO 27 BRONWYDD AVENUE, DEMOLISH EXISTING DEFECTIVE DWELLING AND PER OJJ PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 CONSTRUCT NEW DWELLING IN SIMILAR STYLE. AS 5JQ APPROVED UNDER APP NO. 09/02164/E 249 10/02315/DCO 5 HEATH PARK LANE, CREATION OF NEW HOUSE ADJACENT TO 5 HEATH PER OJH CAERPHILLY ROAD, HEATH, PARK LANE AND REAR TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO 5 CARDIFF, CF14 4AL HEATH PARK LANE
264 11/00134/DCO UNIT 5, AVENUE RETAIL VARIATION OF CONDITION 19 OF PLANNING REF OMR PARK, NEWPORT ROAD, PERMISSION PENYLAN 03/2923/R TO ADD ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO THE RANGE OF GOODS THAT CAN BE SOLD TO ALLOW THE UNIT TO BE OCCUPIED BY BOOTS. 278 11/00142/DCO RESOURCE CENTRE FOR OUTLINE PLANNING FOR RESIDENTIAL PER OJH THE ELDERLY, HEOL DON, DEVELOPMENT WHITCHURCH, CARDIFF, CF14 2XG 296 11/00150/DCO TY GWYN SPECIAL SCHOOL, OUTLINE PLANNING FOR RESIDENTIAL PERU OJJ TY-GWYN ROAD, PENYLAN, DEVELOPMENT CARDIFF, CF23 5JG 314 11/00198/DCO THE LODGE, 63 CARDIFF ALTERATIONS AND REAR EXTENSION TO A LISTED PER OTW ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, BUILDING CF5 2DQ 328 11/00199/DCO THE LODGE, 63 CARDIFF ALTERATIONS AND REAR EXTENSION TO A LISTED PERU OTW ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, BUILDING CF5 2DQ 341 A/11/39/DCO THE NATURAL HEALTH AND POST AND PANEL TOTEM SIGN PER OTW FERTILITY CLINIC, 10 PENLLINE ROAD, WHITCHURCH, CARDIFF, CF14 2AD COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/00175/DCH APPLICATION DATE: 09/02/2011
ED: PENYLAN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr Rumen Hannan LOCATION: 15 TY-GWYN ROAD, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 5JF PROPOSAL: TWO STOREY REAR & SIDE EXTENSIONS AND EXTENSION TO BASEMENT WITH EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS WITH NEW BOUNDARY WALL AND NEW ACCESS FROM TY GWYN ROAD BOTH WITH SLIDING GATES
______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. E1B Samples of Materials
3. At least three car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the application site prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be maintained and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking 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.
4. The first floor of both side elevations of the extensions hereby approved window 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.
5. 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 shall be inserted in the first floor of both side elevations of the extensions hereby approved. Reason : To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
6. The construction of the basement shall not alter the existing ground levels of the rear garden (as illustrated on Drawing No 100 RS received on 5th May 2011) unless first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to protect the residential amenity of neighbours.
1 7. Prior to the beneficial occupation of the extensions hereby approved, a solid 1.8 metre high privacy screen shall be erected along the southern elevation of the rear patio adjacent to the enlarged patio and rear two storey extension hereby approved. This privacy screen shall be retained at all times. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
8. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 28th April, 2011 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The applicant is advised to contact the Operational Manager (Street Operations) in order to agree vehicular crossover details prior to undertaking any works in the adopted highway in relation to the widening of the existing crossover.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for a rear and side two storey extension along with a rear single storey extension and basement at 15 Ty Gwyn Road.
1.2 The two storey extension will measure 10.2m long, 8.8m wide, 7.2m to eaves with a maximum height of 9.4m. The extension will project 2m from the side elevation of the dwelling and 4.4m from the rear elevation. Part of the rear extension will be sited over the existing rear single storey extension at the property. To the rear of the proposed two storey extension will be a single storey extension measuring 5m wide, 1.5m deep, 3.9m to eaves with a maximum height of 4.9m.
1.3 The extensions will be finished in materials to match the existing dwelling which involves facing brick, render and timber panelling. The two storey extension will have windows at ground and first floor within the front, rear and both sides.
1.4 A 1.5m high brick boundary wall will be constructed along the northern side boundary with a new vehicular access created off Ty-Gwyn Road with two additional car parking spaces being accommodated within the front drive of the property. A mature hedge will be removed to accommodate this new enclosure.
1.5 It is also proposed to construct a basement which will measure approximately 13.4m long and 6.3m wide. Part of this basement will be to the rear of the dwelling under the existing garden. The agent has submitted spot heights of the existing garden and has confirmed that the garden will not be increased in height as a result of the basement.
2 1.6 It is also proposed to increase the patio by 0.8m in length. The height of the patio area is to be retained as existing.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is a detached dwelling within a residential location. The dwelling is sited on the junction of Ty Gwyn Road and Brandreth Road. The dwelling is set into the plot with gardens to the front, rear and side (north). The property is served by a detached garage with access from Brandreth Road. The rear garden falls in level from the rear elevation of the house to the rear boundary.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 Planning Permission 90/671/N – Porch and Bathroom – Approved May 1990
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site lies within an existing area of housing, as defined in the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996). The following Local Plan policy is relevant:
11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality)
4.3 The following policies from the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are of relevance:
2.20 (Good Design) 2.24 (Residential Amenity)
4.4 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is of relevance:
Householder Design Guide (March 2007)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager (Transportation) has no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the retention of 3 car parking spaces and an advisory note informing the applicant of the need to contact the Operational Manager (Street Operations) prior to commencing works within the adopted highway.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 None.
3 7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Councillors William Kelloway and Freda Salway object to the proposal for the following reasons: x The proposed development is an un-neighbourly over-development of the site x The proposed increase in the footprint of the building will considerably reduce the amenity space at the premises. x The proposed development would have a profound and detrimental impact upon the existing street scene by virtue of the increased height and massing of the building which will also have an overbearing impact upon neighbouring properties. x The rearward extension of the property, with windows at first and second floor level will not only have an overbearing impact on the property at 13 Ty Gwyn Road but will also compromise the privacy of the occupants of No. 13.
7.2 Neighbours have been consulted on the original and amended applications. Letters of objections have been received from, or on behalf of, the occupiers of 13, 17 and 19 Ty Gwyn Road. Their objections relate to: x The proposal will constitute over development of the plot and scale and appearance of the dwelling will be out of character of the properties in the immediate surrounding area. x The proposed extension on this corner plot is totally out of character with the immediate surrounding area and building on the side garden and removing the existing hedge with no compensatory landscaping will have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity. x The Cardiff Residential Deign Guide states that the size of gardens should reflect the character of the area and it must be demonstrated that they are appropriate to the size and type of accommodation proposed. If the proposed extension is built the reduction in the amenity space would mean that the garden area would be inappropriate to the character of the surrounding area. x The proposed extension is contrary to paragraph 5.6 of the Householder Design Guide. The building line along Brandreth Road is for dwellings to be set back at least 5m from the back of the footpath and the proposed extension would therefore cross this building line and therefore conflicts with the Householder Design Guide. x The proposed southern side elevation includes first floor windows which would directly overlook the conservatory and garden at No. 13. The southern side elevation also includes a large window/door which will totally overlook the garden of No. 13. The occupier of No. 13 is keen to ensure that the 2m high wall along side the current patio is extended along side the proposed patio. x The proposed new access to the front garden is too close to the junction with Brandreth Road and will have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. x The increase in height of the garage will also lead to over dominance of the whole scheme. x The increase in ridge height of the dwelling is out of character with the area. x The proposed side extension makes no effort to compliment the attractive timber panels and white render facades of the other properties within Ty Gwyn Road
4 x 15 Ty Gwyn Road has already been extended to the rear and front. These further extensions would take up significant greater amount of garden space leaving little garden for a property of its size and impacting on residents gardens along this side of Ty Gwyn Road. x The proposed side (north) elevation contains windows which will overlook 17 Ty Gwyn Road at some 18m. This is substandard to the 21m advised within the Householder Design Guide.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The application has been amended so that the two storey extension has been reduced in width by 1m to the front and 1m to the rear (2m in total), reduced in length by 1.3m and reduced in height by 0.8m so that the roof of the existing dwelling or the extension is no higher than existing. All windows at first floor to both sides of the proposed extensions are to be obscurely glazed. The proposed alteration of the garage has been omitted from the scheme. The key issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, the residential amenity of neighbours and highway safety/car parking.
8.2 The proposed extensions are considered acceptable in regards to their design and appearance. The extension is set behind the front elevation and does not result in the height of the dwelling to either its ridge or eaves being increased. The proposed finishing materials match the existing dwelling with the use of render, facing brickwork and timber panel. Condition 2 will ensure that the LPA approve the finishing materials prior to the commencement of development. As mentioned in paragraph 8.1, the extension has been reduced in width, length and height and it is officer’s opinion that its scale and massing is acceptable and will result in a subservient addition to this detached house which will not prejudice the overall appearance of the dwelling.
8.3 It is noted that the application site is on a prominent junction location and paragraph 5.6 of the Householder Design Guide offers advice on such sites. On balance it is considered that the amended scheme will not create a ‘tunnel’ effect as its reduction in width will leave a distance of 2.5 – 2.8m from the footpath running along Brandreth Road. Where Brandreth Road joins Ty Gwyn Road, the highway is of a reasonable width and it is considered that the proposed extension will not prejudice the street view. In addition it is noted that the proposal does not breach any established building line along Brandreth Road as to the west of the site, Brandreth Road curves away from the application site with the flats at Dorchester Court being at an angle to the application site (see attached OS plan).
8.4 In regards to residential amenity, the proposed two storey extension to the rear will be sited 5 – 5.5m away from the southern boundary shared with No 13 Ty Gwyn Road. This distance, together with the fact that the extension will be sited to the north of No. 13 and its roof hips away from the southern boundary will lead to an acceptable relationship. The extension will not prejudice the outlook of the occupiers of No. 13 nor cast any shadow over the rear amenity area or habitable room windows serving No. 13. In regards to its
5 relationship with No. 17, the proposed extension is sited 15m from the boundary with No. 17 across the public highway and a further 6m from the front elevation of the dwelling. This distance will result in an acceptable relationship between the proposal and No. 17. In addition, the extension will be 15m from the rear boundary of the application site.
8.5 Windows are proposed for the first floor of both side elevations facing north and south. The submitted amended plans illustrate that these windows will be obscurely glazed. In regards to the occupiers of No. 13, as the first floor side window will be 5m from their boundary a condition is required which will ensure that this window is obscurely glazed and non opening below an internal height of 1.8m. In regards to the northern side elevation, the windows will be positioned over 10.5m from the boundary with No. 17 and at least 21m from the south facing habitable room windows of No. 17. Accordingly, in line with the guidance contained within the Householder Design Guide on privacy, there is no need to require these windows to be obscurely glazed.
8.6 The proposed enlarged patio area (0.8m) is considered acceptable in regards to its appearance. This patio area will be sited 2m from the southern boundary with No. 13. In regards to the relatively small enlargement and distance from the boundary with No. 13, it is considered acceptable and will not prejudice the residential amenity of neighbours. The applicant has expressed his willingness to accept a condition which will require a 1.8m high solid privacy screen to be erected along the southern elevation of the patio in order to protect the privacy of the occupiers of No. 13 from the southern facing ground floor windows of the extension and users of the patio.
8.7 It should be noted that the new access, hard-standing and crossover do not require planning permission as Ty Gwyn Road is not a classified Road. Subject to a condition requiring the retention of 3 off road car parking spaces which can be adequately accommodated within the site, the Operational Manager (Transportation) has no objection.
8.8 The hedge is not protected by any Tree Preservation Order nor is the application site within any conservation area. The hedge can therefore be removed at any time. The construction of a 1.5m high facing brick wall is considered acceptable in regards to its appearance within the street scene. The loss of the hedge and construction of the wall will not un-duly prejudice the character of the area. While the loss of the hedge is disappointing, there is no requirement for compensatory landscaping, as any landscaping would be within the application site which would unlikely form part of the public street scene.
8.9 The basement will involve works to the rear garden. The agent has provided spot heights for the existing garden and has confirmed that the height of the garden will not be increased due to these works. Condition 6 will ensure that this will be the case. The basement is considered acceptable as it will not be viewed from above ground and will not impact on the visual or residential amenities of neighbours.
6 8.9 In regards to the other issues raised by neighbours which are not covered above, the following points should be considered: x The proposal does not lead to an overdevelopment of the site. The Householder Design Guide: SPG recommends that a minimum of 25m² of amenity space should be retained following construction of an extension. The proposal will still result in the retention of significant sized rear and front gardens (approximately 340²). This level of amenity space is consistent with the overall character of the area. x The works to the garage have been omitted from the scheme. x The appearance of the front and side elevations will match the appearance of the existing dwelling in that a mixture of facing brick, render and timber panelling will be used. x The planning consultant acting on behalf of the occupiers of No. 13 suggests that the building line along Brandreth Road is for dwellings to be set 5m from the back of the footpath. It should be noted that properties within Brandreth Gardens and Egremont Road are sited approximately 3.5 -1.8m from the highway respectively. It is noted in paragraph 8.3 of the report that it is officer’s opinion that the proposal will not prejudice the building line along Brandreth Road.
7 8 9 10 11 12 LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/00234/DCH APPLICATION DATE: 15/02/2011
ED: RHIWBINA
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr J Morris LOCATION: 15 HEOL-Y-BRYN, RHIWBINA, CARDIFF, CF14 6HX PROPOSAL: SINGLE STOREY FRONT AND SIDE EXTENSION WITH TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH JULIET BALCONIES TO REAR AND SIDE ROOF EXTENSIONS ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. No windows (privacy) 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 shall be inserted in the southwest-facing or northeast-facing side elevations of the original house and side and rear extensions apart from the windows shown on the approved plans and in any roof slope apart from the roof lights shown on the approved plans. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
3. Obscure glazing (privacy) The windows in the southwest-facing side elevations and the roof light in the northeast-facing side elevation 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.
4. E1C External Materials
5. One parking space at the front of the property shall be maintained at all times and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking 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, in accordance with policy 17 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
13 6. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 21st March, 2011 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
RECOMMENDATION 2: That the applicant be advised that all development including fascias, rainwater goods and footings shall take place solely on the applicants land and shall not encroach onto adjoining land.
RECOMMENDATION 3: 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 applicant’s ownership.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application was originally reported to Planning Committee on 11th May 2011 when it was decided to defer making a decision to allow for a site visit to take place. The site visit took place on Wednesday 1st June 2011.
1.2 Proposals include a two storey extension in front of the main front wall of the dwelling adjacent to the two storey front wing, single storey lean-to extensions to the front, side and rear of the dwelling, a two storey extension to the rear of the dwelling and the reconfiguration of the roof to include an increase of the ridge height by 0.9m.
1.3 The two storey side extension at the front of the property measures 2.5m in length, 1.8m in width and 5.6m in height (to eaves level). This extension comes no closer to the boundary of the adjacent property (No. 17 Heol-y- Bryn) than the existing side wall of the dwelling, which is sited 2.2m to the boundary with No. 17 and approx 4.5m from the side wall of the house.
1.4 The single storey lean-to extensions comprise an extension in front of the above-mentioned two storey extension, which measures 1.3m in length and 4.4m in width. This extension wraps around the front corner of the house, extending the side of the dwelling at the ground floor level. Measured from the side of the dwelling, the overall length is 15.7m long and 2.1–1.8m wide (due to the dog-legged section at the rear most part). Measured from the rear of the dwelling, the overall width is 8m and 1.9m in length. The single storey extension is sited almost at the boundary with No. 17, 0.9m from the boundary with No. 13 Heol-y-Bryn and 18m from the boundary with Nos. 18 and 20 Heol-y-Coed (to the rear). The extension has a height of 3.7m (maximum) and 2.8m (to eaves). The front elevation of the extension provides an entrance to an integral garage. A fixed, obscurely glazed window is proposed in the side elevation. The rear elevation projects beyond the proposed two storey rear extension.
1.5 The proposed two storey rear extension measures 3.5m in length and 6.2m in width (full width of existing dwelling). It is sited 2.2m from the boundary with No. 17 and 0.9m from the boundary with No. 13. Two sets of French doors
14 with Juliet balconies are proposed in the rear elevation, which cut into the lean-to roof of the single storey extension. The rear wall of the extension projects a further 5m than the two storey rear walls of the dwellings at Nos. 13 and 17 and approx 3m (less) and 3.5m (more) than the respective single storey structures at the same neighbouring properties. This extension has a hipped roof which has the same eaves height as the existing dwelling 5.6m and a ridge height of 8.8m. Its roof links into the proposed reconfigured roof.
1.6 Alterations to the roof allow for additional habitable space and comprise the formation of gable ends to each side of the front part of the dwelling (measuring 8.8m to ridge) with a window proposed in the northeast-facing gable end and roof lights on the rear slopes. The gable end of the two storey front wing is to increase in height by 1.2m. Beyond these gables a ridged roof is formed with a ridge height of 8.8m and eaves height of 5.6m (same as existing eaves height). The hipped roof of the two storey extension forms the rear section of the roof. One roof light is proposed in the northeast-facing side elevation and one in the rear elevation.
1.7 The external materials of the proposed extensions match those of the existing dwelling.
1.8 The above descriptions relate to amended plans received, which reduces the length of the two storey extension (from 5m to 3.5m) and introduces a hipped roof to the rear extension instead of a gable end as originally proposed.
1.9 The revised proposal now under consideration follows a refusal of planning permission and dismissal at appeal of proposals for two storey and single storey extensions to the property along with alterations to the roof.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 This full application relates to a two storey detached dwelling sited in a street with other two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings of various designs and roof heights. Dwellings are sited adjacent to the property’s northeast, southeast and southwest boundaries. To the northeast, the property adjoins a two storey semi-detached dwelling (No.13 Heol-y-Bryn), which has a hipped roof to the side with a side dormer roof extension. This neighbouring property is approximately 0.45m higher (roof ridge height) than the application property, as existing. To its southwest, the property adjoins a two storey semi-detached dwelling (No. 17 Heol-y-Bryn), which also has a hipped roof but differs in design to No. 13, having a lower roof height, approx 0.2m lower that the application property. The property has a detached garage to its rear. The dwelling has an almost pyramidal-shaped roof with a two storey gable end wing projecting out of the front elevation. Two small single storey extensions exist at the rear of the dwelling.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 10/00588/W – Two storey side and rear extensions with first floor balconies and alterations to roof including increasing ridge height, extensions to side
15 and rear dormers – refused for the following reasons:
3.2 The proposal would be overbearing and would have an un-neighbourly impact on the amenities of the occupants at No. 17 Heol-y-Bryn due to the combination of its length, height and proximity to this neighbouring property, contrary to Planning Policy Wales, Policy 2.24 of the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and the advice contained within Supplementary Planning Guidance: Householder Design Guide.
3.3 The proposal would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area due to the close proximity of the extension to the property No. 17 Heol-y-Bryn. A property built to the side common boundary is uncharacteristic along this part of Heol-y-Bryn. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan, Policy 2.20 of the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and the advice contained within Supplementary Planning Guidance: Householder Design Guide.
A subsequent appeal submitted against the refusal of planning permission was dismissed.
3.4 09/02090/W – Two storey side and rear extension plus roof extension – refused.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 PPW (2010) states’. 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.
4.2 Cardiff Local Plan (adopted 1996) – 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) 17 (Parking and Servicing)
4.3 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) – 2.20 (Good Design); 2.24 (Residential Amenity) Policy 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements)
4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance - Householder Design Guide (March 2007).
4.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Access, Circulation and Parking Standards (January 2010)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Operational Manager Transportation has no objection subject to a condition relating to the retention of one off street parking space.
5.2 Operational Manager Strategic Planning and Environment Trees has no
16 adverse observations in respect of the above application since trees of amenity value should not be detrimentally affected.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 None
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Six neighbouring properties and Local Members for Rhiwbina were notified. The adjoining neighbours and the owner/occupant of No. 19 were consulted on the amended plans. Councillor Cowan was forwarded a set of these plans following her request.
7.2 Councillor Cowan and Councillor Jones comment that the proposals are: out of keeping with the area; an overdevelopment of a site; an un-neighbourly development and consider that the application would have a detrimental effect on the next door neighbour. They would be grateful if this application could be taken to Planning Committee if the recommendation is to grant. They are content for the application to be determined under delegated powers if the recommendation is to refuse.
7.3 The owner/occupant of No. 17 Heol-y-Bryn comments that they would like to remind Planning Committee of previous refusals of planning permission at the property. They consider that the overall effect would be overbearing, too long and have too much roof showing. It would affect their feeling of light and living conditions and privacy in their garden. It would be built well past their garage and would be an overdevelopment of the small site. The proposals would not be in-keeping with the street scene. The neighbour expresses concerns over the extension being built close to the boundary and disputes the boundary line shown on the submitted plans. They are also concerned over the potential loss of their parking space adjacent to the side of the extension. They consider that the proposals would prejudice any proposed future development to the side of their property. Following the submission of amended plans, the neighbour is still concerned that the extension is comes right up to their boundary. They query why the original plans of the existing property shows straight lines around No. 15 as in Land Registry plans yet in the new plans there appears to be a ‘dog leg’ boundary on their side.
7.4 No. 19 comments that: the scale of the proposals at the rear of the property are out of keeping with the adjacent properties; they do not have a pitched roof facing south; they project out at least 2m beyond what they consider to be reasonable and; this scale of development could create a precedent.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The issues to assessed relating to the application are the impact of the extensions on the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring occupants and the visual impact on the extension when viewed from the public realm (street scene).
17 8.2 There is not considered to be any adverse impact on the privacy of the neighbouring occupants by result of the proposed extensions. The window proposed in the northeast-facing side gable end would almost face the window in the side dormer at No. 13, which serves a landing. The rear roof light proposed in the hipped roof could potentially look into the rear garden area of No. 13. A condition to obscurely glaze this window is therefore considered necessary to safeguard the privacy of the neighbouring occupants. The windows proposed in the southwest-facing side elevation of the side extensions are fixed and obscurely glazed. A condition will ensure that these windows remain this way. No first floor windows are proposed in the side elevations of the two storey rear extension. A condition will ensure that this remains the case. It is not considered that the French doors and Juliet balconies proposed in the rear elevation of the two storey rear extension would unreasonably harm the privacy of the neighbouring occupants. The Juliet balconies will not allow for the occupants to step out onto any platform.
8.3 The proposed single storey extension to be built close to the boundary with No. 17 would lie adjacent to the driveway to the side of the dwelling at No. 17 and would be sited 2.5m from the side of the dwelling. The ground floor of this dwelling contains two windows that serve the living room of the property, which is also served by a much larger window sited in the rear elevation. As a result of this window arrangement it is unlikely that this room would be detrimentally affected by result of the proposal though loss of natural light.
8.4 The proposed alterations to the roof will result in it being brought closer to No. 17 than the present arrangement, with the creation of a gable end to the front part of the house and the change in the roof pitch and increased ridge height. It is considered that the proposed gable end, being sited to the front part of the property, would not have any detrimental impact on the occupants of No. 17. It is noted that the eaves height of the proposed roof (to the rear of the side gable end) is the same as the existing eaves height. The pitch change of the roof slope is not considered to be significant (approx 10 degrees) neither is the increase in height of the ridge (0.9m) as the roof of the extension slopes away from No. 17 into the application site. This is also the case for the proposed two storey rear extension, which is also hipped to the rear elevation.
8.5 The two storey rear extension measures 3.5m in length. It is sited 2.2m from the boundary with No. 17 and 4.5m from the side wall of the dwelling at No. 17. At this length and distance from the neighbouring property, it is considered to be acceptable as it is not likely to cause overshadowing and not be overbearing on the neighbouring occupants when using their property, especially when consideration is made to the existence of the detached garage sited to the rear of No. 17 at the boundary with the two properties, which would act to reduce the impact of the extension on the amenity of the neighbouring occupants when using the outside area to the immediate rear of the property. The existence of the single storey extension to the rear of No. 13 would also act in the same way when the neighbouring occupants would use the outside area to the immediate rear of the property.
18 8.6 In response to the other issues raised by the neighbours. The query relating to the boundary between Nos. 15 and 17, has been forwarded to the planning agent who has confirmed that he is satisfied that the plans are correct. It is noted that it is not the role of the Local Planning Authority to arbitrate in such matters related to the exact positions of the boundaries of a property. Advisory notes are attached (see recommendations), which relate to the proposal being sited close to the boundary, which also advises the applicant that the planning permission does not allow for access onto any neighbouring land during the construction of the development.
8.7 It is considered that the reasons for refusing the 2010 planning application, on amenity grounds, have been overcome through the reduction in size of the extension and its siting in relation to the neighbouring property (No. 17).
8.8 The proposal is also considered to overcome the second reason of refusal, which related to the impact of the proposals in the street scene. It is considered that the character of the street is retained as the property is not being extended to its side at the first floor level. The effective squaring-off of the dwelling to the front by result of the two storey extension is not considered to be a major change as the front wing feature is retained and the front wall of this extension is set back from the front wing by 300mm. The proposed single storey extension to the side extension is acceptable as it is subservient to the existing dwelling. While the proposals to the roof differ from the existing roof with the gable ends proposed to the sides and the increase in height by 0.9m the changes when viewed from the street will not detrimentally alter the appearance of the street scene. The relationship of the appearance of the property with Nos. 13 and 17 is not considered to be harmed by result of the changes to the roof. The roof of No. 13 is higher than the roofs of Nos. 15 and No. 17 and as a result, there is a step down from Nos. 13 to No. 15. The proposed increase in height of the roof at No. 15 will mean that the roof will be closer in height to No. 13 than to No. 17 and the step down will instead be visible from No. 15 to No. 17. It is also noted that the application property is detached and the two adjacent properties are semi-detached. There are also slight variations in the roof types of the properties within the street.
8.9 In conclusion, the proposals are considered to be acceptable. The issues of concern, raised by the Inspector, in dismissing the appeal against refusal of planning application 10/00588/W, relate to the length and height and proximity of the two storey extension to No. 17 and its impact on the amenity of the neighbouring occupants in it being dominant and overbearing. This concern has been addressed as the two storey extension will not come closer to the side elevation of No. 17 than the existing side wall of the dwelling, which is sited 4.5m away. With regard to the concern relating to the impact of the extension on the street scene, it is considered that the spacious characteristic between the dwellings within the street will be retained. Approval is recommended subject to the conditions above.
19 20 21 22 23 LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/00454/DCH APPLICATION DATE: 15/03/2011
ED: PENTWYN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mrs Liz Cousins LOCATION: LAND ADJACENT TO 52 PENNSYLVANIA, LLANEDEYRN, CARDIFF, CF23 9LN PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF VACANT LAND TO RESIDENTIAL GARDEN OF 52 PENNSYLVANIA AND BOUNDARY FENCE
______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That 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 received on 4th April, 2011 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. 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 structure or extension shall be placed within the curtilage of the application site. Reason: To ensure the orderly development of the area with adequate space about buildings and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of a parcel of incidental open space to the west of 52 Pennsylvania into a residential garden. The western, southern and northern boundaries of the land will be enclosed by a 1m high fence to match the existing front enclosures along this section of the estate. The fence will be of a wooden picket style.
1.2 The application has been amended so that the fence has been reduced in height and style. Originally, it was proposed to construct a 1.8 metre high solid timber fence. The revised fence, being just 1 metre in height is considered to be permitted development.
24 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is a parcel of incidental open space to the west of a row of terraced properties within a residential location. The land is under the control and maintenance of the Council. The dwelling is part of a ‘Radburn Style’ housing development. The proposed area of land to be used as a residential garden is adjacent to footpaths and a strip of open space. The surrounding front gardens are enclosed by 1 metre high enclosures. To the west of the site is a strip of landscaping.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 No relevant history.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site lies within an existing area of housing, as defined in the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996). The following Local Plan policy is relevant:
7 (Protection of Open Space) 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality)
4.3 The following policies from the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are of relevance:
2.20 (Good Design) 2.24 (Residential Amenity)
4.4 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is of relevance:
Householder Design Guide (March 2007)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Land Use Policy Officer comments that a change of use of vacant land to residential garden in a housing area does not generate any land use policy concerns.
5.2 The Operational Manager (Transportation) has no objection to the proposal.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 None.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Councillor J Woodman objects to the proposal as the land in question is often played upon by local children and is landscaped. Local residents are also
25 fearful that should permission be granted it will lead to future development on this land. Numbers 28 – 31 Pennsylvania has experienced flooding and there are sewers under the land. Constructing a fence may lead to future flooding problems in the area.
7.2 Neighbours have been consulted on the original and amended applications. Letters of objections have been received from the occupiers of 24, 25, 30, 31 Pennsylvania. Their objections relate to: x The proposal will spoil the outlook of neighbours. x This area of land will no longer be able to be used as recreational land for residents. x The footpath running to the west of the land would be enclosed which would compromise safety. x The proposal will lead to future development such as extensions and/or conservatories on this parcel of land. Such additional structures would further erode the outlook of neighbours and prejudice the privacy of neighbours. x It was declared on the application form that there are no trees on site. This is not the case. The site is landscaped with at least one mature tree which will be removed from the land. x It was declared on the application form that there is no flooding issue. However a property (No. 28) to the north west was flooded a number of years ago and there are two manhole covers on the land. x Although the application form suggests there had been consultation with neighbours prior to the submission of the application, there had been none. x Why do the applicants enjoy the right to purchase the land. x A recent planning application was refused to allow part of Cyncoed Gardens to be changed from open space to residential gardens due to it exacerbating current deficiencies in recreational open space.
7.3 A petition signed by 30 people was submitted objecting to the proposal and lack of public consultation.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The application was considered by Planning Committee on 11th May 2011 when it was resolved to defer the application to allow the Chief City Development Officer to report back to Committee with a possible reason for refusal (see para 8.9).
8.2 The application has been amended so that the proposal for a 1.8 metre high solid wooden fence to be erected along the western boundary has been omitted from the scheme. The land will now be enclosed by a 1 metre high wooden picket fence. It should be noted that this 1 metre high fence does not require planning permission as confirmed by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order.
8.3 The key issues are the effect of the proposed change of use of the land upon the character and appearance of the area, living conditions of neighbouring
26 occupiers and highway safety/parking.
8.4 Local Plan Policy 7 states that ‘Development proposals involving the loss of recreational or amenity open space, whether in public or private ownership, will only be permitted where:
(i) They would not cause or exacerbate a local or city-wide deficiency of recreational open space and the open space has no amenity or nature conservation importance; or (ii) The developers provide satisfactory compensatory open space’.
8.5 The use of the land as part of a domestic garden is considered acceptable in regards to land use policy as the surrounding area is residential in character. The use of the land as a domestic garden will therefore not prejudice the residential character of the area and the Land Use Policy Officer has raised no objection to the proposal. It is not considered that the proposed loss of public open space is significant enough to impact upon the amenity value of the surrounding area. It is noted that there will remain substantial public open space within the estate.
8.6 As mentioned above, the proposed enclosure does not require planning permission. However, it is of a suitable design and appearance and replicates other enclosures to the front gardens of properties in the immediate vicinity.
8.7 In regards to the objections received from Cllr Woodman and neighbours, which are not covered above the following points should be noted: x The proposal involves no physical construction on the land. It would be unreasonable for permission to be refused just for the reason that it may lead to the construction of an extension or conservatory on the land. Condition 3 will remove permitted development rights to construct any buildings on the land and should any planning application be submitted in the future, it will be assessed on its own merits following consultation with neighbours. x There is a tree on site. However, this tree is not subject to a Tree Preservation Order and can be removed at any time. The proposal will not directly result in the loss of the tree. Should permission be granted and the applicants bought the land, they would have the choice as to whether the tree should remain. x The views of the public is not a material planning consideration. However, the amended plans has resulted in the omission of the tall solid wooden enclosure around the land. The resulting 1 metre high fence is considered acceptable in its appearance. x The area of land is relatively small and its use as a garden is considered acceptable in land use policy terms. It is noted that there is a much larger strip of land to the west of the site which will remain in use as public open space. x Planning permission was refused to convert part of land known as Cyncoed Gardens from public open space to a garden (planning application 06/2167/E). However, this application was allowed on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.
27 x Public consultation on the original and amended plans was carried out in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. x The land is under the control of the Council. The applicant has served notice on the Council that they have submitted the application therefore, the correct administrative procedure has been carried out. Land ownership is not a material planning consideration. x The issue of flooding is noted but it is not considered the change of use of the land will prejudice the current drainage in the area. x The footpath to the west will be enclosed by a 1 metre high picket fence. This is not considered to compromise the safety of pedestrians. x The proposal will not prejudice the amenities or privacy of neighbours.
8.8 Planning permission is recommended subject to conditions.
8.9 Notwithstanding the above recommendation following the resolution of Planning Committee on 11th May 2011, the following reason for refusal is put forward:
The loss of this area of incidental open space results in the erosion of the open character of the Pennsylvania estate at this location to the detriment of visual and residential amenity being contrary to Local Plan Policies 7 (Protection of Public Open Space) and 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) and Unitary Development Plan Policies 2.20 (Good Design) and 2.24 (Residential Amenity).
28 29 30 31 32 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/00623/DCH APPLICATION DATE: 05/04/2011
ED: RUMNEY
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr Zaccaria LOCATION: 4 TY-FRY GARDENS, RUMNEY, CARDIFF, CF3 3NQ PROPOSAL: TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO THE SIDE AND REAR WITH JULIET BALCONY
______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition(s):
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. E1C External Materials
3. 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 shall be inserted in the first floor of both side elevations of the extension hereby approved. Reason : To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
4. The proposed balcony shall be a 'Juliet' balcony only, which shall not allow external access out of the doors of the extension hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the privacy and amenities of the occupier of the adjoining properties are protected
5. The flat roof of the garage to the rear of the extension hereby approved shall not be used as an amenity area at any time. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
6. At least 1 car parking space shall be provided within the curtilage of the application site prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be maintained and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking 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.
7. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 20th April 2011 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
33 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for a two storey extension to the side and rear of 4 Ty Fry Gardens.
1.2 The two storey extension will measure 3.7m wide, 11.5m long (projecting 5m from the rear elevation of the dwelling), a maximum of 6m to eaves with a height of 8.7m to its ridge. The extension will continue on the existing eaves, with the side extension being sited 300mm below the original ridgeline and 300mm behind the front elevation of the house. Where the extension projects to the rear of the dwelling its roof will be approximately 1.5m below the original ridge line with a hipped roof to the rear. Windows will be installed within the front and rear at first floor. The proposal also includes a rear Juliet style balcony with the rear hip roof being constructed out of glass. To the side of the dwelling, the extension will be on supports allowing for a parking area underneath leading to a garage.
1.3 In support of the application the applicant suggests that their home is small with one and a half bedrooms and a very small shower room. They have a 19 month old daughter who was being bathed in a sink as the shower room is not big enough to accommodate a bath. Now their daughter is older they have to bath her in the kitchen sink. Since the birth of their daughter the applicants mother in law wishes to visit on regular occasions but there is no accommodation available for her. They have tried to sell the property but due to the limited first floor accommodation to date they have been unsuccessful. The only option is to extend the current property.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is a semi detached dwelling within a residential location. The dwelling is set within the plot with a rear garden and a drive to the front and side leading to a detached garage. The application site currently benefits from a rear conservatory. The surrounding area is predominantly semi detached dwellings with No. 6 being extended to the side and rear at single storey.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 No relevant history.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site lies within an existing area of housing, as defined in the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996). The following Local Plan policy is relevant:
11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality)
4.3 The following policies from the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October
34 2003) are of relevance:
2.20 (Good Design) 2.24 (Residential Amenity)
4.4 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is of relevance:
Householder Design Guide (March 2007)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager (Transportation) has no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the retention of 1 car parking spaces within the curtilage of the site.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 None.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Councillor John Ireland strongly recommends that planning permission be refused due to the design of the proposal which is out of character in respect of buildings within the area. Also the Juliet Balcony will overlook neighbours bedrooms.
7.2 Neighbours have been consulted on the original and amended applications. Letters of objections have been received from the occupiers of No’s 2 and 6 Ty-Fry Gardens Their objections relate to: x The existing drawings show the garage area as a single skin construction with the planned bedroom in thicker wall construction. This is unbuildable and the existing garage would need to be demolished which is not indicated on the plan. x The OS plans show that the existing garage is not perpendicular to the main house. If some construction method is planned to retain the garage in its current location, clearly the connections into the existing rooflines would be poorly detailed. Tile coursing would not align, etc, resulting in a poor quality development. x Sewer details should be checked to prove that no easement exists to hinder development above the sewer line. x The plan indicates a glass roof on the hip line. Clarification of this is required. x A flat roof area is shown below the glass balustrade line on the proposed extension which begs the question about its possible planned use as a balcony which would clearly be unacceptable and should be refused. x An engineer’s site report and survey will be essential in view of the proposed weight to be supported by the two columns. x The street scene consists of semi detached dwellings measuring 5m in width. The proposal will increase this to 9m, an increase of 80% which is
35 clearly unsympathetic to the area in terms of its scale and volume. The extension almost doubles the width of the existing house and offers an unsympathetic design and an unbalanced appearance destroying the symmetry of the semi detached dwellings. x The design guide suggests that extensions should ideally be sited to the rear of the dwelling and to a least prominent elevation. x Little rear access is retained creating a terracing effect within the street scene. x The proposal along with the garage and conservatory will result in a development which is out of scale with neighbours and the street scene more than doubling the volume of the original house. x The extension will block visual amenity from the garden of No. 2 and the proposal will be overbearing to neighbours from their habitable room windows. x The conservatory at the application site already results in a claustrophobic effect to the occupiers of No. 2 and the proposal will result in significant loss of light and further visual intrusion. x The proposal will make the property vulnerable to crime and lead to loss of light of the existing conservatory at the application site which is contrary to building regulations. x The existing conservatory and garage at the application site were constructed without first gaining planning permission. x The occupier of No. 6 suggests the proposal will block light into their bathroom. x The proposal will encroach over the boundary of No. 6 Ty Fry Gardens.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The application has been amended so that the rear two storey extension has been reduced in length by 1.5m and the roof is now hipped. The key issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, the residential amenity of neighbours and highway safety/car parking.
8.2 The Householder Design Guide: SPG suggest that: ‘side extensions can have a significant impact on the street scene. Care should be taken to ensure that any side extension does not dominate existing houses, or result in a terracing effect, where the gap between properties is lost…Extensions should be set back from the front elevation by at least 300mm and the ridge height dropped to lower than the main ridge to achieve this…side extensions, particularly to semi detached dwellings, are likely to have a significant impact on the symmetry of the pair of dwellings. Care must be taken to ensure the existing symmetry is not undermined.’
8.3 It is considered that the side extension by being sited 300mm behind the front elevation of the dwelling and 300mm below the existing ridge line complies with the guidance on two storey side extensions and is considered subservient in scale to the original dwelling and will not un-balance this pair of semi detached dwellings. It is noted its width (3.7m) is not excessive and results in a gap of approximately 0.7m between the side elevation of the extension and the northern boundary of the site. This gap, and the fact that
36 No.6 Ty Fry Gardens is sited further in its plot than the application site will not lead to a terracing effect should a similar side extension be constructed at No. 6. The proposed finish will match the existing dwelling, which condition 2 will ensure. Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposal will prejudice the overall character and appearance of the area.
8.4 In regards to residential amenity, the proposed extension has been reduced in length by 1.5m and now incorporates a hipped roof to the rear. The extension will be sited approximately 5m to the north of the boundary with No. 2 with a hipped roof. It is officer’s opinion that the amended extension will not prejudice the outlook of the occupier of No. 2. The extension will not encroach within 45º of any windows within the rear elevation of No. 2 and are considered not to be overbearing or un-neighbourly. The northern orientation will not result in any shadow being cast by the proposal over the amenity area of No. 2.
8.5 The extension will be sited 3.5m to the front of the dwelling at No. 6. However, No. 6 is on slightly higher ground (approximately 0.2m) and the front habitable room windows within the dwelling will be positioned 3.5m from the boundary with the application site. Accordingly it is officer’s opinion that the proposal will not encroach within 45 º of the habitable room windows within the front of the dwelling at No. 6 and will therefore not be overbearing or un-neighbourly. To the side and rear, the proposed amended extension will be adjacent to a single storey extension serving No. 6 (see attached OS plan). Again, this will result in an acceptable relationship between the neighbouring occupiers of No. 6 and the proposed extension. It is noted that there is a first floor window within the side elevation of No. 6 which will look directly at the side elevation of the dwelling. However, this window is obscurely glazed and sited 3.5m from the extension. Accordingly, the light entering this obscurely glazed window will not be un-duly prejudiced to warrant a refusal of planning permission.
8.6 All windows are sited at least 10.5m from the boundary with any neighbouring occupiers, in line with the guidance contained within the Householder Design Guide and will not prejudice the privacy of neighbours. A condition would be necessary which will require the rear first floor balcony to be of a Juliet style in order to protect the privacy of neighbours to the side. It is considered that a Juliet balcony will not afford views directly to the side of the site. A further condition is required which would prevent the use of the single storey flat roof of the garage sited behind the proposed extension as an amenity area in order to protect the privacy of neighbours. The proposed roof windows to the northern roof plane would appear to be sited above 1.8m when measured from internal floor level and would therefore not prejudice the privacy of neighbours of No. 6.
8.7 The Operational Manager (Transportation) has no objection to the scheme subject to a condition requiring the retention of 1 car parking space. This can be adequately accommodated on the drive.
8.8 In regards to the other issues raised by neighbours which are not covered above, the following points should be considered:
37 x All issues regarding the buildability, structural stability of the proposal and reference to Building Regulations are matters that would be the subject of Building Regulations should the proposed development be constructed. x The OS plan does show a detached garage which is not perpendicular to the dwelling. However, the submitted detailed plans and elevations illustrate that the garage would appear to be perpendicular to the dwelling which was confirmed when the site was inspected by the Case Officer. x All issues regarding drainage are covered by Building Regulations or separate legislation. x The submitted plans illustrate that the rear hip roof will be constructed out of a glazed panel. It is not considered that further details of this will be required. The window has been assessed in regards to the privacy of neighbours and deemed acceptable. As this glazed panel is to the rear, it will not be viewed from the street scene and will not prejudice the visual amenities of neighbours. The remainder of the extension will be finished in materials to match the existing dwelling. x The Householder design guide does suggest that extensions should be sited to the least prominent elevation where possible. However, within residential areas of the city which are predominantly semi detached dwellings, it is not uncommon to find two storey side extensions and the Householder Design Guide offers advice on such developments. The proposal has been assessed in light of the advice contained within the Householder Design Guide on side extensions and it is considered to be acceptable. x The proposal along with the garage and conservatory will result in a level of private amenity space for the occupiers of No. 4 which is acceptable and similar to the overall character of the area. x It is not considered that the proposal will make the property at the application site vulnerable to crime. The existing side door will still be visible from the street scene. x The garage and conservatory presently exist at the site. The submission being considered at this Committee relates to the development as described on the first page of this report. x The proposal does not appear to encroach on to No. 6. All the development appears to be on the applicants own land as confirmed by the declaration of Certificate A within the application form. x In regards to Cllr Irelands comments it should be noted that condition 4 will ensure that the proposed balcony will be a ‘Juliet’ style balcony which will not allow occupiers of the extension access out from the rear of the first floor elevation thereby restricting views directly to the side. Condition 5 will ensure that the roof of the garage behind the proposed extension cannot be used for an amenity area in order to protect the privacy of neighbours.
38 39 40 41 42 43 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/1930/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 15/10/2010
ED: BUTETOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Cardiff Bay Investments Limited LOCATION: EMPIRE HOUSE, MOUNT STUART SQUARE, BUTETOWN PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF SEVEN STOREY OFFICE BUILDING TO PROVIDE 39 SELF-CONTAINED FLATS INCLUDING CREATION OF TWO ADDITIONAL FLOORS AT ROOF LEVEL AND REAR EXTENSION. DEMOLITION OF FULL HEIGHT TOILET BLOCK EXTENSION AT REAR ______
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 Section 9 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 received on 11th May 2011 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. C1B Materials Specification Required
4. E1B Samples of Materials
5. C20 Architectural Detailing
6. C2M Restricted Demolition
7. The development must not be brought into beneficial use until such time as details of a waste disposal/management system capable of sorting refuse from recyclable and compostable waste and allowing for kerb side collection of wastes in containers appropriate to the waste carrier requirements has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter have been provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the residential occupation of the apartments. Reason: To ensure that the development provides a sustainable refuse disposal arrangement.
44 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) should the developer intend to provide a service access to the site for waste collection/delivery purposes from its boundary with west Close, full details of the same shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its provision. The details shall include details of the nature of any enclosure, security devices or arrangements, and any modifications to the adopted highway and shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to the beneficial use of the access. 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 or result in any danger to local residents.
9. E3D Retain Parking Within Site
10. C3S Cycle Parking
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 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) 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: That the developer be advised that where any species listed under Schedules 2 or 4 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 is present on the site in respect of which this permission is hereby granted, no works of site clearance, demolition or construction shall take place in pursuance of this permission unless a licence to disturb any such species has been granted in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations and a copy thereof has been produced to the local planning authority.
RECOMMENDATION 4: 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
45 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
1.1 This application proposes the conversion of a vacant 7 storey office building within Mount Stuart Square into 39 self contained residential flat units.
The scheme includes the provision of a further two ‘penthouse’ flats to the roof of the building, the removal of a rear fire escape and general extension/aesthetic improvements to the rear of the building; and for the provision of a number of additional windows to the side elevations of the building on some of the upper floor levels (floors 3, 4, and 5).
This report relates to an application for planning permission for a change of use and building operations. A separate application has been made for listed building consent (including internal modifications) and will be the subject of a separate report.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The building is somewhat unusual in that it is ‘Listed’ as being of architectural and historic interest [Grade 2* - (Two star)] both because it is of an early reinforced concrete construction, [utilising the techniques of Francois Hennebique who attempted to patent a system in 1892]; but also because of its classical brick and freestone façade to Mount Stuart Square; ground floor interior (modified) and central lift which are all of architectural merit. However, principally because of the unadorned and functional character of the rear of the building, it’s adapted and neglected state of appearance, including an added rear fire escape arrangement, it is also currently a notable eyesore in the Butetown area and further afield.
2.2 The building is also located within the Mount Stuart Square Conservation Area and is one of a terrace of buildings of very disparate roof height; which are in some ways representative of the character of the Square. (Its adjoining neighbours only being two and three storey respectively).
2.3 The application site itself however extends to a much larger area of land to the north which is owned by the applicant but which is also partly leased to the owner of a flatted development (Cymric Buildings) fronting and accessed from West Bute Street. The land is currently used as a parking area by both buildings.
2.4 The site and car parking area also abut, and could therefore theoretically be served from, the turning head to West Close (a public highway) located to the north of the site. However this is currently gated and sealed shut.
46 3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 None relevant
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Planning Policy Wales (Edition 3, July 2010)
Welsh Office Circular 61:96 Planning and the Historic Environment.
City of Cardiff Local Plan (Adopted January 1996)
South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (April 1997)
Cardiff Unitary Development Plan Deposit Written Statement October 2003.
Policy 2.20: Good Design Policy 2.21: Change of Use or Redevelopment to Residential Use Policy 2.23: Affordable Housing Policy 2.24: Residential Amenity Policy 2.26: Provision for Open Space, Recreation and Leisure Policy 2.31: Central and Waterfront Business Areas Policy 2.32: Change of Use of Offices in the Central and Waterfront Business Areas Policy 2.51: Statutory Listed Buildings Policy 2.53: Conservation Areas Policy 2.55: Public Realm Improvements Policy 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Policy 2.58: Impact on Transport Networks Policy 2.62: Flood Risk Policy 2.64: Air, Noise and Light Pollution Policy 2.74: Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
4.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance
Safeguarding Land for Business and Industry (June 2006) Mount Stuart Square Conservation Area Appraisal (2009) Community Facilities and Residential Development (2007) Open Space (Mar 2008) Affordable Housing (Mar 2007) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (Mar 2007)
4.3 Other Material Considerations City Centre Strategy (2007-2010) ‘A Competitive Capital 2007-2012’, Cardiff Economic Strategy 2007
47 5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Transport :
The application has been assessed and is considered acceptable in principle subject to the following:-
Standard conditions E3D and C3S to secure the car parking and cycle parking, provision/retention.
There is no objection in principle to service/waste/construction making use of the (currently closed) access from West Close. However I would not wish this use to extend to private residential traffic/parking which should make use of the established access to/from West Bute Street. This restriction is sought on the basis of highway safety, to limit the impact on the existing residents and residential streets around West Close. To which end I would request the restriction be made condition or included as a legal obligation in a S106 agreement attached to any permission.
I would also request S106 financial contributions of :
- £3,952 towards bus stop improvements; the relocation of an existing bus stop and construction of boarder pavement on James Street, at the bus stop closest to the site;
- £3,120 toward the investigation and implementation of new/revised traffic management in the vicinity of the site, as may be required as a consequence of the development.
5.3 Pollution Control:
Noise comments No comments
Air Pollution Comments No comments.
Contaminated Land Comments Contaminated Land Advisory recommended
5.4 Highways
Waste Management
The bin storage area indicated within current site plans is not acceptable. One refuse chute will not allow for the segregation of recycling from waste, as a result, will not help Cardiff Council achieve waste minimisation and recycling targets.
Please ensure a refuse storage area is large enough to accommodate the
48 following recommended provisions for 39 apartments:
Dry Recyclables: 4 x 1100 litre bulk bins Compostable waste: 4 x 240 litre bins General waste: 4 x 1100 litre bulk bins
The developer is advised; as bulk containers are specified for this development, access paths to the kerbside for collection should be at least 1.5 metres wide, clear of obstruction, of a smooth surface with no steps. Dropped kerbs should also be provided to ensure safe handling of bulk bins to the collection vehicle. If a lift is going to be used to transport bins it should be large enough to accommodate an 1100 litre bin (1270 x 1000mm) plus one person.
Waste Management will not carry keys or access codes for bin storage areas; so waste must either be presented at the entrance to the development for collection, or the access gates to the site must be left open. Bulk containers must be provided by the developer/other appropriate agent, to the Councils’ specification as determined by S46 of the Environment Protection Act 1990
Drainage
The existing building is currently drained (Foul & Surface Water) to local Public Combined Sewers and the applicant proposes to continue this arrangement for the converted and extended building and it would appear from aerial photographs that the proposed extension of the existing building will not increase hard areas on the site.
Details of this application should therefore be forwarded to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water Network Development Consultants for comment and consideration of the applicant's assumed intention to discharge surface water flows from the completed development , either directly or indirectly, to the local public sewer system .
I therefore request that in order to ensure an orderly development that the following condition be applied to any granted planning permission :
' No development shall take place until a drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water' .
5.5 Parks
Under current policy the proposed development is subject to Policy 31 of the Local Plan (Provision of open space on new residential developments).
As no recreation/play space is being provided on-site the developers will be required to make a financial contribution towards the provision of open space off-site or the improvement (including design and maintenance) of existing open space in the locality
49 Utilising the residential information forwarded to me I calculate the contribution to be in the sum of £49,676
5.6 Economic Development
The Council’s Economic Development Manager confirms that Empire House is located within the Inner Harbour Principal Business Area and comments that it is also in close proximate to the ‘@Wales’ Centre, The Coal Exchange and other media and creative industry business premises including the Council’s Royal Stuart and Douglas workshops off James Street.
He further suggests that academic research has shown that ‘clustering’ is a key component of the creative industries in cities; and that subsequently it is important that planning policy responds to this to ensure for a critical mass of connected businesses and labour.
x In view of this it could be argued that Empire House should play a key part in the creation of creative industry cluster within the Cardiff Bay Area.
x Competitive Capital, the Cardiff Economic Strategy highlights the creative industries as a key sector for the city’s economy.
x The creative industries are also identified as a key sector in the recently launched Welsh Assembly Government Economic Renewal Programme. One of the key commitments of the WAG Economic Renewal Programme is to complete the new BBC drama village/digital media hub in Cardiff Bay.
x The completion of the drama village/digital media hub will place greater emphasis on the availability of appropriate creative industry office/workspace to accommodate new and existing businesses seeking premises within the local business area.
x Since the BBC’s announcement and the subsequent development stage of the Drama Village, the Business Investment Team has recorded an increased level of interest from creative industry companies seeking premises with in the Cardiff Bay area.
x The Council’s approved SPG for Safeguarding Employment Land provides guidance on the assessment of alternative development proposals on business, industrial and warehousing land it specifically expands on the criteria contained in development plan policies which assess demand and need. In such cases it is for the applicant to demonstrate the lack of demand or need before planning permission is approved.
x Although the premises appear to be vacant at the present time it is not clear if the applicant has undertake a thorough marketing campaign to encourage the occupation of the building for office purposes.
50 He concludes:
For the above reasons and especially in view of the current demand for creative industry office/workspace within this key business area the proposed change of use is considered to be unacceptable from an economic development perspective.
5.7 The Central Area (Mount Stuart Square) Conservation Group were keen to minimise any impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the conservation Area.
They have previous suggested that any roof top extension be kept to single storey, but were accepting that a revised set-back of the upper floor might achieve a similar result.
Any comments received from the group on the latest amendments will be reported at committee.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water
Have sent a standard response which suggests a number of conditions/advisories relating to surface, foul and land drainage.
6.2 Glamorgan and Gwent Archaeological Trust [GGAT] Mount Stuart Square became the commercial centre of the docks area during the late 19th century, the conversion and demolition of much of the earlier dock workers housing in this area drastically altered the appearance of the Square, resulting in the eclectic mix of different styles and sizes of building that exist there today. Constructed in the late 1920s Empire House itself is a fine example of Neo- Georgian architecture and is a prominent building in the street scene of Mount Stuart Square mentioned as a landmark building within the 2009 conservation area appraisal and is protected as a grade II* listed building. As such careful consideration should be given to the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the wider conservation area as well as direct effects to the listed building itself, as such we would recommend you contact the relevant amenity group the 20th Century Society to seek their opinion in this matter. However in terms of archaeological impacts, we do not consider it likely that the proposed development will impact on any archaeological remains. As such it is our opinion that there is no archaeological constraint to this development and we therefore have no objection to the positive determination of the current application.
51 6.3 Environment Agency
The application site lies within zone C1, as defined by the development advice map (DAM) referred to under TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004).
The planning application proposes housing (highly vulnerable development) on previously developed land within a flood risk area. Section 6 of TAN15 requires your Authority to determine whether the development at this location is justified. We refer you to TAN15 for these considerations. We refer you in particular to the justification tests at section 6.2.
With reference to Section IV of the justification tests set out in Section 6.2 of TAN15, we advise that the development site is within the order of 8m AOD and we do not consider that the development would have a detrimental effect on the live storage volume of the Bay, between the 4.5 and 8 metre contour levels. The development also benefits from a flood defence constructed prior to the barrage. Based on the above, we would have no objection from a flood risk perspective and do not require a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) in this instance.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The designated member of London and County (owners of the flatted development (Cymric Buildings) on West Bute St.) is disappointed that the applicant did not discuss the application with him prior to submission and objects to the development on 6 grounds:
1. That a number of the car parking spaces proposed are located within an area designated as a right of way within his lease.
2. As a result he considers that parking provision would reduce substantially and result in pressure on residents to park on site, and would cause friction between his tenants and the occupiers of the proposed flats.
3. The use of West Close for access for bins will infringe on his lease area and is considered to amount to trespass (He has provided a copy of the Lease).
4. Opening West Close will cause serious security issues for his tenants who currently benefit from an enclosed site with secure gated access from West Bute St.
5. The rear extension of the property over the existing parking area is excessive.
6. The two storey extension to the rooftop is overdevelopment, too tall
52 and not in proportion.
7.2 The occupiers of 31 West Close write to express their opposition to the proposed development
“Empire House already towers over West Close and to make the building even higher would have a negative visual impact for the residents, Mount Stuart square itself needs to be preserved as little of the bays maritime heritage remains following the development of Cardiff bay.
Construction work and vehicles would cause major disruption and danger to the residents of West Close as happened last time building work was allowed in this area ( A small child was nearly run over be a lorry carrying scaffolding from a site that was using a temporary entrance through West Close)
7.3 ‘CELF’ of 58 Mount Stuart Square objected to the scheme as originally proposed in respect of its projecting side windows but have now viewed the amended plans and are happy to accept and welcome the improvements.
7.4 Mann Williams of 53 Mount Stuart Sq. (Adjacent) originally objected to the introduction of projecting windows to the west elevation of the building as they considered this detrimental to the occupiers of 53 and to any development potential of their site.
However they confirmed that there was no objection to the change of use of the building to residential purposes or to the proposed roof or rear extensions.
No comments on the amended scheme (without projecting side windows) have been received.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Land Use
Policy 34 of the Local Plan favours ‘housing’ together with office development, leisure facilities, public open space and associated retailing within the Inner Harbour PBA subject to detailed considerations.
Policies E2 of the Structure Plan and policy 36 of the Local Plan seek to protect existing business, industrial and warehousing land from inappropriate changes of use in that same area.
In essence, policies 36 and 34 attempt to balance the economic sustainability of an area whilst permitting related uses, including residential uses, within it and which are considered supportive of it.
The comments of the Council’s Economic Development officer are noted, however the fact remains that Empire house is a vacant statutory Listed building of significant floorspace which is in need of a viable use and refurbishment, has been partly or wholly vacant for a number of years and is
53 likely to decline in terms of condition if allowed to remain vacant.
The Council’s approved SPG for ‘Safeguarding Employment Land’ provides further guidance on the assessment of alternative development proposals on business, industrial and warehousing land and specifically expands on criteria contained in development plan policies which concern themselves with demand and need.
Reasonably, given the availability of existing and consented office accommodation within the Inner Harbour PBA and acknowledging that Empire House has been vacant since 2007, it is concluded that it would be difficult to resist the proposed change of use on quantitative grounds in this instance. i.e. The Coal Exchange, Cory Building, Old Post Office and many other premises in the local vicinity are vacant and would offer similar office accommodation opportunities.
It is also appreciated that many small digital media/creative industries companies comprise individuals working from home using a computer workstation / small studio area as the basis of their operations, and that the size of the residential accommodation proposed, which is very generous in respect of most units, would be ideal for such live/work enterprises.
Also in support of conversion, the application involves the reuse of an existing (and listed) building in need of attention, located within a conservation area where the local authority has duties to attempt to preserve the building and preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area; where there already exists an established mix of residential developments, and where similar buildings benefit from existing permissions for residential use; where the use of a Brownfield site for housing will help meet city-wide housing needs by relieving pressure for development in the countryside / on green field land, contributing towards sustainability objectives and helping to promote urban regeneration.
It is therefore concluded that the Council’s aspirational intent to foster creative industries within this immediate area would not be prejudiced by the conversion of Empire house to residential use, and that in the given market, such conversion should be supported.
8.2 Design
As indicated by the photographs available at Planning Committee, the existing building is definitely considered as a building of two halves. Whilst the frontage of the building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Mount Stuart Square Conservation Area, the rear of the building has an equally detrimental effect of views from West Close and further afield.
The extension to the rear of the building will increase the overall depth of the building by some 4 ¼ m and would be completed in a similar colour brick to that existing, The rear projection to the building would also be widened by
54 some 2 ¼ m either side of its existing projection but maintaining the symmetry of the original structure. This would also be provided in a sympathetic brick,
The forward face of the roof top extension is now provided well back (7 m ) from the existing building roof frontage, and some 2 ¼ m behind the building’s chimneys. The roof extension has two floor levels whereby the front elevation of the upper storey is some 5 ½ m behind that of the lower in a stepped arrangement (some 12m behind the front elevation of the main elevation) in order to minimise its visible extent from Mount Stuart Sq. A side elevation of the building is appended to this report and will be displayed at committee.
The design has been amended on three occasions at the request of the planning officer, and is now considered satisfactory in terms of its impact.
The proposed materials have been subject of debate with the planning officer who has recommended the production of brick specials to match the somewhat unusual brick shape and colour used on the original building; and for a large degree of glazing and zinc work to be used on the roof extension to minimise its visual massing and provide for a light feel to the top of the structure.
This has been confirmed by the architect.
Heritage
Statutory Listed Buildings
The general duty placed on Local Planning Authorities when considering planning applications relating to Statutory Listed Buildings is to have special regard to the desirability of preserving them, their setting, and any elements of architectural or historic merit which they may possess.
This application seeks to preserve and improve the appearance of the listed building; and although reaction to the impact of the roof top extension may be diverse. The extension does not interfere unduly with the fabric of the building; and would provide, in combination with other works to the rear elevation, and removal of the currently unsightly fire escape structure and flue, a greatly improved aesthetic.
Conservation Areas
The general duty placed on Local Planning Authorities when considering planning applications to buildings located within conservation areas is to have regard to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of those areas.
From the conservation area, the only external impact of the proposal would be those of the roof extension and side window insertions to the mid height floors
55 of the building.
To overcome any concerns, the Architect has thrice amended the scheme originally proposed in order to reduce the overall height of the roof extension, its external finish, and overall impact. He has provided a sectional view and CGI representation of the building as extended, from Mount Stuart Square, and obliquely from the North East.
Further to amendment, the scheme is now supported by the planning officer as having a positive impact on the appearance of the building.
To date no objection has been received from any members of the Central Area (Mount Stuart Square) Conservation Group of the latest amended scheme.
Affordable Housing
The application was submitted on 18th November 2010, when the policy trigger for affordable housing was set at 50 units or more. The proposal seeks permission for 39 units of accommodation, and so does not generate an affordable housing requirement either as actual accommodation or as an offset contribution.
8.3 Residential Amenity
The representation from West Close objecting to the development in respect of the impact of increasing the height of the building is noted, but not concurred with. Submitted plans indicate that the existing building is some 29m tall (top of lift overrun) when measured from the level of the rear car park adjacent to West Close, and would be increased to some 31m. In the context of dwellings of an average ridge height of some 8m in West Close, the impact of the additional 2m in height, albeit over a wider expanse of the roof area, is concluded not to be unduly oppressive, and significantly off set by the fact that the rear of the building, once improved, would also provide for a much better aesthetic for residents of West Close than exists currently.
The objection of the owner of the flatted development in West Bute St. is acknowledged, but Leasehold arrangements relating to rights of access are not a planning matter, rather issues to be resolved by freeholder and leaseholder.
The availability of car parking spaces and access thereto are planning matters, and the applicant has provided a drawing of a proposed car parking arrangement which appears satisfactory and in accord with planning guidelines in respect of numbers, access arrangement and available manoeuvring space.
Noting the Transportation Officers comments, there would appear to be no reason why a secure and controlled gated access to West Close could not be accommodated within the development for servicing purposes whilst general
56 vehicle access would again appear capable of being provided from the existing West Bute St. access and the scale of the rear extension (a 4 ¼ m projection overall) would not appear to compromise this.
The roof top extension will make the building appear taller, but in the manner provided is not considered disproportionate or overbearing and in fact an aesthetic improvement on that which exists currently.
The provision/retention of the car parking and any desired service access facilities can be ensured before beneficial occupation prior to beneficial use of the building by means of planning condition.
The arrangement of the apartments at the front and rear protects the habitable spaces from any loss of privacy, and neighbouring properties from overlooking.
On the third, fourth and fifth floor levels, the side windows introduce an aspect that the building does not have as existing (i.e. an east / west view). However these side windows are located some way above the flanking buildings so as not to cause issues of direct overlooking, and are located some 12m away from Saint Line House to the east.
The position of the windows is therefore considered acceptable and the fenestration detail can be controlled by mean of planning condition.
8.4 Provision for Open Space, Recreation and Leisure
The development will not provide for any open space for the enjoyment of residents other than those in occupation of the penthouse apartments who would have a small outside rooftop area.
However there are obvious benefits to living within the waterfront area in terms of open space, leisure and recreational benefits, and the observations of the Parks officer are noted and the request for a financial contribution to provide for new / improve existing open space in the vicinity is considered both reasonable and in accord with planning policy.
8.6 Public Realm Improvements
The regeneration officer comments that the public realm throughout Mount Stuart Square was resurfaced with brick paviours in the late 1980’s which, together with the associated street furniture in the square, have become significantly worn over the past 20 years. As confirmed in the applicant’s design and access statement.
Policy 2.55 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan identifies the need for new developments to make appropriate provision for public realm improvements. In addition, Policy B2 of the adopted South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan favours measures to improve the environmental quality of the urban fabric. He also confirms that the Mount
57 Stuart Square Conservation Area Appraisal (Page 31) seeks to enhance Mount Stuart Square by removing the block paving and replacing it with more appropriate surface materials such as natural pennant, and that in addition, Strategic Objective 2 of the City Centre Strategy’s Heritage and Culture Chapter seeks “to preserve and enhance the historic character and appearance of city centre conservation areas, including the delivery of public realm enhancements”, whilst Action 5 of the ‘Urban Design and Public Realm’ Chapter seeks “to secure contributions from new developments for public realm enhancements”.
Taking into consideration the condition of the public realm surrounding the building and the increase in pedestrian activity associated with this development, the regeneration officer considers it both reasonable and necessary to require environmental improvements within the vicinity of the site in association with the use proposed and concludes that there is a strong policy basis an record of past precedent to do so.
Subject to the application being acceptable in all other respects, he concludes that it would be appropriate to request that the applicant provide a financial contribution of £60,000 towards public realm improvements in the vicinity of the site.
8.7 Community Facilities
The Neighbourhood Renewal Officer has indicated that as the proposal realises more than 25 new dwellings that it is appropriate to consider the proposals in respect of the supplementary planning guidance relating to community facilities
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Community Facilities and Residential Development states that ‘the Council will seek a financial contribution for improvements to existing community facilities or the provision of additional community facilities on all significant developments because the increased population will result in increased demand for local community facilities’. If no onsite provision is proposed, a financial contribution is sought on residential developments containing 25 or more new dwellings where it has been identified that investment in community facilities will be required to meet the needs of the new population.
The formula in the SPG is based on the number of habitable rooms per dwellings and is calculated as follows:
58 No. of Contribution per rooms No. of dwellings dwelling Totals 2 22 £586 £12892 3 15 £586 £8790 6 2 £1,071 £2142
TOTALS: 39 £23824
In summary, The Neighbourhood Renewal Officer concludes that it would be appropriate to request that the applicant provide a financial contribution of £23,824 towards community facilities/up grades in the Butetown area.
8.8 Transportation
The application form indicates that the 39 units would be served by 35 parking spaces. This accords with the adopted parking guidelines for the area, which is also notably served by bus and rail services in close proximity (Lloyd George Avenue and Cardiff Bay Railway Station in Bute Street).
The transportation officer’s requests for necessary highway works and highway enhancements to serve the development and assist with improvements to pedestrian and public transport facilities in the area are supported.
Flood Risk
8.9 The advice of the Environment Agency is noted.
The application site indeed lies within zone C1, (Areas of the floodplain which are developed and which are served by significant infrastructure including flood defences) as defined by the development advice map (DAM) referred to under TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004).
However although the application proposes residential development (highly vulnerable development for the purpose of the TAN) it proposes it in the form of the conversion of an existing building within the flood risk area, not a new build development. It is also noted that the building is in the order of 8m AOD and also benefits from fluvial flood defences as well as tidal defences realised by the Cardiff Bay barrage.
Justification of permitting such a proposed use in the given location therefore essentially relates to an assessment of the likely consequences of a flood event on human health and property.
As the building lies around 8m AOD and would allow unrestricted access to a height of some 30m above that, there would appear an acceptable risk in respect of occupiers being able to reach a safe level within a minimum time period given the occurrence of an extreme flooding situation.
59 Although there will always be a potential for the property to flood, the impact of such an event would not be significantly different in respect of this building as to any other residential accommodation in the immediate area. Together with the fact that acknowledgment of the datum level of the development, existing flood defence measures and the existence of the barrage, should be revealed on any competent survey of the accommodation, it is concluded that sufficient information should be available to inform any potential purchaser in respect of weighing the acceptability of flood risk when determining whether to lease or buy the property.
Drainage
The standard response received from Welsh Water is noted. However the response would not appear to take account of the fact that the application predominantly relates to the change of use of an existing building, and to one formerly used as office accommodation by a significantly higher number of people than would occupy it as residential accommodation.
Although the building is to be extended in terms of height and footprint, it is noted that the proposals do not result in any greater degree of hard surfacing than exists currently and so would not result in any increase in the volumes of surface water entering the existing drainage system.
The proposed drainage arrangements are therefore concluded to be acceptable in respect of the development proposed.
8.10 Air, Noise and Light Pollution
It is not considered that the residential use of Empire House would impact unduly on the immediate environment in terms of light, noise or air pollution.
A number of unrestricted A3/D1 type uses are located in the immediate area, however these are established and future occupiers would need to assess whether their existence would detract from the living accommodation offered to an unacceptable degree; However the relationship is not uncommon to that found in other areas of the city whereby residential accommodation is located adjacent or in near proximity to food, drink and entertainment uses, and which might be considered an attractive characteristic of the area.
Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
8.11 The comments of the waste management officer are noted. However it is considered sufficient to control refuse storage and refuse collection arrangements by condition.
9. SECTION 106 OBLIGATIONS
Currently S106 requests are summarised as follows:
60 Public Realm Enhancement : £60,000 Provisions in lieu of Public Open Space : £49,676 Community Facilities : £23,824 Infrastructure Improvements : £ 7,072
Together with an obligation by the applicant to restrict the use of the West Close access for servicing and refuse collection purposes only.
Further to consideration, these requests are considered necessary and reasonable in scale and kind for the development to achieve conformity with planning policy and recommendation of approval.
The applicant has been advised of the requests and his comments are awaited.
10. CONCLUSION
The proposal will see the refurbishment and reuse of a vacant Grade II* Listed Building within a conservation area and represents a sustainable brownfield development which will reduce the City’s housing needs. These positive aspects of the proposal are considered to outweigh the need to protect the office use of the building and not in themselves to be considered contrary to aspirations to develop the area for creative industry type uses.
The extensions to the property have been reduced to an acceptable degree, and to the extent that they should not detract unduly from the character and appearance of the Mount Stuart Square Conservation Area and should enhance views of the building from further afield.
Subject to the applicant agreeing to provide a reasonable level of contributions or equivalent to address the requests outlined in section 9 of this report, the granting of planning permission is recommended.
61 0 0 m m 190
61m WEST 1748 Community Garage 130 Centre CLOSE El
Sub Sta 129 ROAD 5
HEMINGWAY 51 HEMINGWAY HEOL
Warehouse 126
37 7.9m CLOSE WEST 36 Shelter
17 35
54
34 33
33 748 39 748 LB
54a 125
Bank 25
St James 54b Mansions 124
7.9m
27
to
1
Cymric BUTE Buildings Empire STREET House 1 to 28 MOUNT
53 Dock STUART Cliff Court 54 / SQUARE to 57 STRYD
58 Saint Line Cambrian Chambers House
Buildings BUTE
6.7m PH
LB
N
TCB Bank
Bank 116 The Point
Cardiff Exchange Theatre 3
747 to 747 1 113
Bay STREET
4 Chambers 112
LB 5
BUTE 111
6 PO
WEST 7 PH 1 to 32 Dowlais
8 Arcade
61m 107 1746
3 190 3 189 191
200 20406080100 00m 00m
Red line indicates site boundary. Metres
Crown copyright. Reproduced with permission. Alwyn Jones, 5 Cardiff Road, CF15 7RA. N Licence No. AR 35358R001 Rev A - Green line added - 18.10.10
title date scale ALWYN EMPIRE HOUSE, CARDIFF BAY 08/10 1:1250 @ A4
number JONES___ Site Location Plan 10/549/P/01 A __PENSEIRI
__ARCHITECTS The Bank 5 Cardiff Road Taffs Well Cardiff CF15 7RA 029 2081 0080 www.alwynjones.com ©Alwyn Jones Architects
62 position 1025N fence 1025N 1.8 b/w fence
stone approc wood of dense shrubs kerb ret
WEST wall
CLOSE kerb
tree tree foliage dense shrubs foliage brick wall
tarmac car park Refuse collection metal link fence 2.2h ramp point from West Close via rear gate. shrubs brick wall
dense kerb tree
foliage
tree
foliage
Existingtree Gates foliage
Car Parking serving Cymric House (Leased Ground) stone
ret
wall Car Park Entrance via undercroft
metal link fence 2.2h from West Bute Street (as existing & proposed)
G w tarmac w brick car park pillar kerb BRK MS brick wall
foliage tree 37 channel 27 ramp kerb 28 29 brick wall BRK brick
1.8h 30 pillar
fence kerb 36 31G tarmac
wood wall 1000N 32 car park 1000N
ret
stone kerb 26 25 24 35 23 33 22 WEST BUTE Dashed line indicates site ownership 21 20 19 34 STREET
wall tree tarmac G 18 foliage car park 17 stone 16 15 Rear Entrance 14 13
1.8h DISABLED 63
fence tarmac
kerb
wood car park
slabs wall
Refuse out stone 1 tarmac 2 car park
wall 3 g 4 rwp conc g 5 svp 6 J 7 100 pipe svp 8 CYMRIC BUILDINGS g 9 12 dp 10
wall rwp 11 DISABLED concrete wall
stone rwp rwp opening
opening e
975N EMPIRE HOUSE 975N
SAINT LINE HOUSE
CAMBRIAN BUILDINGS MOUNT STUART SQUARE
950N 950N
0M 25M
notes / revisions title date scale Topographical survey undertaken by Zenith Land Surveys Ltd. ALWYN EMPIRE HOUSE, CARDIFF BAY 08/10 1:200 @ THIS DRAWING IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY A1 number JONES___ Site Block Plan - As Proposed 10/549/P/03 __PENSEIRI __ARCHITECTS Do not scale this drawing. Check all dimensions on site. The Bank 5 Cardiff Road Taffs Well Cardiff CF15 7RA 029 2081 0080 www.alwynjones.com ©Alwyn Jones Architects PROPOSED EXTENSION
New two storey penthouse extension with single NEW PENTHOUSE UPPER LEVEL polymeric sheet flat roof and photovoltaic cells mounted away from perimeter. SET BACK 13M FROM FACE OF BUILDING Approximate rooflight and vent arrangement shown. Zinc cladding with vertical standing seams
Line of existing parapet raised (5 courses) with new fair faced brickwork to match existing in every respect. Aluminium brise soleil system PPC coated handrailing Reuse existing coping where possible. with glazed panels New PPC handrail. PPC aluminium double glazed doors / walling
PPC coated handrailing Fair faced brickwork to side elevation of proposed extension with glazed panels with recessed shadow gap at junction to existing
Penthouse FFL
Chimney stack reinstated to this side to PROPOSED EXTENSION match existing PPC coated aluminium solar shading Dressed Portland stone square coping
Penthouse FFL
Roof Level Roof Level Roof Level
Fair faced brickwork to central section of rear extension Sixth Floor Level Sixth Floor Level Sixth Floor Level
New PPC aluminium double glazed windows to side elevation. Windows set back within depth of wall.
Fifth Floor Level Fifth Floor Level Fifth Floor Level
Fourth Floor Level Fourth Floor Level Fourth Floor Level 64
Third Floor Level Third Floor Level Third Floor Level EXISTING BUILDING
Second Floor Level Second Floor Level Second Floor Level
Approximate line of adjacent property - not surveyed
First Floor Level E V A N S & R E I D C O A L C O M P A N Y L I M I T E D First Floor Level First Floor Level Dressed Portland stone string course
EMPIRE HOUSE
CAR PARK
Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level
EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING EXTENSION
F R O N T E L E V A T I O N - A S P R O P O S E D E A S T S I D E E L E V A T I O N - A S P R O P O S E D
AMENDED PLAN 10/1930/DCI 10/2270/DCI 0m 5m 10m 11.05.2011
notes / revisions title date scale Rev A: Side & Rear Elevations revised at penthouse level - March 2011 ALWYN EMPIRE HOUSE, CARDIFF BAY 04/11 1:100 @ A1 Rev B: Two storey penthouse extension and rear central section revised THIS DRAWING IS FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT PURPOSES ONLY following disussions with the Local Authority - May 2011 number JONES___ Front & East Side Elevations - As Proposed Rev C: Minor alterations to Elevations at penthouse level - May 2011 10/549/LBC/26 C __PENSEIRI __ARCHITECTS Do not scale this drawing. Check all dimensions on site. The Bank 5 Cardiff Road Taffs Well Cardiff CF15 7RA 029 2081 0080 www.alwynjones.com ©Alwyn Jones Architects PROPOSED EXTENSION
NEW PENTHOUSE UPPER LEVEL SET BACK 13M FROM FACE OF BUILDING New two storey penthouse extension with single Front elevation stepped to reduce impact polymeric sheet flat roof and photovoltaic cells on street scene mounted away from perimeter. Approximate vent and rooflight arrangement shown. PPC coated aluminium solar shading.
Aluminium brise soleil system Zinc cladding with vertical standing seams Line of existing parapet raised (5 courses) with new fiar faced brickwork to match existing in every respect. Reuse existing coping where possible. PPC aluminium double glazed doors / walling New PPC handrail. with handrailing internally
Penthouse FFL PROPOSED Chimney stack reinstated to this side to EXTENSION match existing PPC aluminium double glazed doors / walling
Dressed Portland stone square coping Dressed Portland stone square coping to match existing
Penthouse FFL
Roof Level Roof Level
Soft brickwork facing to extension with pale mortar
PPC aluminium double glazed windows
Sixth Floor Level Sixth Floor Level
New PPC aluminium double glazed windows to side elevation. Windows set back within depth of wall.
Fifth Floor Level Fifth Floor Level
Fourth Floor Level Fourth Floor Level 65
Third Floor Level Third Floor Level EXISTING BUILDING
Second Floor Level Second Floor Level
Approximate line of adjacent property - not surveyed
First Floor Level First Floor Level
Line of oblique boundary to West Close
Roller shutter access to bin store Level of car park shown dashed
Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level
R E A R E L E V A T I O N - A S P R O P O S E D W E S T S I D E E L E V A T I O N - A S P R O P O S E D
AMENDED PLAN 10/1930/DCI 10/2270/DCI 0m 5m 10m 11.05.2011
notes / revisions title date scale Rev A: Side & Rear Elevations revised at penthouse level - March 2011 ALWYN EMPIRE HOUSE, CARDIFF BAY 04/11 1:100 @ A1 Rev B: Two storey penthouse extension and rear central section revised THIS DRAWING IS FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT PURPOSES ONLY following disussions with the Local Authority - May 2011 JONES___ number Rev C: Minor alterations to Elevations at penthouse level - May 2011 Rear & West Side Elevations - As Proposed 10/549/LBC/27 C __PENSEIRI __ARCHITECTS Do not scale this drawing. Check all dimensions on site. The Bank 5 Cardiff Road Taffs Well Cardiff CF15 7RA 029 2081 0080 www.alwynjones.com ©Alwyn Jones Architects COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/2270/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 14/12/2010
ED: BUTETOWN
APP: TYPE: Listed Building Consent
APPLICANT: Cardiff Bay Investments Limited LOCATION: EMPIRE HOUSE, MOUNT STUART SQUARE, BUTETOWN PROPOSAL: CREATION OF 2 ADDITIONAL FLOORS AT ROOF LEVEL, MODIFICATION OF REAR ELEVATION INCORPORATING EXTENSION, INSERTION OF WINDOWS TO SIDE ELEVATIONS AND MODIFICATION OF EXISTING FENESTRATION ______
RECOMMENDATION : That subject to Cadw not wishing to call in the application for determination, that Listed Building Consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions :
1. C02 Statutory Time Limit - Listed Building
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 11th May 2011 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. C1B Materials Specification Required
4. E1B Samples of Materials
5. C20 Architectural Detailing
6. C2M Restricted Demolition
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORKS
1.1 This application relates to the proposed conversion of a vacant 7 storey office building within Mount Stuart Square into 39 self contained residential flat units.
The scheme involves the provision of a further two floors of ‘penthouse’ accommodation to the roof of the building; the removal of a rear fire escape; the internal rearrangement of floor levels and modifications to the rear of the building; and the provision of a number of additional windows to the side elevations of the building on floors 3, 4, and 5.
This report relates to an application for listed building consent. A separate application has been made for planning permission for a change of use and
66 building operations and is the subject of a separate report.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The building is located mid terrace on the northern side of Mount Stuart Square. (a conservation area) and is one of the tallest buildings in the square, and in the Butetown area. The building is one of a terrace of buildings of very disparate roof height; which are in some ways representative of the character of the Square. (Its adjoining neighbours only being two and three storey respectively).
2.2 The building is somewhat unusual in that it is ‘Listed’ as being of architectural and historic interest [Grade 2*] not only because of its classical Neo Georgian façade; ground floor interior, (modified) and central lift which are all of architectural merit. But also because of its early reinforced concrete construction, [utilising the techniques of Francois Hennebique who attempted to patent a system[unsuccessfully] in 1892]. However, it is also accepted that, principally because of the unadorned and functional character of the rear of the building, it’s neglected state of appearance, and added rear fire escape arrangement and flue, that the building is also currently a notable eyesore in the Bute town area, and because of its height, significantly further afield.
3. DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
Empire House was built Circa 1926 to a design by Ivor Jones and Percy Thomas, architects of Cardiff; by contractors - Messrs William T Nicholls of Gloucester.
The scheme was conceived before the first world war by Commander Charles E Evans, Chairman of the Company, which was one of the largest firms of coal exporters (and later shippers) in South Wales.
The exterior has a Neo-Georgian facade in brick and freestone over a Hennebique type reinforced concrete structure. The building has a predominantly flat roof, except to the Mount Stuart Sq. frontage where it is of inclined Mansard form. The Mansard is of Westmorland slate, with high parapets and brick end chimney stacks (reduced to left where repair works are evident to the side elevation); the upper attic has flat-roofed dormers and the lower attic has gabled dormers with pediments over the windows.
The building has a symmetrical 7-bay front elevation to Mount Stuart Square of 5-storey height, with 2-attic storeys above (the Mansard presentation). It is finished in Flemish bond red brick of an unusual size seen in a number of Percy Thomas buildings with channelled Portland stone to ground floor and has similar freestone dressings elsewhere, including a bracket cornice to eaves below the incline of the Mansard roof (projecting faux roof member details), bracket pedimented architraves to 1st floor window heads (projecting triangular adornments to the top of the windows) and guilloche (swirled) pattern relief to the ground floor cornice band.
67 Windows are predominantly vertical sliding horned sashes; 12-pane (3x2) over (3x2) sashes to the main floors with brick voussoirs (muliti facet slow swept arches) to 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor heads and channelled (appearing heavily jointed) voussoirs to ground floor heads; Attic windows are 9-pane (possible fixed lite) to first level attic and 3 over 6 sliding sashes to second attic level.
The rear of the building is starkly utilitarian appearance with large glazed steel framed windows, has an external unprotected fire escape to roof level and large flue to the full building height. The rear external elevation has also been painted light blue in more recent times.
Internally, of particular merit is the roman (semi-circular) arched entrance to the inner entrance hall with glazed and traceried fanlight including a palladian frieze carried on fluted pilasters; with latticed glazed double doors with fluted borders.
The ground floor interior retains fine contemporary Classical detail. The aforementioned entrance leading onto a vaulted arch tunnel cross-shaped hall, lined in fielded mahogany panelling and floored in black and white marble tiles; with panelled bands around the arches.
The front or entrance corridor part is coffered with inset bosses with corners top-lit from light-wells above with square-panel glazing. At the rear of the hall is a simple staircase rising around a lift-shaft retaining original frame and solid mahogany car; manufactured by Waygood – Otis.
To the right of the hall is a reception room leading to the former Board Room/Chairman's office which is mahogany panelled, although anomolies in the ceiling detail evidence the insertion/relocation of a dividing wall in this space. The ceiling has a dentil cornice and finely detailed bands of festooned plasterwork forming a semi-circle in front of the chimneypiece - marble fireplace and mahogany bracketed mantelpiece.
To the left of the central hallway are a number of rooms of no particular merit, and which evidence further internal rearrangement, as do most floors above which have wired glass timber partitions likely added as fire compartment measures circa 1950s.
4. SITE HISTORY
4.1 No relevant planning history
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Welsh Office Circular 61:96 Planning and the Historic Environment.
68 5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
The Central Area (Mount Stuart Square) Conservation Group were keen to minimise any impact of the proposals on the Character and Appearance of the conservation Area.
They have previous suggested that any roof top extension be kept to single storey, but were accepting that a revised set-back of the upper floor might achieve a similar result.
The group have been reconsulted on the final revision and no objections to the latest scheme have been received to date.
Any comments received from the group on the latest amendments will be reported at committee.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Glamorgan and Gwent Archaeological Trust. [GGAT]
Mount Stuart Square became the commercial centre of the docks area during the late 19th century, the conversion and demolition of much of the earlier dock workers housing in this area drastically altered the appearance of the Square, resulting in the eclectic mix of different styles and sizes of building that exist there today. Constructed in the late 1920s Empire House itself is a fine example of Neo- Georgian architecture and is a prominent building in the street scene of Mount Stuart Square mentioned as a landmark building within the 2009 conservation area appraisal and is protected as a grade II* listed building. As such careful consideration should be given to the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the wider conservation area as well as direct effects to the listed building itself, as such we would recommend you contact the relevant amenity group the 20th Century Society to seek their opinion in this matter. However in terms of archaeological impacts, we do not consider it likely that the proposed development will impact on any archaeological remains. As such it is our opinion that there is no archaeological constraint to this development and we therefore have no objection to the positive determination of the current application.
6.2 The application has been advertised in accordance with statutory procedures and the Amenity Bodies have been consulted.
The RCAHMW
Have no observations on the historical significance of the building or adequacy of the record relating to it which is their given remit.
69 Ancient Monuments Society
The case was considered at the Society's Casework Committee on February 3 2011. While the Committee has no objections to the principle of conversion to residential use, it does have serious concerns about three major aspects of the application.
REAR ELEVATION The Committee disagrees with the applicant that the rear elevation is 'nothing short of an eyesore' (Design and Access Statement paragraph 2.2.3) and that it is of 'sub-standard construction' (Design and Access Statement, paragraph 2.2.2).
1. It is not unusual for a building of this type and period to have contrasting facades: one for display at the front, and a more utilitarian one at the back.
2. Thinness of walls is not a defect, but rather a key characteristic of the Hennebique construction method. It saved on the cost of materials and optimised the amount of floor-space available to clients.
3. The present rear elevation expresses the Hennebique system of concrete construction, with an honesty which pre-figures the Modernist approach.
4. The combination in one building of a utilitarian rear elevation with a more ornate Neo-Georgian front adds to the special interest of the Grade II* listed building.
5. When built, Empire House was surrounded by other buildings (now demolished), so that it was never the intention for the rear elevation to be prominent in views.
Recommendation: Architects' drawings of Empire House should be consulted to establish without any doubt the design intentions of Ivor Jones and Percy Thomas. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that the rear elevation was not part of the original design and can therefore be obscured / subsumed without any loss of significance to the building.
ROOF EXTENSION The Committee questions the need for this two-floor extension which will harm both to the listed building and the Mount Square Conservation Area.
1. A mansard roof already denotes the termination of a building. The addition of two storeys over what is in effect an attic storey is therefore detrimental.
2. The proposed extension will harm views into and within the Conservation Area. This effect is particularly salient in views from Mount Stuart Square itself (see Design and Access Statement,
70 Appendix 4).
Recommendation: the applicant should be required to demonstrate that public benefit outweighs harm for this aspect of the proposal.
PLAN FORM The Committee regrets the loss of the existing plan form.
1. The existing lightwells are an integral part of the original design of the listed building and their loss is not justified. A more imaginative design could ensure their retention and capitalise on the use of borrowed light.
2. Internal sub-divisions should be scaled down so as to preserve more of the original plan-form.
In conclusion, the Committee feels that Empire House should be preserved in as original as state as possible, as it is a Grade II* listed building.
6.3 The Georgian Group
Defer to the Victorian Society/20th Century Society
7. REPRESENTATIONS
The proposals have been advertised in accordance with Statutory requirements. No representations have been received.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The general duty placed on Local Planning Authorities when considering proposals relating to Statutory Listed Buildings is to have special regard to the desirability of preserving them, their setting, and any elements of architectural or historic merit which they may possess..
8.2 This application seeks to reuse, extend and convert a vacant substantial listed office building for purposes of residential accommodation.
8.3 The works can be considered under 4 main topic headings:
Works to the rear elevation; Works to the roof of the building; remodelling of the existing floor plans; and restoration works.
Works to the rear elevation
As indicated, the rear of the building is of starkly utilitarian appearance with large glazed steel framed windows and has not benefitted from past modification. It has an external unprotected fire escape to roof level and large diameter flue to the full building height. As constructed, the rear of the building also contains a central projection of 6 storey height which contains the w.c. accommodation for lower floors and has a conspicuous access stair
71 enclosure.
The rear is predominantly glazed, with a mixture of large sized steel and aluminium windows inserted over 4” (100mm) single skin brickwork panels (rendered and painted blue) located between the building’s reinforced concrete columns. This appears a somewhat flimsey construction, and although old, it is not certain that it is original in respect of structure of glazing.
The proposals include for the removal of the current windows and infill panels to the rear wall together with the rear w. c. block and the external steel fire escape stair and flue, and for the repositioning of the rear elevation in a plane some 4 1/4m to the north.
Materials specified are facing brick (with a shadow gap junction to the existing brickwork elevations to overcome any discordant bonding relationship); with a continuation of the existing parapet and coping finishing detail.
The extension to the rear of the building would realise an aspired symmetry, as well as removing the most discordant features which currently exist. The architect has been asked to pursue the firing of brick specials to replicate the somewhat unusual size of the existing bricks used in the main construction and this is being investigated. The large format window openings would be retained and a multi-pane window style adopted consistently throughout the rear elevation. The works are considered an enhancement of the building.
Works to the roof of the building
8.4 The existing inclined mansard presentation to Mount Stuart Square is predominantly of flat asphalt over concrete construction screened by a facing brick parapet wall.
The applicant sees this as an ideal location to create new penthouse style accommodation which is proposed partly as enabling works to realise the conversion and upgrading of the rest of the building.
Pre and post submission discussions/negotiations with the applicant have emphasised the need to ensure that the roof extension is not seen as dominant structure from the Mount Stuart Square conservation area, and the Architect has responded by setting back the accommodation as far as possible on the constructional grid of the building.
The works include a two tier roof extension undertaken in zinc and glass, with the face of the first tiered element being set back some 7 metres from the front elevation of the building and the second tier some 5.5m further back again. Again the dimensions of the roof extensions are governed by the constructional grid of the building and given the building height would be unlikely to be seen from close quarters within the conservation area.
The roof extension would be visible from James St and from further afield, but the use of glass and zinc are considered appropriate to the building and
72 realise a roof extension of lightweight form.
The architect has revised the submission on three occasions further to negotiation with the planning officer and the roof extension is now considered acceptable in respect of its impact.
Remodelling of the Existing Floorplans
8.5 The building construction is based on a three dimensional grid of reinforced concrete columns and beams, which dictate the nature of subdivision within the building.
On each of the upper floors, the original light wells have been infilled to create additional floorspace. The comments of the AMS in respect of retaining the light wells is noted, however despite efforts to retain the light wells during the early stages of the design development, the excessive amount of consequential circulation space that would have been needed within the building was considered un-viable by the architect. Consideration was thereafter given to using the light wells as an integral open space to access various units with walkways at each level, but this approach created particular difficulties in relation to fire escape routes and the spread of smoke and was not supported by the fire officer, as the lght wells would have effectively operated as giant chimneys within the building core. The current proposal makes use of the existing light wells to run new services vertically through the building – thus limiting the amount of holes and openings that would otherwise need to be formed in the existing building fabric.
The extension to the rear of the building effectively extends the existing grid of the building to realise additional floorspace (bedroom/living accommodation) but structurally only requires the removal of the existing window an brickwork infill panels from the concrete frame and is considered to have an acceptable impact on the building structure which remains reasonably unchanged..
Restoration Works
8.6 Removal of the existing external steel escape stair is considered an enhancement of the building.
Ground Floor Entrance Hall The existing ground floor entrance hall is a particularly fine and impressive space, richly panelled with vaulted ceilings and marble floors. This space will remain substantially unchanged with only light touch restoration work and redecoration envisaged where necessary.
Board Room The ground floor boardroom to the south-east corner of the building is also panelled and has a decorative ceiling arrangement. The panelling is to be retained to this room complete; however there is evidence that the room has been adapted by means of a later infill partition within the space that fragments the ceiling detail. It is intended that this wall will be removed and
73 that the panelling be reverted to its original position. This is welcomed.
Lift The building is served by an early lift in caged enclosure around which the main circulation stair winds to upper floor levels. This feature is again to be retained and restored and such works are again welcomed as the lift is considered an essential element in the character of the building.
Chimney The applicant has agreed in the process of the application to reinstate the foreshortened chimney stack to mirror that remaining on the eastern side of the building. This is welcomed.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 The works will impact on the character of the building, but are considered respectful of the remaining architectural features of merit and are welcomed in respect of their restoration.
9.2 The roof extension proposed has been revised to a degree whereby its impact is now considered acceptable, and the extension to the rear of the building is considered an enhancement of the existing situation which should overall ensure for the use and maintenance of the building in the longer term.
9.3 The Granting of Listed Building Consent is therefore recommended subject to conditions to control finite details.
74 0 0 m m 190
61m WEST 1748 Community Garage 130 Centre CLOSE El
Sub Sta 129 ROAD 5
HEMINGWAY 51 HEMINGWAY HEOL
Warehouse 126
37 7.9m CLOSE WEST 36 Shelter
17 35
54
34 33
33 748 39 748 LB
54a 125
Bank 25
St James 54b Mansions 124
7.9m
27
to
1
Cymric BUTE Buildings Empire STREET House 1 to 28 MOUNT
53 Dock STUART Cliff Court 54 / SQUARE to 57 STRYD
58 Saint Line Cambrian Chambers House
Buildings BUTE
6.7m PH
LB
N
TCB Bank
Bank 116 The Point
Cardiff Exchange Theatre 3
747 to 747 1 113
Bay STREET
4 Chambers 112
LB 5
BUTE 111
6 PO
WEST 7 PH 1 to 32 Dowlais
8 Arcade
61m 107 1746
3 190 3 189 191
200 20406080100 00m 00m
Red line indicates site boundary. Metres
Crown copyright. Reproduced with permission. Alwyn Jones, 5 Cardiff Road, CF15 7RA. N Licence No. AR 35358R001 Rev A - Green line added - 18.10.10
title date scale ALWYN EMPIRE HOUSE, CARDIFF BAY 08/10 1:1250 @ A4
number JONES___ Site Location Plan 10/549/P/01 A __PENSEIRI
__ARCHITECTS The Bank 5 Cardiff Road Taffs Well Cardiff CF15 7RA 029 2081 0080 www.alwynjones.com ©Alwyn Jones Architects
75 position 1025N fence 1025N 1.8 b/w fence
stone approc wood of dense shrubs kerb ret
WEST wall
CLOSE kerb
tree tree foliage dense shrubs foliage brick wall
tarmac car park Refuse collection metal link fence 2.2h ramp point from West Close via rear gate. shrubs brick wall
dense kerb tree
foliage
tree
foliage
Existingtree Gates foliage
Car Parking serving Cymric House (Leased Ground) stone
ret
wall Car Park Entrance via undercroft
metal link fence 2.2h from West Bute Street (as existing & proposed)
G w tarmac w brick car park pillar kerb BRK MS brick wall
foliage tree 37 channel 27 ramp kerb 28 29 brick wall BRK brick
1.8h 30 pillar
fence kerb 36 31G tarmac
wood wall 1000N 32 car park 1000N
ret
stone kerb 26 25 24 35 23 33 22 WEST BUTE Dashed line indicates site ownership 21 20 19 34 STREET
wall tree tarmac G 18 foliage car park 17 stone 16 15 Rear Entrance 14 13
1.8h DISABLED 76
fence tarmac
kerb
wood car park
slabs wall
Refuse out stone 1 tarmac 2 car park
wall 3 g 4 rwp conc g 5 svp 6 J 7 100 pipe svp 8 CYMRIC BUILDINGS g 9 12 dp 10
wall rwp 11 DISABLED concrete wall
stone rwp rwp opening
opening e
975N EMPIRE HOUSE 975N
SAINT LINE HOUSE
CAMBRIAN BUILDINGS MOUNT STUART SQUARE
950N 950N
0M 25M
notes / revisions title date scale Topographical survey undertaken by Zenith Land Surveys Ltd. ALWYN EMPIRE HOUSE, CARDIFF BAY 08/10 1:200 @ THIS DRAWING IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY A1 number JONES___ Site Block Plan - As Proposed 10/549/P/03 __PENSEIRI __ARCHITECTS Do not scale this drawing. Check all dimensions on site. The Bank 5 Cardiff Road Taffs Well Cardiff CF15 7RA 029 2081 0080 www.alwynjones.com ©Alwyn Jones Architects PROPOSED EXTENSION
New two storey penthouse extension with single NEW PENTHOUSE UPPER LEVEL polymeric sheet flat roof and photovoltaic cells mounted away from perimeter. SET BACK 13M FROM FACE OF BUILDING Approximate rooflight and vent arrangement shown. Zinc cladding with vertical standing seams
Line of existing parapet raised (5 courses) with new fair faced brickwork to match existing in every respect. Aluminium brise soleil system PPC coated handrailing Reuse existing coping where possible. with glazed panels New PPC handrail. PPC aluminium double glazed doors / walling
PPC coated handrailing Fair faced brickwork to side elevation of proposed extension with glazed panels with recessed shadow gap at junction to existing
Penthouse FFL
Chimney stack reinstated to this side to PROPOSED EXTENSION match existing PPC coated aluminium solar shading Dressed Portland stone square coping
Penthouse FFL
Roof Level Roof Level Roof Level
Fair faced brickwork to central section of rear extension Sixth Floor Level Sixth Floor Level Sixth Floor Level
New PPC aluminium double glazed windows to side elevation. Windows set back within depth of wall.
Fifth Floor Level Fifth Floor Level Fifth Floor Level
Fourth Floor Level Fourth Floor Level Fourth Floor Level 77
Third Floor Level Third Floor Level Third Floor Level EXISTING BUILDING
Second Floor Level Second Floor Level Second Floor Level
Approximate line of adjacent property - not surveyed
First Floor Level E V A N S & R E I D C O A L C O M P A N Y L I M I T E D First Floor Level First Floor Level Dressed Portland stone string course
EMPIRE HOUSE
CAR PARK
Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level
EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDING EXTENSION
F R O N T E L E V A T I O N - A S P R O P O S E D E A S T S I D E E L E V A T I O N - A S P R O P O S E D
AMENDED PLAN 10/1930/DCI 10/2270/DCI 0m 5m 10m 11.05.2011
notes / revisions title date scale Rev A: Side & Rear Elevations revised at penthouse level - March 2011 ALWYN EMPIRE HOUSE, CARDIFF BAY 04/11 1:100 @ A1 Rev B: Two storey penthouse extension and rear central section revised THIS DRAWING IS FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT PURPOSES ONLY following disussions with the Local Authority - May 2011 number JONES___ Front & East Side Elevations - As Proposed Rev C: Minor alterations to Elevations at penthouse level - May 2011 10/549/LBC/26 C __PENSEIRI __ARCHITECTS Do not scale this drawing. Check all dimensions on site. The Bank 5 Cardiff Road Taffs Well Cardiff CF15 7RA 029 2081 0080 www.alwynjones.com ©Alwyn Jones Architects PROPOSED EXTENSION
NEW PENTHOUSE UPPER LEVEL SET BACK 13M FROM FACE OF BUILDING New two storey penthouse extension with single Front elevation stepped to reduce impact polymeric sheet flat roof and photovoltaic cells on street scene mounted away from perimeter. Approximate vent and rooflight arrangement shown. PPC coated aluminium solar shading.
Aluminium brise soleil system Zinc cladding with vertical standing seams Line of existing parapet raised (5 courses) with new fiar faced brickwork to match existing in every respect. Reuse existing coping where possible. PPC aluminium double glazed doors / walling New PPC handrail. with handrailing internally
Penthouse FFL PROPOSED Chimney stack reinstated to this side to EXTENSION match existing PPC aluminium double glazed doors / walling
Dressed Portland stone square coping Dressed Portland stone square coping to match existing
Penthouse FFL
Roof Level Roof Level
Soft brickwork facing to extension with pale mortar
PPC aluminium double glazed windows
Sixth Floor Level Sixth Floor Level
New PPC aluminium double glazed windows to side elevation. Windows set back within depth of wall.
Fifth Floor Level Fifth Floor Level
Fourth Floor Level Fourth Floor Level 78
Third Floor Level Third Floor Level EXISTING BUILDING
Second Floor Level Second Floor Level
Approximate line of adjacent property - not surveyed
First Floor Level First Floor Level
Line of oblique boundary to West Close
Roller shutter access to bin store Level of car park shown dashed
Ground Floor Level Ground Floor Level
R E A R E L E V A T I O N - A S P R O P O S E D W E S T S I D E E L E V A T I O N - A S P R O P O S E D
AMENDED PLAN 10/1930/DCI 10/2270/DCI 0m 5m 10m 11.05.2011
notes / revisions title date scale Rev A: Side & Rear Elevations revised at penthouse level - March 2011 ALWYN EMPIRE HOUSE, CARDIFF BAY 04/11 1:100 @ A1 Rev B: Two storey penthouse extension and rear central section revised THIS DRAWING IS FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT PURPOSES ONLY following disussions with the Local Authority - May 2011 JONES___ number Rev C: Minor alterations to Elevations at penthouse level - May 2011 Rear & West Side Elevations - As Proposed 10/549/LBC/27 C __PENSEIRI __ARCHITECTS Do not scale this drawing. Check all dimensions on site. The Bank 5 Cardiff Road Taffs Well Cardiff CF15 7RA 029 2081 0080 www.alwynjones.com ©Alwyn Jones Architects LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/00448/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 14/03/2011
ED: RIVERSIDE
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr Nadeem LOCATION: 90 COWBRIDGE ROAD EAST, CANTON, CARDIFF, CF11 9DX PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR TO RESTAURANT WITH ANCILLARY TAKE AWAY ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
1. The proposed loss of an A1 unit to a non-shopping role within this frontage would have a prejudicial impact upon the shopping role of the centre and undermine the vitality and viability of the frontage and would be contrary to the approved City of Cardiff Local Plan Policy 49 and the approved Supplementary Planning Guidance; Restaurants, Takeaways and other food and drink uses (1996).
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the ground floor of the existing Class A1 unit (shop) to a Class A3 restaurant with ancillary take-away
1.2 It is proposed that the opening hours of the business will be from 11am-11pm seven days a week
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application premises is a two-storey building which is sited within an existing parade of shops. The ground floor is currently used as a A1 shop unit, with residential accommodation above
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 89/2275/W – Extension to existing shop. Approved
3.2 A/93/140/W – Projecting sign. Approved
3.3 94/671/W – 1st Floor extension (pitched roof) to extension + single storey flat roof. Refused
79 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site is located within the Cowbridge Road East District Shopping Area as designated in the Local Plan
4.2 The Council has resolved that in addition to extant development plans, the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) should be taken into account in development control decisions.
4.3 The following policies of the approved City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996) are considered to be relevant to the proposal:
Policy 49 (Local and District Centres)
4.4 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are considered to be relevant to the proposal:
Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) Policy 2.36 (District and Local Centres) Policy 2.57 (Access, Parking and Circulation) Policy 2.64 (Air, Noise and Light Pollution)
4.5 The Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food and Drink uses (June 1996) is also relevant to the determination of this application
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Environment & Public Protection (Pollution Control) has resolved to not object but advises the need for conditions related to opening hours, delivery times, party wall soundproofing and plant noise
5.2 The Operational Manager Transportation states that he would have no objections to the proposed change of use as submitted on the basis that this site is located within Cowbridge Road East District Centre with servicing permitted (outside of those time specified) on street immediately adjacent. There is also a public car park available within close proximity
5.3 The Operational Manager (Waste Management) advises the need for a condition regarding refuse storage
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water advise that a condition requiring a grease trap should be imposed
6.2 South Wales Police state that analysis has shown that crime and anti-social behaviour is average in this area compared with the South Wales area. No off-street parking is provided by this proposed development, Cowbridge Road East though a busy retail area has limited on street parking, although there is
80 some unrestricted parking in nearby adjacent streets and adequate car parking to the rear of the premises. South Wales Police has no objection to the application, but would ask that the following hours applied for (11am- 11pm) are made a condition of planning permission – the reason for this is that there is a strong and positive correlation between the size of the late night economy and crime and disorder. A condition placed through planning for such hours would ensure that in the future if there was a request to extend such hours the council and police would have the opportunity to re-assess community safety issues particularly in relation to the density of late night economy outlets
6.3 Environment Agency – Advise the need for flood-proofing measures
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The proposal was advertised by site notice; the consultation period expired on 20th April 2011
7.2 Local members have been consulted and Councillor I Gordon objects to the proposal for the following reasons;
i) Increase in litter, ii) increase in anti-social behaviour, iii) there are a large number of existing food outlets in Cowbridge Road East, iv) Crwys Road and City Road have a high proportion of food outlets and it is concluded that a ‘saturation’ point has been reached, wonder if similar calculation could be made for Cowbridge Road East to ascertain if this district centre is in a similar situation
7.3 Neighbouring occupiers have been consulted. Letters have been received from the occupiers of 92, 169 and 173 Cowbridge Road East, objecting for the following reasons;
i) There are already a large number of restaurant/takeaways in area, ii) there has a been a down turn in business and an increase in the number of restaurants/takeaways businesses will impact on existing restaurants/takeaways and other businesses, iii) there is a bus stop adjacent to premises and the proposal will effect pedestrians and bus users
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The main issues in respect of this proposal are i) Loss of retail premises ii) The impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers; and iii) highway safety/parking issues
81 8.2 The application site comprises a shop unit on the ground floor, with residential accommodation on the first floor. It is noted that the site is within a designated district shopping centre.
8.3 The Land Use Policy section advises that the site falls within the Cowbridge Road East District Centre and that the application should be assessed against Policy 49 of the Local Plan, which aims to protect the predominant shopping role of the centre, and maintain the vitality and viability of its shopping frontages. The unit is currently in use as a clothes store so the change of use would result in the loss of an active A1 unit. There is no reason to indicate that this unit is no longer a viable premises for continued shopping use and it is considered that the loss of an A1 unit to a non-shopping use within this frontage would harm the shopping role of the centre and undermine the vitality and viability of the frontage
Of 13 units within the frontage (82-104 Cowbridge Road East) there are currently two others in A3 use, which is not considered to constitute an over concentration of such uses within the frontage. It should be noted, however, that the proposal would result in two A3 uses adjoining each other and there are 3 other A3 uses located within close proximity on the other side of the road which should be taken into consideration. In summary the application fails to accord with criterion (iii) of Policy 49
8.4 The Land Use Policy section also advises that: Total Units within Cowbridge Road East District Centre = 198 (100%) Total A1 units = 85 (43%) Total A2 units = 37 (19%) Total A3 units = 39 (20%) Other = 29 (15%) Total Vacant = 8 (4%)
The increase of one A3 unit would change the above figures by 0.2%, thus total A1 units would be 84 (42.8%) of total and total A3 units would be 40 (20.2%)
8.5 In respect of the potential impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents, it is noted that the Operational Manager Environment and Public Protection (Pollution Control) has not objected to the proposal subject to the provision of a number of conditions
8.6 The Operational Manager, Transportation states that he has no objections to the proposal in terms of parking and highway safety
8.7 In regard to the objection received from Cllr Gordon
i) The OM, waste management raises no objections ii) SW Police raise no objections iii + iv) See para 8.3 and para 8.4 above, A3 uses represent approximately 20% of the total number of units with the Cowbridge Road East District
82 Centre. It is not considered that this represents ‘saturation’ point in terms of the number of A3 uses within the Cowbridge Road East District Centre.
8.8 In regard to the objections received from local residents:
i) See paras 8.3 and 8.4 above ii) Not a planning consideration iii) The OM, Transportation raises no objections
8.9 Refusal is recommended for the reasons stated above
83 84 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/546/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 29/03/2011
ED: CATHAYS
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Stoford Cardiff Limited / EUI Limited LOCATION: LAND AT BRIDGE STREET SQUARE, BRIDGE STREET, CITY CENTRE PROPOSAL: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OFFICE (B1) FLOORSPACE, RETAIL (A1) AND /OR FOOD AND DRINK (A3) FLOORSPACE, CAR AND CYCLE PARKING, HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING, PLANT ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING WORKS AND A NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM BRIDGE STREET ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to no further new representation being received by the 9th June 2011, and 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 paragraphs 5.1 and 9.6 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 supplemented by the Verified Views dated 6.5.11, the transient Overshadowing Images received on 13 May 2011, the Wind Tunnel Workshop dated 10 May 2011 and the Brief to Artist, May 2011 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
3. H7G Plant Noise
4. C7Q Mechanical Extraction of Fumes
5. No development shall take place until comprehensive proposals showing how foul and surface water flows from the site will be dealt with have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Welsh Water. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development.
85 6. No development shall take place until proposals showing the provision of a suitable grease trap to prevent entry into the public sewerage system of matter likely to interfere with the free flow of the sewer contents, or which would prejudicially affect the treatment and disposal of such contents, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
7. The proposed car parking (120no. spaces) and manoeuvring areas shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details before the development is brought into beneficial use and be thereafter maintained and retained at all times for those purposes in association with the development of each phase. 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. No development shall take place until details showing the provision of cycle parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (minimum of 120 spaces). The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being put into beneficial use. Thereafter the cycle parking spaces shall be maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the sheltered and secure parking of cycles.
9. 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.
10. Prior to the commencement of development details of public art, including a timetable for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The public art shall incorporate a water feature unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
11. 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.
86 Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the area.
12. No development shall take place until a scheme showing the architectural detailing of all building facades 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.
13. No development shall take place until details of a canopy to mitigate downdraught on the western edge of the building have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, including detailed results from further wind tunnel testing that demonstrate the extent of mitigation. The canopy shall be constructed in such a way as not to cause any obstruction to pedestrians. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the comfort of pedestrians and the satisfactory appearance of the building and associated public realm.
14. Notwithstanding the provision of Part 25 of the Town and Country Planning (GPDO) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re- enacting that Order) no telecommunication antennae, dish or equipment shall be installed externally within the curtilage of the site without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
15. Details of an external illumination shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local planning Authority prior to its installation. Reason: In the interests of amenity.
16. Details of the external treatment of the ground floor and mezzanine floors shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to their installation and thereafter constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
17. In respect of any proposed A3 use and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no sale of hot food for consumption off the premises shall take place from the premises. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.
87 18. In respect of any proposed A3 use no member of the public shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on the premises between the hours of 24.00 and 06.00. Reason: To prevent crime and anti-social behaviour.
19. Prior to any beneficial use details for the installation of CCTV will have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance wit the approved details. Reason: The prevention of crime and enhancement of public safety.
20. D4W Tree Protection - Complex Sites but No O
21. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro
22. C4R Landscaping Implementation
23. No development shall take place until details of facilities for the storage of refuse containers have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The facilities approved shall be provided before the development is brought into beneficial use. Reason: To secure an orderly form of development and to protect the amenities of the area.
24. F7Y Ground Gas Protection
25. C7Z Contaminated Land Measures
26. D7Z Contaminated materials
27. E7Z Imported Aggregates
28. The building hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method [BREEAM] (or subsequent equivalent quality assured scheme) overall standard of “Excellent” and achieve a minimum of 6 credits under category Ene 1 - reduction of CO2 Emissions in accordance with the requirements of BREEAM 2008. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
29. The developer shall achieve a BREEAM ‘excellent’ assessment standard for the building. Before commencement of works on site the developer shall submit in writing for the approval of the Local Planning Authority a BREEAM design assessment, the percentage score
88 expected to be achieved and to which standard this relates. Where this does not meet the ‘excellent’ standard the developer must demonstrate what changes will be made to the development to achieve an ‘excellent’ standard. Suitable site supervision and monitoring will be instigated by the developer to assess the construction works in progress against the parameters of the design assessment or modified design assessment (whichever is appropriate), to ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that the completed building at time of occupation will demonstrate the BREEAM ‘excellent’ rating when the Final Certificate (Post Construction Stage Assessment) is issued”. Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
30. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of environmental highway and public realm improvements, and programme for its implementation, to the footways adjacent to the site are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should include, but not be limited to, the repaving of the public realm area, including surfacing, kerbs, edging, drainage; and the provision/renewal/improvement of street lighting, street trees, street furniture. The agreed scheme is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the programme and in any event prior to beneficial occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure the comprehensive enhancement/improvement of the adjacent public footway and public realm in accordance with the principles set out in the planning application.
31. Notwithstanding the Highway Works Condition, prior to the commencement of development a scheme of works and programme for its implementation, to provide access and servicing facilities from Bridge Street are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the programme and in any event prior to beneficial occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjacent highway.
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
89 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 highway works conditions and any other works to existing or proposed adopted public highway are to be subject to an agreement under Section 38 and/or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 between the developer and Local Highway Authority.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Any construction over or under the adjacent public highway will be subject to licence under Sections 177 and 179 of the Highways Act 1980 respectively.
RECOMMENDATION 5: 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; 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: x Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. x Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances. x 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.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 A detailed application for an office development for the HQ of the Admiral Insurance Group. Admiral currently have approx 1900 staff dispersed over 4
90 different locations in Cardiff and plan to increase the number of staff to 3,000 and consolidate the team into a single purpose-built office in the city centre, close to public transport links and local amenities.
1.2 The proposed floorspace will be accommodated over 12 storeys together with 2 basement storeys of car and cycle parking and ancillary plant at roof level. The office accommodation (28,975 sqm) occupies eleven storeys arranged around a central circulation and service core, with a reception area and staff canteen at ground floor.
1.3 The ground floor also includes three ancillary units providing up to 605 sqm of retail and/or food and drink floorspace. These are located to the western edge of the building fronting the open space and to the NE corner on the junction of Charles Street and Bridge Street.
1.4 The main pedestrian entrance is located on the primary corner at the junction of Mary Ann Street and David Street accessed from the pedestrian route to the west of the building. Vehicular access to the basement car park will be gained via an entrance from Bridge Street and will take the form of a footway crossover affording priority to pedestrians.
1.5 The building has a large footprint measuring 61m on its longest (west) side by 39m wide and occupying most of the application site. The south and west sides of the building have active frontage at ground floor as does most of the east side. Car park access, substation and some services occupy the central section of the north elevation ground floor.
1.6 The area of the site not occupied by the building will become an area of pedestrianised public realm running along the west side of the building and giving access from Mary Ann Street and the south to the east side entrance of the St. David’s 2 development (SD2) and Barrack Lane and Bridge Street to the north and east. Immediately outside the SD2 entrance at the intersection of Mary Ann Street and Bridge Street an area of open space is created that may become the focus for a water-based piece of public art to be commissioned by the applicant. The existing landscaped area dividing the pedestrian route from the access to the SD2 car park will be extended and reinforced with more trees and shrubs and provided with benches. More benches are provided to the new area of open space.
1.7 The ground floor of the building along the western edge is set back behind the precast stone piers to form a generous colonnade 4m deep by 7m high. The ground floor facade to the south elevation is set back by 1.8m and that to the east elevation by approx 1.5m.
1.8 The considerable mass of the building is broken up by splitting it into two halves, one higher than the other, and orientated north-south to follow the
91 urban grain of the city centre. Materials are portland stone coloured pre-cast cladding, large areas of glazing and anodized aluminium metal panels.
1.9 The higher western wing of the building rises to a height of 61m above street level and will be a prominent feature on the city’s skyline. The top is a double height colonnade of precast stone piers 9m high wrapping around the north, south and west elevations that serve to terminate the building and screen the illuminated and recessed main plant box. The lower eastern wing is 55m high and accommodates additional plant behind a more modest colonnaded screen.
1.10 The building is designed to achieve BREEAM Excellent rating.
Parking and access arrangements
1.11 There are 120 car parking spaces provided on 2 levels of basement parking.
Waste management
1.12 General waste will be collected from each floor and transferred to a 36m2 refuse store located in the north-east corner of the building. A total of 12no. 1100 litre eurobins will be provided including separate eurobins for recyclable waste. Bins will be wheeled outside and collected from Bridge Street where a specific lay-by has been created for refuse collection.
1.13 The following information is submitted: x Design and Access Statement including sustainability strategy and BREEAM Pre-Assessment (March 2011) x Daylight & Sunlight Report (March 2011) x Travel Plan (March 2011) x Transport Assessment (March 2011) x Public Art Framework (March 2011) x Site Waste Management Plan (February 2010) x Air Quality Assessment (March 2011) x Geotechnical Desk Study Report (August 2010) x Hydrology and Drainage (March 2011) x Statement of Community Involvement (March 2011) x Planning Supporting Statement (March 2011)
The following additional supporting information has been submitted: x Verified Views Study (May 2011) x Sunpath Diagrams (May 2011) x Building model and context model. x Wind Tunnel Workshop, 10.5.11 x Public Art: Brief to Artist May 2011
92 Environmental screening opinion
1.14 A request for an environmental screening opinion was received in January 2011 containing details of the characteristics of the development, the sensitivity of the location, and the characteristics of the potential impact.
1.15 The proposals fall within the Schedule 2 category ‘Urban Development Projects’. Applying the indicative criteria in Schedule 2 of the Regulations it is not likely to have a significant effect on the environment because the site area is below the 0.5ha threshold and because it is not located in a sensitive area. On this test no Environmental Statement is required.
1.16 Schedule 2 criteria are however indicative and the quantum of floorspace proposed (c. 30,000m2) and the potential physical and visual impact of a 12 storey building required that the development be screened and that regard should be had to the characteristics of the development, the location of the development and the characteristics of the potential impact.
1.17 The development is a large office block on a temporarily landscaped development site that until 2009 was a multi-storey car park. National and local planning policy supports office development in this area of the city.
1.18 The development site is not located in an environmentally sensitive location and the principle of a development of up to 7 storeys had been granted outline planning permission in 2010.
1.19 It was judged that the main effects of the development were likely to be the physical and visual impact of the building on the city skyline and the immediate locality, and the impact of additional traffic generated by the development. A 12 storey building was considered to be appropriate in that location and not likely to have an adverse impact on the skyline or the immediate context given the site’s location, and the existence of other buildings of a similar or larger scale on the periphery of the city centre. The proposed development was considered likely to give rise to less noise and emissions than the multi-storey car park which was demolished in 2009.
1.20 It was considered that any effects would be of local significance only and capable of being considered as part of the normal planning application process and therefore did not warrant the submission of an Environmental Statement.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site which extends to 0.44ha is located in Cardiff City Centre on the site of the former David Street multi-storey car park (MSCP). The site
93 is bounded by Bridge Street to the north, David Street to the south and east, and Mary Ann Street to the west.
2.2 The MSCP, which accommodated in excess of 450 cars, was demolished in 2009. Since that date most of the site has been laid out as a temporary landscaped area with lawns, trees, lighting and benches. A path crosses the site linking the David Street bus stops to the SD2 east side entrance.
2.3 The temporary landscaping of the site was implemented as an interim measure following the demolition of the MSCP and in advance of detailed redevelopment plans for the site being submitted to the Council. (The site had outline planning permission for redevelopment under the outline consents for St. David’s 2).
2.4 The application boundary includes additional areas of permanent public realm associated with the St. David’s 2 development to the west.
2.5 The immediate area is characterised by office, retail, leisure and residential uses. Cineworld and the Motor Point Arena (former Cardiff International Arena) are next to the site as is the main east side entrance to the SD2 food court and shopping mall.
2.6 To the north of the application site, centred on Charles Street, is the Charles Street Conservation Area. It is tightly drawn to include the street’s early western frontage (listed) and its more fragmented east side. The street is characterised by terraces of 2-3 storey Victorian houses in a simple classical or italianate style.
2.7 The section of Bridge Street immediately to the north of the site becomes a service road for the SD2 shopping centre with ramps up to an upper level service yard. It is not heavily used and there is a zebra crossing that connects with the recently completed Barrack Lane which provides a secondary pedestrian route to the north.
2.8 The main traffic and bus route runs along Bridge Street, turns south and becomes David Street to run around the eastern and southern edges of the site before continuing down Mary Ann Street to the south. Whilst it provides key transportation links through the city it is a relatively calm area lying just inside of the main ring road, Bute Terrace.
2.9 To the east of the site there is a partially cleared site known as the Rapport site with a 3 storey 1930s office building in cream render and brown brickwork with a PH to the ground floor. The southern half of this site functions as an open car park. There is an outline consent for a mixed use development including an 18 storey residential tower (app. ref. 07/3013/C).
94 2.10 Immediately to the west of the site Mary Ann Street terminates at the SD2 car park (approx. 2,500 spaces open 24 hrs a day). A raised planting bed with 3no. trees forms the western edge of the site and provides an element of screening from the car park access road.
2.11 The main pedestrian routes are via Charles Street from the north, via Bridge Street from the north east; and via Mary Ann Street and Tredegar Street from the south and west.
2.12 The area of the city between the site and The Hayes to the west has been redeveloped as a large shopping centre and residential development (SD2), effectively cutting off Bridge Street. Bridge Street now continues west as a covered mall that takes pedestrians to The Hayes or north to Queen Street, via the SD1 shopping centre
2.13 The site is within walking distance of Queen Street Station (320m), Cardiff Central Station (650m) and the city’s main bus station. There are two bus stops adjacent to the site on David Street with frequent services across the city.
2.14 The site is relatively flat and roughly square in shape with an area of 0.44ha. The southern edge of David Street is cut at an oblique angle.
2.15 The scale of the buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site varies considerably; ranging from 3 storey blocks along Bridge Street and David Street rising to the 5 storey CIA and the equivalent of 8 storeys for the Cineworld building and the SD2 car park. Architectural styles also vary enormously and with the exception of the Charles Street CA to the north none of the buildings are noteworthy. No buildings in the vicinity are listed or locally listed.
2.16 A number of tall buildings are to be found on the edges of the city centre. These include the Altolusso development and Meridian Gate at approx 80m AOD and Helmont House at approx. 70m AOD. The proposals are approx. 70m AOD.
2.17 Charles Street Conservation Area lies immediately to the north of the site and there are a number of Grade II listed buildings within the Conservation Area. The proposals affect the setting of the conservation area but do not lie within the Conservation Area.
2.18 All the trees on the temporary open space that are to be removed (except the two existing Alder trees by the Job Centre) were recently planted as part of the St David’s 2 development (covered by a 5yr replacement condition) or temporary landscape proposal on Bridge Street Square as indicated. No protected trees are affected by the development
95 3. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Application 02/2419C: Outline planning permission for mixed use development was granted on 14 February 2005, and established the original consent for the St. David’s 2 development, including development of the current application site.
3.2 Application ref. 05/502/C: Outline planning permission for the development of the St. David’s 2 complex was granted on 5 September 2005; this sought amendments to various conditions under application 02/2419C and covered the current application site.
3.3 Application ref. 09/629/C: Section 73 consent for the variation of condition 25 of planning permission 05/502C was granted in October 2009 subject to conditions which include:
Unless otherwise agreed with the local planning Authority in writing:
(1) No demolition of buildings identified within Phase 3a, 3b, and 3c on drawing 22626/PP/01 (Appendix 17 of Environmental Statement: Proposed Demolition Phasing) shall be undertaken without an approval of reserved matters application, having first been approved for the redevelopment of the site and a contract let for the construction of the said detailed approval which includes an unconditional comprehensive redevelopment expeditiously following the demolition; (2) No demolition of buildings within Phase 5 shall proceed otherwise than in accordance with the requirements of (1) above or, alternatively, until details of proposals to make good the site following demolition, including a scheme for its interim landscaping, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include a programme for implementation of the approved proposals following demolition and their maintenance pending redevelopment of the site. Within 3 years of the date of the completion of demolition a Development Brief shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval outlining principles for the redevelopment of the site to guide future reserved matters or other detailed planning submissions. The Development Brief shall, unless otherwise agreed with the Local planning Authority, include for a significant public art water feature as part of the permanent development scheme for the site. Reason: To secure an orderly form of development and to maintain the vitality and vibrancy of the city centre.
3.4 The applicant contends that the effect of the Section 73 consent was to renew the outline consent for a further 5 years and thereby believing the outline consent on the current site still to be ‘live’. The Chief Officer: Legal &
96 Democratic Services advises that there is no support for this contention in case law and that the outline consent has lapsed.
Pre-application process
3.5 Pre-application discussions started about a year ago and have focussed on parking requirements, the design of the building, in particular its impact on the skyline and ground floor condition, and the design of the public realm.
Public consultation
3.6 A public exhibition was held in February 2011 and attended by circa 20 interested parties. A Statement of Community Involvement forms part of the application document. On the whole the reaction was positive although concerns were raised about the loss of open space.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
The following national planning policy and guidance is considered to be of particular relevance:
4.1 Planning Policy Wales (PPW) 2010 – the following chapters are of particular relevance: Ch. 4 Planning for Sustainability (para 4.62 location for major generators of travel demand in locations well served by public transport. Ch. 7 Supporting the economy
4.2 The following Technical Advice Notes (TANs) are relevant: x TAN 12: Design x TAN18: Transport x TAN 22: Sustainable Buildings
The following local planning policy and guidance is considered to be of particular relevance:
4.3 South Glamorgan Replacement Structure Plan (1997) B2 Environmental quality of the urban fabric B4 Protection of open space ENV1 Sustainability E5 Location of large office developments MV1 Reduction of dependence on the car MV2 Developer contributions towards transport system improvements MV11 Reduced parking levels in city centres
97 4.4 City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996) The application site is located within the City Centre Principal Business Area however it is outside the City Centre Principal Shopping Area (PSA). The site lies within the Core area of the approved City Centre Strategy 2007 – 2010. x Policy 11 Design and Aesthetic Quality x Policy 12 Energy Efficient Design x Policy 17 Parking and Servicing Facilities x Policy 18 Provision for Cyclists x Policy 19 Provision for Pedestrians x Policy 20 Provision for Special Needs Groups x Policies 35 & 39 Principal Business Area
4.5 Cardiff Deposit Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2003) The UDP identifies the site as falling within the Central Business Area and Principal Shopping Area. It is also identified as an Action Area under policies 2.13- 2.19. x Policy 2.14 St David’s Centre Phase II Action Area x Policy 2.20 Good Design x Policy 2.29 Appropriate locations for new office development. x Policy 2.31 City Centre Principal Business Area x Policy 2.35 City Centre Principal Shopping Area x Policy 2.55 Public Realm Improvements x Policy 2.57 Access, Circulation and Parking
4.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance The following Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is of relevance: x Tall Buildings (2009) x Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (2010) x Cardiff City centre Public Realm Manual (2009) x Public Art x Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (2007) x Premises for Eating, Drinking and Entertainment in the City Centre (2000)
4.7 Other local policy considerations City Centre Strategy 2007 - 2010
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Transportation: Confirms that the proposed development has been assessed and is considered to be acceptable in principle.
A transport assessment has been submitted in support of the application, which used up-to-date traffic flows derived from surveys undertaken on the four main signalised junctions adjacent to the site, as agreed with the Council at the scoping meeting. The assessment derived a trip generation for the
98 office use, taking into account the proposed number of car parking spaces and analysed the impact of the predicted traffic generation from the offices on the existing junctions at Churchill Way, Bridge Street, David Street, Mary Ann Street and Bute Terrace.
The transport assessment concluded that the increase in peak hour queues at the identified junctions is generally slight, with minimal impact except for the Churchill Way junction which is already operating close to its theoretical maximum capacity during weekday AM & PM peaks. Notwithstanding the existing capacity issues identified at the Churchill Way junction, the predicted vehicle impact of the proposed development on the existing highway network is considered to be acceptable.
The transport assessment and travel plan also looked at the travel patterns of the circa 1,700 staff employed at the current Admiral office at Capital Tower, Greyfriars Road. A staff travel survey was undertaken to establish general information relating to shift patterns, modes of travel, mode choice influencing factors, etc.; and whether respondents would consider alternatives, and what might influence that decision.
Analysis of the travel survey responses (to which there was a 75% response rate) revealed that circa 67% of existing staff already travel to work by sustainable means. The survey also revealed that there is apparent scope to increase the use of public transport (subject to service availability), along with improvements in cycle use and walking. To which end the proposed Admiral office development is in closer proximity to the main City Centre bus and rail stations, and will provide staff shower, changing and cycle parking facilities; all of which should help to encourage the continued and increased use of sustainable travel.
It is acknowledged that the identified existing staff travel patterns are already very sustainable and currently exceed the wider city average; under which circumstances the travel plan targets are primarily aimed at maintaining the current level of sustainable travel, following the move to and increase in staff numbers at the new offices. He would therefore seek to enshrine the travel plan targets, along with the identified financial commitment to park & ride and a 1% sustainable transport improvement target (per year for 3 years from the first anniversary of occupation) within a section 106 agreement to any permission.
There are therefore no traffic or transportation grounds to sustain an objection, subject to the following comments and the conditions, recommendations and S106 items detailed below being made conditional to any planning approval:-
E3D Retain Parking Within Site;
99 C3S Cycle Parking.
Highway works condition – Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of environmental highway and public realm improvements, and programme for its implementation, to the footways adjacent to the site are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The scheme should include, but not be limited to, the repaving of the public realm area, including surfacing, kerbs, edging, drainage; and the provision/renewal/improvement of street lighting, street trees, street furniture. The agreed scheme is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the LPA in accordance with the programme and in any event prior to beneficial occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure the comprehensive enhancement/improvement of the adjacent public footway and public realm in accordance with the principles set out in the planning application;
Site access and service lay-by condition – Notwithstanding the Highway Works Condition, prior to the commencement of development a scheme of works and programme for its implementation, to provide access and servicing facilities from Bridge Street are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The agreed scheme is to be implemented to the satisfaction of the LPA in accordance with the programme and in any event prior to beneficial occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjacent highway.
Construction management plan condition – 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 and hours of operation, site hoardings, site access, and wheel washing facilities. Construction of the development shall be managed strictly in accordance with the scheme so approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity.
S106 matters:
Travel plan – No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The Travel Plan shall set out proposals and targets, together with a timetable to limit or reduce the number of single occupancy car journeys to the site, and to promote travel by sustainable modes. The Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable set out in the plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA. Reports demonstrating progress in promoting the sustainable transport measures detailed in the Travel Plan shall be submitted annually to the LPA, commencing from the first anniversary of beneficial occupation of each phase or element of the development.
100 Park & Ride – Within one calendar month of beneficial occupation of the development the developer shall purchase from the Council 50 number annual Park & Ride season tickets, at a rate of £520 per ticket per year, a total commitment of £26,000, for use by staff based at the development. The use of Park & Ride shall thereafter be promoted and monitored by the Travel Plan;
Enhancement contribution towards the St. David’s Centre highway works at the junction of Mary Ann Street and David Street – A financial contribution of £3,120 is required for the upgrade of the pedestrian crossing surface material from concrete block to granite setts, including the enhanced foundation works required for this surface.
He therefore has no objection to the application subject to the above conditions, S106 matters and other comments.
5.2 Trees and Landscaping: The Council’s Tree Preservation & Landscape Officer notes that no tree assessment is provided and that a detailed ‘upfront’ soft landscaping scheme should be provided. Additional information has been provided and he raises no objection subject to further discussion on species of tree proposed. Standard tree protection, landscaping design and implementation and landscaping maintenance conditions are attached.
5.3 Highways and Waste Management: The Drainage engineer has no objection subject to a standard drainage details condition. He notes that Welsh water have agreed in principle to the discharge of surface water to the combined sewer.
5.4 Pollution Control: Pollution Control has no objections subject to the following conditions/ recommendations being attached: x Noise: Plant noise to be controlled by standard condition and a recommendation added to control construction site noise. x Air Pollution: Kitchen extraction of fumes to be controlled by standard condition. x Contaminated land: Standard conditions to be added for the investigation and remediation of any ground gases and/or ground contamination and for the testing of imported soils and aggregates for contamination. A recommendation is to be added stating that the Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the information available to it but that the responsibility for carrying out the various tests and for the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
5.5 Development, Projects & Partnerships: The Principal Business Development Officer has no adverse comments.
101 5.6 Waste Management: The Sustainable Planning Officer requests an in-depth waste strategy detailing anticipated volumes of waste and the segregation of materials for recycling and predicting the number of collections required to ensure correct sizing of refuse storage area. She notes that a compactor may be needed for materials such as cardboard. The developer is referred to the requirements of the Waste Collection and Storage Facilities SPG. A standard waste storage condition is attached
5.7 Parks Services: No comments have been received from the Parks Development Officer.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water: Welsh Water request conditions on separate drainage, no drainage of surface water to the public sewer, provision of a grease trap, and a detailed drainage scheme. Conditions requiring provision of a grease trap and a detailed drainage scheme have been attached.
6.2 Police Architectural Liaison: South Wales Police have no objection. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer makes a number of recommendations and requests that they be considered as conditions: x Anti-vehicle mitigation measures; x Lighting levels sufficient to support evidential quality imagery from CCTV x Installation of CCTV x Details of laminated glazing x Details of access control features to ground floor windows and doors and basement parking areas x Opening hours restriction for any proposed A3 use (0600 – 2400 hrs for restaurant takeaway uses and 0800 – 2100 hrs for sale of alcohol). Conditions have been included restricting opening hours for A3 uses and requiring details of CCTV installation. The recommendations have been sent to the developer.
6.3 Central Area Conservation Group: Given that the proposals affect the setting of Charles Street Conservation Area a presentation was made to the Cardiff Central Conservation Group in February 2011 at the pre-application stage and again in April. No adverse comments were made and the design was considered to be of sufficient quality not to detract from the character or appearance of the CA. The Group reviewed the proposals on 27.4.11 and had no adverse comments. They were pleased to see that comments from an earlier pre-application presentation had been addressed, namely the quality of public open space and the view of the building from Charles street. They sought re-assurance that traffic fumes and movement should not impinge on the west side and that external lighting be controlled. They also raised questions over the nature of the public art proposed for the space.
102 6.4 Glam Gwent Archaeological Trust: The Trust raise no objections.
6.5 Cardiff Bus: No comments have been received from Cardiff Bus.
6.6 Design Commission for Wales: As part of the pre-application discussions two presentations were made to the Design Commission for Wales (DCFW) in November 2010 and March 2011. The Commission were supportive of the scale of the building, the sophistication of the facades, the choice of materials, and the design approach to the top of the building. Concerns were raised over a possible canyoning effect to the west side of the building and the potential for incorporating the energy strategy into the façade design. Attention was drawn to the importance of ensuring that the quality and colour of precast stone, anodised aluminium and glazing do not compromise the quality of the overall design. They advised that the design for the relatively small area of public open space should be simple and uncluttered with well-integrated public art, and that pedestrian-friendly linkages should be created across Bridge Street to the north and David Street to the south.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The proposals were advertised as a major application in the press and on site, and Local Members and neighbours were consulted. Objections were received from one Cardiff resident (Victoria Park) and from two neighbouring property owners as follows:
x Cardiff resident objects on the following grounds – loss of open space; quality of proposed public realm (overshadowing); air quality; microclimate around building (winds); impact on Charles St CA; overshadowing of job centre; security of colonnade (lack of clear view) and vagrants; viability of retailing/café space; ugly building. x Motorpoint Arena Cardiff (formerly CIA) have made a holding objection through their agent objecting on the following grounds – increased congestion and disruption; loss of open space; overshadowing and loss of light to administrative offices of Arena – amounting to a detrimental impact on business operation. They state that further representations are likely to be made once more details of the application are known. x Ivor Holdings Limited (owners of the neighbouring Rapport site) – overdevelopment in particular in relation to Charles St CA; overbearing building with no public realm that will compromise the outline planning approval for the Rapport site; overshadowing and overlooking of future residents of the 18 storey residential block consented for the Rapport site; excessively tall – the outline consent was limited to 5 storeys on Bridge St adjacent to CA; slablike and contrary to Tall Buildings SPG; STD2 outline proposals showed much lower building; parking numbers excessive compared with planning guidance for city centre developments; conflict
103 between service deliveries to the new office block and pedestrian movement to SD2 along Bridge Street. x Ivor Holdings wrote on 19.5.11 saying they had not been notified. A neighbour notification letter was sent the same day. The 21 day period finishes on the 9.6.11, one day after this application is due to be reported to Committee. x A request was received on 13.5.11 from ‘Cardiff Cycling & Friends of the Earth’ requesting more details on the environmental screening of the application. A copy of the request letter and screening opinion was provided.
8. ASSESSMENT
8.1 The main issues to be assessed are: a. The principle of development on the site including the loss of the temporary open space acceptable? b. Is the proposed land use in this location acceptable? c. Is the design of the building acceptable in particular its impact on the city skyline and its relationship to its site and to the neighbouring Conservation Area (CA)? d. Is the proposed public realm and landscaping acceptable? e. Local parking pressure and traffic congestion
The sustainability credentials of the building are also assessed as is the impact on neighbouring sites, on air quality and on the surrounding microclimate.
a) The Principle of development including the loss of the temporary open space
8.2 The site was designated as part of the St. David’s Centre Phase 2 Action Area in the 2003 Cardiff Deposit UDP and subsequently formed part of the outline planning permission granted for the St. David’s redevelopment in 2005. The Masterplan supporting the outline permission identified the site for a 7 storey development comprising retail/cafeteria use at ground floor and residential above (approx 14,000sqm floorspace).
8.3 The temporary landscaping scheme was agreed as part of a consent to vary condition 25 of the outline consent granted in October 2009. The purpose of the application to vary the condition was to enable the former MSCP to be demolished in advance of reserved matters being submitted and approved for the redevelopment of the site. The varied condition 25 reads as follows:
‘No demolition of buildings shall proceed until details of proposals to make good the site following demolition, including a scheme for its interim landscaping, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
104 Planning Authority. Within three years of the date of the completion of demolition a Development Brief shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval outlining principles for the redevelopment of the site to guide future reserved matters or other detailed planning submissions. The Development Brief shall, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, include for a significant public art water feature as part of the permanent development scheme for the site. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development and to maintain the vitality and vibrancy of the city centre.’
8.4 The car park building was demolished at the end of 2009 and the landscaping scheme carried out shortly afterwards. The detailed proposals under consideration render the requirement for submission of a Development Brief redundant.
8.5 As an area of existing open space (albeit it temporary) Policy 7 of the LP applies. This states that development proposals involving the loss of open space will only be permitted where: i) They would not cause or exacerbate a local or city-wide deficiency of recreational open space and the open space has no amenity or nature conservation importance; or ii) The developers provide satisfactory compensatory open space.
8.6 It is acknowledged that the quality of the landscaped area and its location in the heart of the city have made it a popular piece of informal open space with amenity value. The public realm provided by the developers to the west of the building has the potential to be a high quality piece of open space but in terms of landscaped area it cannot be considered to be fully compensatory.
8.7 Policy B4 of the Replacement Structure Plan states that development of areas of open space will not be permitted, except on those sites identified for development by other development plan policies. The City Centre Strategy identifies the site for development as part of the St. David’s 2 development.
8.8 It must be recognised however that in addition to the established Development Plan policies, the site prior to the St. David’s 2 consents was already developed, and that the St. David’s 2 consents may have lapsed do not override from the fact that the current open space was always intended to be temporary, as expressed in para 8.3, and that there is no justifiable reason to refuse consent for development on the basis of loss of the current open space.
It should also be noted in this context that the St. David’s 2 development provided new and enhanced areas of public space namely along the Hayes, St. John’s Churchyard and Hill Street.
105 b) Land Use
8.9 The site lies within the City Centre Principle Business Area, policy 35 of the Local Plan favours office development subject to consideration of scale, location, design, amenity and transportation.
The proposed building retains a mix of Use Classes, including B1 (Offices), A1 (Retail) and/ or A3 (Food and Drink). The principle for the re-development of the site for a mixed use development is supported through the above planning framework. As such the principle for the proposed Offices, in land- use terms, is acceptable. The sites would also be consistent with the aims and objectives of the City Centre Strategy (Core Area).
8.10 With regard to the proposed ground floor A1/ A3 units; the Premises for Eating, Drinking and Entertainment in the City Centre SPG identifies that A3 (food and drink) uses are most appropriately located in the City Centre PSA, District and Local Centres and the City Centre PBA. A proposed A1/A3 Use has the potential to contribute toward the vitality of the area, by diversifying its attractions and facilities and by promoting local environmental improvements through enhancing the public realm. However, the SPG does state that consideration should be given to whether a proposal, in conjunction with existing and approved similar uses, would give rise to or exacerbate problems of public safety and security, which, by impacting on public perceptions, will harm the vitality, attractiveness and viability of an area, particularly at night.
8.11 The advice of South Wales Police has therefore been sought and a restriction of opening times condition imposed to ensure the amenities of current and future residential occupiers in the vicinity of the site are protected.
c) Design
8.12 At its highest point (SE corner) the building is 61m above street level. It is significantly higher than its immediate neighbours and is one of the tallest buildings in Cardiff. The Tall Buildings SPG applies.
8.13 The SPG states that tall buildings will be assessed having regard to locational criteria, specifically that they will only be acceptable where they: - are located within easy walking distance of public transport hubs - create a positive feature in the city skyline - add to legibility of city and wider townscape - terminate or enclose important vistas - have a minimal visual impact on sensitive historic environments (including conservation areas and their setting)
8.14 The SPG also states that tall buildings will be assessed having particular regard to their design, specifically:
106 - Form and silhouette of the building - Quality and appearance - Impact and interface at street level - Sustainable design
8.15 In terms of location the building is within easy walking distance (defined as up to 600m in the SPG) of both city centre railway stations, and is well served by buses with stops adjacent to the site. The series of verified views demonstrate that the building enhances the city skyline (see ‘Impact on city skyline’ below) and its location at the foot of Charles Street and adjacent to the east side entrance to SD2, Motorpoint Arena and Cineworld adds legibility to the wider townscape and terminates an important vista from the Charles Street CA. Its impact on the CA is not considered harmful, a view supported by the lack of objection and comments from the Conservation Group.
8.16 In terms of design the form and silhouette of the building has evolved during the pre-application process to address the impact of the height and bulk of the building on the skyline. The splitting of the building mass, difference in height of the two wings and the positive top to the building has resulted in a form and silhouette that has a strong vertical emphasis in views from the south and north. The views from the west and east are of a more slab like building and the facades are sculpted with deep window reveals behind a dominant vertical double storey order to provide articulation and interest and a vertical emphasis.
8.17 The distinctive double order colonnade at the top of the building, screening the plant and a terrace area for the use of staff, and the generous ground floor and colonnade to the western edge give the building a strong bottom and top of appropriate proportions for the scale of building.
8.18 The form and silhouette of the building, tested through a series of verified views is acceptable.
8.19 The SPG states that tall buildings must be of the highest quality in terms of appearance and materials. The architectural detailing of the facades reveals a clear understanding of proportions. The use of a double order lends the building a vertical emphasis which together with the subtle modelling of the precast columns and the depth of the façade gives the building a richness and subtlety of façade lacking in many of the other tall buildings in Cardiff. The simple palette of materials of Portland stone coloured precast concrete, glass and anodised aluminium is high quality and durable and appropriate for the building’s scale and setting.
8.20 Quality and appearance of architectural detailing and materials is acceptable.
107 8.21 The various ground floor uses have been positioned in direct response to the site’s surroundings – the main retail/café/restaurants are located under the colonnade on the west to animate the pedestrian route and open space and provide links with the SD2 east side entrance and food court and entertainment facilities provided by Cineworld and the Motorpoint Arena. A further A1/A3 unit is located on the north-east corner to provide an active termination to the Charles street approach from the north. Activity is maintained along the east façade with the location of the 300 seat staff canteen which will be a vibrant space throughout the day and evening.
8.22 The impact and interface at street level is exemplary for a large office block.
8.23 Sustainable Design: The SPG states that Tall Buildings must achieve a BREEAM rating of Excellent in the appropriate category. The building is designed to achieve this rating as evidenced by the BREEAM Pre- Assessment Report. The sustainability strategy comprises maximisation of daylighting to office floors, and a solar shading strategy that exploits the deep window reveals and window orientation. The east and west facades have vertical shading provided by the precast piers and the south façade has horizontal shading provided by anodised aluminium fins. Efficient energy systems are employed: Heat recovery systems on mechanical ventilation; zoned heating and cooling; internal lighting controlled by motion and daylight detectors; a smart metering strategy; and either solar hot water heating or a heat recovery boiler from the cooling system. Natural ventilation was considered but deemed inappropriate due to noise and pollution from traffic. Photovoltaics are installed on the roof of the western wing, screened by the top storey colonnade.
Impact on City skyline
8.24 The impact on the city skyline has been tested by means of a series of verified views from key viewpoints: - View from Castle Keep - View from Mary Ann Street/ Bute Terrace - View from Charles Street - View from Guildford Street - View from East Tyndall Street/ Ocean Way
8.25 Longer views were assessed from The Barrage, Penarth Heights, Rhymney, and Caerphilly Hill but it was judged that the impact of the building, when seen at this distance and in the context of other tall buildings in the city centre, was insignificant.
8.26 With the exception of the view from Guildford Street the verified views demonstrate that the building enhances the skyline. The views from Mary Ann Street and Charles Street demonstrate the quality of the building. The view
108 from Guildford Street resulted in amendments to the design of the top of the building on the east elevation, introducing intermediate columns. An image is included that indicates the outline of the consented development on the Rapport site superimposed on the verified view. The verified view as amended is acceptable.
8.27 Having regard to Tall Buildings SPG and the fact that there are other notable tall buildings within the near vicinity of the site, namely Altolusso, Radison Hotel, Pellett Street student block, Landmark Place, the impact of the Admiral proposal is complementary to the city skyline and is considered acceptable.
Impact on Conservation Area
8.28 Although not sited in a Conservation Area there is an impact arising from the height of the building and its juxtaposition to the Charles Street Conservation Area. The main impact will be the views of the building when approaching along Charles Street. The verified view shows how the building will appear from a point outside the Ebeneezer church. A building of such a scale is clearly visible from the main street of the Conservation Area but is no difference to other tall buildings in the context of an adjoining City Centre Conservation Area, eg. Landmark place, Churchill Way Conservation Area. The simple ordered design of the building viewed from the north and the use of reconstituted portland stone is sympathetic and does not prejudice the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
8.29 It should also be noted that the buildings on Charles Street in this view are Grade II listed. Although not a material consideration in assessing the application the impact of the building on their setting is not considered adverse.
8.30 Conservation Group comments were positive, making a specific reference to the improved view from Charles Street in their comments.
8.31 Public realm improvements to the Charles St. / Bridge Street crossing will also enhance the CA and provide a stronger link to the south.
8.32 The impact on the setting of the CA is acceptable.
d) Public Realm, Landscaping and Public Art
8.33 The public realm proposal reflects the strong orthogonal geometry of the building whilst integrating a number of the permanent features associated with the SD2 development. The design aims to maintain the active use and seating areas flowing out from the SD2 eastside food court while tieing the scheme into the surrounding urban fabric, particularly the north-south link to the west
109 side of the building and the Bridge Street/ Charles Street link to the north of the building.
8.34 This is achieved by creating a key pedestrian route and open space on the west side of the development. The generous colonnade with active retail frontage engages with the public realm and enhances the area and has the potential to become a destination in its own right. The existing raised grass terrace will be extended to the south and enhanced with additional planting, providing more greenery and screening pedestrians from car park traffic and the utilitarian car park building.
8.35 The surfacing material will be granite paving to match improvements to The Hayes and St. Mary’s Street and in line with the objectives of the Cardiff City Centre Public Realm Manual. Shared surface areas and the loading bay will be paved in natural stone sets to match the paving.
8.36 Semi-mature trees are to be planted to the perimeter of the building, positioned to express streets, reinforce corners and frame views. Those to David Street provide an extension to the existing tree-lined boulevard in Charles Street. Those to Bridge Street are containerised due to restrictions imposed by existing underground services.
8.37 Lighting to the west side public realm will be via wall-mounted lighting integrated with the façade treatment. The existing line of column lights to the west of the site would be in the centre of the proposed pedestrian route and they will be removed and relocated elsewhere in the city centre as part of the S106 public realm works.
8.38 Feature lighting will include LED uplighting to trees and linear floor lights integrated with the benches. Benches will be polished black granite.
8.39 The on-site public realm proposals are acceptable subject to standard landscaping conditions.
8.40 With regard to off-site public realm the proposed development, in particular the increase in pedestrian activity associated with patrons arriving / leaving the proposed offices and A1 or A3 establishments throughout the day and at night, will impact on the use of the public realm in the vicinity of the site and policy 2.55 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan identifies the need for new developments to make appropriate provision for public realm improvements. In addition, Policy B2 of the adopted South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan favours measures to improve the environmental quality of the urban fabric.
8.41 Strategic Objective 6 of the City Centre Strategy’s Central Core Chapter is “to improve the function, character and quality of public spaces”, whilst Action 3 is
110 “to identify and deliver major public realm enhancements including paving, street furniture, lighting and public art”. This is supported by Action 4 of the ‘Urban Design and Public Realm’ Chapter which is “to secure contributions from new developments for public realm enhancements”.
8.42 Developer contributions are an important factor in delivering environmental enhancements and the precedent of securing public realm contributions in the city centre is well established. Both the City Centre Strategy and the Charles Street Conservation Area Appraisal recognise the need to upgrade the public realm in the area to a standard commensurate with that in the surrounding area in order to provide a safer and more attractive environment than that which serves the site at present.
8.43 As identified by the applicants submission there are a series of routes into and out of the site, notably heading north along Charles Street to Queen Street, heading east along Bridge Street and south crossing the Cinema complex junction and onto Mary Ann Street.
8.44 An indicative scheme for public realm works in these areas has been negotiated with the applicant to ensure key pedestrian routes are suitably enhanced, namely the resurfacing of Bridge Street from the service car park entrance to the Charles Street crossing, the tabling, resurfacing and decluttering of the Charles Street/ Bridge Street junction, and a scheme of enhancement for Mary Ann Street from the Bute Street junction to the David Street junction. Works to the David Street/ Mary Ann Street junction, including the relocation of the pedestrian crossing further south, are in the process of being agreed as part of a separate legal agreement.
8.45 The off site works are to be secured by an S106 agreement and an S278 agreement for highway improvement works.
8.46 With regard to the Public Art Framework which forms a part of the application the enhancement of the public realm through the provision of public art is an important element to enhancing the quality of the built environment within the city. The level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant and the detail provided in the document is considered appropriate given the scale of the development, subject to securing the proposed works through a condition.
8.47 A public art brief has been submitted. The objectives of the public art are: o Assist in creating an individual identity for the development o Highlight cultural and historic references for city as a whole o Stimulate and involve the public o Complement the architecture and public realm design A panel with a representative from the Planning Department has been set up to select an artist and progress the proposals. The artist will be selected from a shortlist through an interview procedure.
111 8.48 It should be noted that given the previous requirement for a water feature as part of the public art submission in this site, this element also needs to be included within the scheme (see condition 10).
e) Access and Parking
8.49 The Agent for the applicant states that Admiral will be providing some 1100- 1300 new jobs with central Cardiff in a new building in one of the most sustainable locations within Wales.
The planning application makes provision for 120 car parking spaces which will be allocated to Admiral’s staff based on length of service.
Admiral already have a sustainable travel policy to encourage their staff to travel to work in modes other than a singularly occupied car. This green ethos is manifest in the 67% of existing staff who already travel to work sustainably. Cardiff’s APR shows that the average modal split for travel to work within the city is 47.7% by non car modes.
Admiral are therefore clearly superior to the majority of other office users within the city in this regard. Importantly, and given the nature of their business, only 30% of journeys made to work to the new building will be made during the peak periods. It is during these peak periods that the Council’s policy is targeted at reducing commuting by car into the city via high charges for long stay parking, decriminalised parking preventing on road parking and the promotion of public transport.
The agreed position is that Admiral will commit to a Travel Plan (amended version attached) through a Section 106. Within this agreement, Admiral will;
x Revamp and re launch their existing car sharing database and link to the www.sewtacarshare.com car sharing database with support from Sewta’s Travel Plan coordinator; x Provide financial incentives (such as salary sacrifice schemes which typically can save 40% of the cost of a bicycle; x Offer discounts or loans for season tickets for staff travel by public transport; x Continue to actively promote all of the existing and future Park and Ride facilities within Cardiff to their staff. This also will be linked to car sharing as the Park and Ride could also be used as a Park and Share. More importantly there will be a financial commitment to subsidising the cost of a Park and Ride space for every member of staff who chooses to travel in this fashion. This will amount 50% of the council-subsidised rate (£2), capped at £30 per month. Admiral will commit to this for 3 years from beneficial occupation;
112 x In addition and following negotiations with the Council, the development will commit to the discounted purchase of 50 Park and Ride Spaces (available 7 days/week) for the first 12 months following beneficial occupation for the maximum sum of £26,000. After this period, there will be a commitment to review the success of these Park and Ride initiatives and x Already committed within the design of the building to high quality changing rooms, lockers and showers and 120 cycle parking spaces.
Whilst it is the ‘norm’ for the highway authority to seek financial contributions (through policy) relating to development within the city centre, Admiral’s position is different to this ‘one size fits all’ approach and is not applicable in this regard. Their business will have a negligible impact on roads within the city centre during the peak hours. This is reflected in the agreed financial contribution of £26,000 via a Section 106 for 50 park and Ride spaces for 12 months.
8.50 The Operational Manager Transportation has raised no objection to the parking and access arrangements but has set out his requirements for the Travel Plan (see para 5.1). There is therefore no reason to refuse the proposal on access, parking or transport grounds.
8.51 Impact on neighbouring development: The existing neighbouring development is commercial and the proposals raise no issues of privacy or overshadowing. There will be overshadowing of development immediately to the north but this is not unusual in a city centre context and planning policy affords no overriding protection to non-residential uses.
8.52 There is an outline consent for a mixed use development including an 18 storey residential tower to the other side of David Street on the Rapport site and the owners have objected on the grounds of the effect of the proposals on the privacy of future residents. The minimum distance from office windows to the proposed residential development is 21m which complies with privacy policy and guidance for a normal out of centre residential context.
Microclimate
8.53 Air quality: The Assessment Report reviews existing air quality in the vicinity of the proposed development, makes qualitative assessments of potential changes in air quality arising from construction and operation (car park and boiler plant) and a quantitative assessment of potential changes in air quality from traffic associated with the development. The methodology was agreed with Environmental Protection.
8.54 The conclusion reached is that the 120 space car park with ventilation exhaust at ground level and a 2.6 MW boiler plant at roof level is not expected
113 to significantly impact local air quality The closest Air Quality Management Area is the St. Mary Street AQMA about 300m to the west of the application site.
8.55 The impact of traffic generated by the development has been assessed using the DMRB spreadsheet. The magnitude of change in NO2 and fine particulate matter concentrations are expected to be imperceptible at the assessed receptors.
8.56 Wind effects: The wind desk study carried out in advance of the application was generally favourable. However the results of the recently completed wind tunnel tests (May workshop) indicated that there would be two locations near the south east corner of the building where conditions would be uncomfortable for the elderly and cyclists (Lawson criteria of ‘Business walking’). This arises from the prevailing SW winds striking the long face of the building and causing a downdraught on to the public realm.
8.57 The process of designing a canopy to mitigate the effects is ongoing and a condition has been added to control the eventual location (extent and height) and design. Options have been prepared which will be presented to Committee. The preference is for a highly transparent canopy cantilevered/ suspended from the building above first floor level with a projection of the order of 4m. Design, extent and location to be determined through further wind tunnel testing. The objective is a canopy that mitigates the wind effects, complements the building and does not interfere with the experience of pedestrians using the pedestrian route.
8.58 Overshadowing of amenity spaces: Sun path diagrams for winter and summer solstice and the equinox at different times throughout the day show that between the hours of 9.00am and 2.00pm the public realm to the west side of the building (including the amenity area outside the SD2 east side entrance) will receive some sunlight. The whole area is in sunshine in the late morning. In the summer these hours extend to 4.00pm in the afternoon when the ground floor of the west side of the building is still in sunshine. At the winter solstice sunshine still reaches the area at 10.00 am but for not more than an hour or so.
8.59 The diagrams confirm that the southerly aspect of the public realm and the absence of tall buildings to the south and relatively lower buildings to the west ensures that the space will receive adequate amounts of sunlight, well in excess of the minimum in the BRE guidelines which state that an amenity space should not experience a greater level of permanent overshadowing than 40% on the spring equinox.
114 8.60 The proposed development will not have an adverse impact in terms of overshadowing on the proposed public realm and existing neighbouring amenity areas (area immediately outside SD2).
8.61 Waste management arrangements are acceptable subject to a condition for more details.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 In conclusion the issues have been addressed as follows:
9.2 Loss of open space: Notwithstanding the amenity value of the temporary landscaped area and Policy 7 of the Local Plan its loss is considered acceptable for the following reasons: o The principle of development of the site is established by the development plan and supporting policies / guidance; o The current landscaping of the site has always been established on the basis that this was temporary pending the redevelopment of the site; o The site is a brownfield site which until 2009 was a multistorey car park; o An area of open space is provided on site which although not compensatory in terms of area, has the potential to be a significant enhancement to the network of informal city centre open spaces.
9.3 Land use: The proposed office use complies with policy and the number of additional jobs being created will bring significant economic benefits to Cardiff city centre. The A1/A3 use complies with policy and has the potential, together with public realm improvements, to introduce more activity and significantly enhance the Bridge Street square area as a leisure destination.
9.4 Design: Although the building is significantly higher than its immediate neighbours its location, form and silhouette, quality of materials and architectural detailing, interface at ground level, and sustainability credentials meet policy and guidance criteria.
9.5 The impact on the skyline and on the setting of the CA is acceptable.
9.6 Public realm: Considering the level of footfall that the development will generate the public realm scheme, including the provision of public art, has the potential to create an attractive area of open space and a destination in its own right from the outset. Offsite public realm improvements to Bridge Street and Mary Ann Street (details to be agreed) are secured by legal agreement.
9.7 Transportation issues: The number of parking spaces provided meets policy guidelines and is considered acceptable. The impact of any additional car journeys into the city centre is mitigated by a robust travel plan including a
115 financial commitment to park and ride secured by legal agreement – see transport response.
9.8 Impact on neighbouring development, air quality and microclimate (sunlight and wind) is acceptable.
9.9 The granting of planning permission is recommended subject to conditions being imposed and a legal agreement (Section 106) being signed to secure a financial contribution for improvements to transportation and public realm in the local area.
116 117 118 119 120 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/00563/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 29/03/2011
ED: GRANGETOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Lindstrand Aeroplatforms (Cardiff) Ltd LOCATION: NORTH WEST SIDE OF THE BARRAGE, CARDIFF BAY, CARDIFF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF 'SKYFLYER' TETHERED AEROSTAT WITH VIEWING GONDOLA AND WINCH RETRIEVAL, CONSTRUCTION OF FIXED SEA PLATFORM WITH BRIDGE WALKWAY LINK THERETO TOGETHER WITH RESURRECTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FORMER 'TUBE' TO ACCOMODATE CAFE RESTUARANT, TOILETS, ASSEMBLY AREA, TICKET OFFICE AND CREW REST AREA ON NORTH-WEST SIDE OF THE BARRAGE CARDIFF BAY CARDIFF ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30th June 2016. Reason: To enable the local planning authority to assess the effects of the development at the end of the period with regard to any fresh application that may be submitted.
2. Prior to commencement of the development details of the layout, allocation and access to the car and disabled parking provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The parking shown in the approved details shall be provided prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and shall thereafter be maintained and retained for that use. Reason: To make provision for the parking of vehicles clear of the road so as not to prejudice the safety of vehicle, cycle and pedestrian traffic on the Barrage.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the means of securing the access pier and platform when not in use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented prior to the beneficial use of the development and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.
121 Reason. In the interests of safety.
4. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of development details of the finish materials in respect of the access bridge, platform and supporting columns, decking and balustrade hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area.
5. Prior to the commencement of development details of the containment and management of fuels, oils greases and waste water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the beneficial use of the development and shall thereafter be retained and maintained. Reason. To protect the quality of the inland bay waters.
6. H7G Plant Noise
7. No member of the public shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on any part of the development hereby approved between the hours of 23:00 and 08:00 on any day. Reason: In the interests of amenity.
8. No illumination of the balloon or gondola shall be permitted before 0800hrs and after 2300hrs on any day. Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area.
9. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the letter, Design & Access Statement Addendum, application form extract and th plans received on the 11 May 2011. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
10. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of development a detailed scheme of lighting to the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall show that there will be no conflict with colours and/or method of operation of maritime navigation lights in operation in the vicinity of the site and shall also provide for the display of maritime navigation lights as necessary. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the beneficial use of the development and shall thereafter be so retained and maintained. Reason. For mariner safety and the safety of future users.
11. F7Q Kitchen Extraction
122 12. C2N Drainage details
13. Foul water and surface water shall drain separately from the site. Reason. To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
14. Surface water and land drainage run-off shall not discharge into the public sewerage system. Reason. To prevent the hydraulic overloading of the sewerage system and pollution.
15. Before the cafe is brought into beneficial use, a grease trap, which prevents the entry into the public sewerage system of matter likely to interfere with the free flow of sewer contents, or which would prejudice the treatment and disposal of such contents, shall have been installed. Reason. To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
16. Prior to the commencement of development a site management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include (but not be limited to) details of appropriate management of visitor behaviour. Reason. To ensure an orderly form of development.
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 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) 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: That the site be alarmed with a system that is capable of alerting authorities and/or achieving a response should the winch system be interfered with and/or the balloon released by unauthorised persons as this would create a safety risk to air traffic and local residents.
123 RECOMMENDATION 4: 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
1.1 The proposals under consideration have two elements: Element 1 - The provision of a tethered aerostat balloon ride facility, and Element 2 - The provision of an associated café/restaurant, ticket office, crew facilities and public toilets within the (relocated) former Cardiff Bay Visitor Centre (the ‘Tube’).
1.2 Element 1 – The Aerostat, Platform & Bridge Link
The proposal seeks to site a tethered Aerostat balloon with associated gondola, landing platform and mooring mast on a fixed sea platform approx. 35.3m (Barrage footpath to platform centre) into the impounded waters of Cardiff Bay. An access bridge of approx. 17m length would extend to the sea platform from the bay side of the ‘Tube’ element. The viewing gondola will sit atop the platform when not in flight at a height of approx. 9.5m AOD (the height of the Barrage Footpath) thus providing level access from footpath to ride facility.
1.2.1 The Aerostat (shaped similarly to a Barrage Balloon), would measure approx. 17m in diameter (tapering towards the tail end) and would have a horizontal dimension of approx. 31m nose to tail. There are also three tail fins which increase the overall width of the balloon to approx. 22.8m and the height (balloon only) to approx. 24.4m.
1.2.2 When not in flight, the Aerostat would have a ‘high moored’ height of approx. 30.0m (from the base of the gondola to the top of the tail fin) which, in times of adverse weather (wind speeds in excess of 70 knots), would be reduced to the ‘low moored’ height of approx. 27.0m. The mooring facilities include a retractable nose tower, four winch mooring points within the landing platform and the main cable winch, contained underneath the sea platform base.
1.2.3 The balloon & associated development would be sited for a period of 5 years, with operation of the balloon ‘flights’ taking place between 08:00 and 23:00
124 daily. The balloon envelope and gondola will be the subject of internally and externally illuminated advertising. The advertisement proposals are the subject of a separate application.
1.3 Element 2 – The ‘Tube’ Restaurant/Café, Ticket Office, Crew Facilities and Public Toilets
1.3.1 The former Cardiff Bay Visitor Centre ‘tube’ is to be used for the ancillary uses specified above. The tube is to be sited parallel with the existing Barrage footpath and is to be mounted on stilts cut into the existing embankment to provide level and flat access from the existing footpath.
1.3.2 The tube is an elliptical cylinder measuring approx, 43m long x 12.6m wide x 4.9m high. The tube as proposed is to be sub-divided into three sections – crew area/ticket office and kitchen; open deck seating and circulation area (central section) and an enclosed restaurant/café seating area with public toilets.
1.3.3 The tube is to be finished in a heavy duty construction ‘canvas’ material, with glazed ends and windows to the bay side. Three small ‘bridge’ walkways link the tube to the footpath (one public access and two fire escape/staff access). A balustrade of approx. 1.1m height encloses the open deck area on both the Barrage footpath and bay sides.
1.4 On site parking provision is proposed for up to 6 staff and an additional 2 spaces for disability parking. Access to these parking spaces will be controlled by the Council’s Barrage Management through independent agreements.
1.5 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement (DAS) and by photographic montages which seek to provide an indication of views of the proposals from various points around the Bay. An addendum to the DAS has been submitted which provides additional information relating to how it is anticipated visitors will get to the proposed facility.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The proposed development is sited partially on the Cardiff Bay Barrage and partly within the impounded waters of Cardiff Bay, on the north-west side of the Barrage, towards its southern end. At this point, the Barrage bund is a relatively steep grass bank, with a (Cardiff County Council) gravel surface maintenance track at the bottom.
2.2 The centre of the proposed platform is approx. 85m north of the Barrage fish pass, approx. 210m from Barrage Lock no.1 and approx. 318m from the nearest residential dwelling at no. 56 Plas Taliesin, Penarth Marina.
125 3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 There is no history relating to this specific site. However the following details relate to a site in very close proximity (closer to the fish pass):
07/334C – New Café – Approved
3.2 In addition to the above, the following details outline the history of planning applications for a tethered balloon ride facility within the Bay area:
09/2190C – Proposed Skyflier Aerostat with landing platform, bridge, ticket office and winch retrieval (North side of Roath Basin outer lock) – Approved.
A09/247C – Advertisements to the proposed Skyflyer Aerostat and viewing gondola – Approved.
A09/226C – Advertisements to a Skyflier Aerostat and gondola (North side of Roath Basin Lock) – Withdrawn.
09/1953C – Proposed Skyflier Aerostat, gondola, landing platform, sea platform and bridge (South side of Roath Basin Lock) – Withdrawn.
A09/144C – Advertisements to a proposed Aerostat balloon & Gondola (Britannia Park) – Refused.
09/1424C – Proposed Skyflier Aerostat balloon, gondola and landing platform (Britannia Park) – Refused.
08/2713C – Proposed Hyflier balloon, gondola, landing platform and winch house (Britannia Park) – Approved.
A08/205C – Proposed advertisements to Hyflier balloon and gondola panels – Approved.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The relevant Local Plan Policies are:
Policy 7 – Protection of open space; Policy 9 – Development in areas of flooding; Policy 10 – Contaminated or unstable land; Policy 11 – Design; Policy 17 – Parking and servicing; Policy 18 – Provision for cyclists; Policy 19 – Provision for pedestrians; Policy 20 – Provision for special needs groups;
126 Policy 45 – Sport, recreation and leisure facilities.
4.2 Relevant policies in the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan October 2003 are:
Policy 2.20 – Design; Policy 2.49 – Protection of open space; Policy 2.57 – Access, circulation & parking; Policy 2.61 – Protection of water resources; Policy 2.62 – Flood risk; Policy 2.63 – Contaminated and unstable land; Policy 2.64 – Air, noise and light pollution; Policy 2.74 – Waste management.
4.3 Other relevant Planning Guidance includes:
Planning Policy Wales 2010 The City Centre Strategy 2007-2010
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Transportation makes the following comments:
“I would confirm that the site of the proposed ‘skyflyer’ is within the Central/Bay core area as defined by the Access, Circulation and Parking Standards SPG, and as such attracts a minimum parking allocation of zero spaces for staff and visitors. It is noted the application form makes reference to two disability and six car spaces on the existing barrage road, however there appears to be no confirmation who can use these spaces (public/existing staff/incoming staff) and they are beyond the public vehicle access barrier. It is also noted that the public barrage visitors car park is located a short level walk (circa 300m) south of the proposed site, and while it is acknowledged that the car park can become busy at peak times, it is nonetheless considered that this facility will accommodate the majority of any additional trips generated by the development.
There is also no reference to the provision of cycle parking within the application, however it is noted from the submitted plans that there are a number of stands located just to the south of the site and I am therefore satisfied that this transport mode is already catered for.
I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is policy compliant in terms of public car and cycle parking provision, however would request the condition below be appended to any permission to address access to and use of the spaces identified in the application, particularly the use of the disability spaces.
127 Vehicle Parking – Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted details of the layout, allocation and access to the car and disabled parking provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The parking shown in the approved details shall be provided prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter maintained and retained for that use. Reason: To make provision fro the parking of vehicles clear of the road so as not to prejudice the safety of vehicle, cycle and pedestrian traffic on the Barrage.”
5.2 The Operational Manager Waste Management has no objection, but comments that a commercial contract is required for the collection and disposal of commercial waste.
5.3 The Land Use Policy Manager makes the following comments:
The policy framework for this advice is as follows:
Planning Policy Wales (Edition 3, July 2010) City of Cardiff Local Plan (Adopted January 1996) South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (April 1997) Cardiff Deposit Local Development Plan 2006 – 2021 (March 2009) City Centre Strategy (2007 – 2010)
Description
“The site lies outside (but on the boundary of) the Inner Harbour Principal Business Area of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan and within the ‘Waterfront’ area of the City Centre Strategy (2007-2010). As such, the main Strategic Planning (Regeneration) considerations are:
1. Whether the proposed Skyflier Balloon and associated restaurant / cafe is an appropriate land use within the Bay’s Waterfront Area.
Policy 44 of the Local Plan identifies the Inner Harbour Waterfront Area as land for sport, recreation and leisure facilities. Although located outside this boundary, 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, assessed against relevant policies of the plan.
The Cardiff Bay Barrage is located within the former Cardiff Bay Development Corporation Boundary and forms an integral part of the bay’s waterfront area; As such the proposed ‘Skyflier’ tethered aerostat is considered acceptable in land use policy terms at the proposed location subject to detailed design, amenity and transport considerations.
128 With regard to Policy 7 (Protection of Open Space):
The Cardiff Bay Barrage contains approximately 3.5ha of Amenity (and informal recreational) Open Space. Whilst the proposal would result in the loss of a small section of the Amenity Open Space, the bulk of the development is positioned over water and the proposed design would not subdivide the open space, nor impact on pedestrian / vehicle movement through the area. Indeed, the proposal has the potential to add to the vitality and use of the surrounding open space by attracting increased visitor numbers to the area and providing and enhanced leisure / tourism offer.
5.4 The Operational Manager Harbour Authority has no objection to the proposal and makes the following comments:
“This development would provide a new visitor attraction in Cardiff Bay if it is approved. The development also includes a permanent cafe together with improved public toilets and offices in a refurbished "Tube" building. Visitor surveys have consistently identified the need for improved toilets and a permanent cafe in this location and therefore this would be a welcome addition to the facilities in this area.
The position of the structure that supports the actual balloon within the Bay is in an area which is unlikely to impact on boat movements. This structure will require navigation lights to be provided by the developer as part of this project.”
5.4.1 Further to the above, the following comments are made in specific respect of the position of the platform and balloon in relation to the movement of sailing craft on the impounded waters in response to concerns raised by the Cardiff Bay Yacht Club:
“I have looked at the concerns raised by the Yacht Club with regard to the effect of the Skyflyer structure and tethers on navigation. Taking the two points separately:
- The ‘lost space’ is not significant, as it lies behind the inside edge of the rowing lanes and close into the sluice jetty. There are already a number of navigational obstructions in this area, and the proximity to the sluices means that it is generally an area to be avoided in any case. Whether it ‘sets a precedent’ is another matter, but then if there were to be a development which caused a significant loss to the navigable space in the Bay I suspect the Harbour Authority would object anyway.
- The risk to yacht masts is, I believe, very low. I have done some very basic calculations, using the mast height of the tallest vessel we currently have in the Bay, and based on a 10 m distance from the centre of the vessel to the
129 edge of the skyflyer, there would be no contact even with a heel angle of 45° (although I have assumed that the balloon would be straight above the platform, and that the closest tether would have a 15 m lead angle from platform to balloon edge). Given that any deviation of the balloon and its tethers would be downwind, any vessel so close as to risk its mast would be running aground in any case. The actual ‘exclusion zone’ would need to be a semi-circle of radius 40m around the centre of the skyflyer platform rather than a long strip along the Barrage shoreline, so again I do not believe the structure or balloon would create a significant problem for navigation in the Bay.”
5.5 The Pollution Control Manager (Noise and Air) has no objection subject to conditions in respect of plant noise; hours of opening; hours of illumination and kitchen fume extraction.
He further advises that whilst there is no adverse comment in respect of light nuisance, further detailed advice on luminance can be found in the Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE) Technical Report no. 5 ‘Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements’.
The Contaminated Land Manager has no comment.
5.6 The Chief Highways & Waste Management Officer (Drainage) has made no comment.
5.7 The Operational Manager Tourism Development & Visitor Services has no objection and makes the following comments:
“Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to comment on the application for ‘Skyflier’ in Cardiff Bay.
We support this development on the basis that it adds an appropriate new attraction to Cardiff Bay.
In tourism development terms it is crucial to have a core of quality, complementary elements within a tourism destination. The Skyflier meets this objective and provides an additional ‘magnet’ to draw visitors and provide an enhanced leisure and educational offer to the local community. The proposed location will assist in drawing visitors to the Barrage, thus improving pedestrian circulation.
This proposal fits with the Council’s approved Tourism Strategy and Action Plan on a number of counts, please see the most relevant extract from the Tourism Strategy below:
130 f Create an ongoing programme of distinctive and high quality activities to encourage year-round visits f Identify ways to interpret and tell the story of the Docks and the Bay f Protect the development of the Bay to ensure it’s attractive to families and couples
Create an ongoing programme of distinctive and high quality activities to encourage year-round visits.
Identify and encourage regular or ongoing attractions such as tethered balloon, temporary beach, street markets, street entertainment etc.”
The re-use of the ‘Tube’ is particularly helpful and will add further much need facilities to the location.”
5.8 The Council’s Ecology Office makes the following comments:
“We have no comments to make on the above application regarding any ecological constraints.”
5.9 The Council’s access officer was involved in pre-application discussions and has been consulted on the application. No comments have been received.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Environment Agency Wales make the following comments:
“The site lies entirely within zone B, as defined by the development advice map (dam) referred to under TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004). The Environment Agency's floodplain maps show that the proposed tube structure is not within a fluvial floodplain and we have no record or awareness of any flooding having occurred to the site.
Other sources, for example, Local Unitary Authorities, may be able to provide information on issues such as localised flooding from drains, culverts, etc. We note from the information provided that the development involves excavation to the barrage. Cardiff Harbour Authority should be satisfied that any work will have no detrimental effect on the structural integrity of the Barrage.
We also note that the applicant proposes to locate a number of piers within Cardiff Bay, between the 4.5 and 8 metre contour levels. This will reduce the live storage volume of Cardiff Bay and must be compensated for with an
131 equivalent/or greater volume on a level for level basis. This should be provided in the submission of detailed calculations and drawings illustrating how flood storage volumes are to be maintained. The provision of compensatory storage must be approved and in place prior to the determination of this planning application.
The watercourses known as the River Ely/Taff, is scheduled as a statutory main rivers, pursuant to the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environment Agency's Land Drainage Byelaws. The prior formal Flood Defence Consent (formerly a land drainage consent) of the Environment Agency must be obtained for any works in, under or over the watercourse, or within 7 metres of the base of any floodbank or wall, or where there is no bank or wall, within 7 metres of the top of the riverbank.
We refer you and the applicant to our Planning Advice Note for further advice on drainage and pollution prevention measures.”
6.2 The Civil Aviation Authority have no objection. The CAA advice has been passed to the applicant.
6.3 Associated British Ports have been consulted and no comments have been received.
6.4 The South Wales Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objection, subject to due consideration of safety and security advice. The advice of the Police ALO has been passed to the applicant.
6.5 Welsh Water have no objection, subject to drainage conditions.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Consultations have taken place in respect of the original submission and in respect of the submission of additional information.
7.2 Local Members have been consulted and no comments have been received.
7.3 Alun Michael MP has been consulted following an initial request to be consulted and no comments have been received to date.
7.4 The Vale of Glamorgan Council has been consulted and a site visit was undertaken as part of their consideration of the application. The Vale of Glamorgan Council have raised no objection, subject to the following comments:
“Consideration has been given to this matter and I would inform you that this Authority wishes to make the following observations on the proposal:
132 1. The Vale of Glamorgan Council requests that a legal obligation be entered into with the developer to provide a financial contribution of £8,000 to support sustainable transport in the Vale of Glamorgan, given the likely traffic generation into an area with high demand for parking and to promote alternative modes of transport to create sustainable development.
2. That the Vale of Glamorgan Council requests that full discussions are entered into with regard to the need to ensure that access is provided to the Barrage car park for sustainable transport with particular emphasis on the provision of a safe and convenient bus stopping area for possible transport that serves Penarth Marina and the Barrage.
3. The Vale of Glamorgan Council requests that consideration be given to likely noise impacts on residents in close proximity to the site at Penarth Marina and Northcliffe as to whether the hours of operation should be limited and/or a temporary consent granted for more limited hours of operation pending a full assessment of these potential impacts.
4. That the Vale of Glamorgan Council requests that full and detailed consideration be given to the representations received from residents of Penarth Marina in relation to the proposal.
5. Concerns are expressed at the loss of the landscaped land to the front of the barrage where the Sky Flyer will be sited.”
7.5 Adjacent occupiers have been consulted directly and via press and site notices. Individual letters of objection have been received from The Penarth Marina and Haven Resident’s Association; Councillor S Williams (Vale of Glamorgan Council) and Penarth Town Council.
7.5.1 The Penarth Marina and Haven Resident’s Association make the following comments in objection to the proposals:
“On behalf of the committee of the Penarth Marina and Haven Residents’ Association, which represents the 700 apartments and houses in the area, I wish to object to the proposed planning applications listed above:
Our objections are on the following grounds: · The planning applications themselves are faulty because they refer to a non-existent post code. CF4 1TP. This is misleading and inaccurate. · The second error is the description of the site as being on the north west side of the barrage. It is actually the south west side..
133 These two errors have caused confusion among residents and resulted in misunderstanding of a planning application and process which should have been clear from the outset. On these two grounds alone the planning applications should be dismissed. If they are not so dismissed, then we shall immediately alert the Local Government Ombudsman to the Cardiff Planning Authority’s act of maladministration. The planning applications may also be subject to legal challenge.
We are also concerned that the letter of 13th April issued to residents directly affected, together with site notices, gave 21 days for response, of which 4 days were public holidays, and only 11 working days. We consider that the way this notice has been issued deprives affected persons and the public of legitimate opportunity to respond within an appropriate consultation period.
We would furthermore note the following matters, which if the applications are accepted to go forward, or were to be properly re-submitted, we would wish to be considered as objections:
(i) While we have no objection to the development as an attraction on the Cardiff Bay perimeter per se, we consider that the location proposed for this planning application is completely inappropriate. We would note that previous objections (2009) have already led to the proposal being withdrawn from the original location at Britannia Park, between the light- ship in the Roath Basin and Norwegian Church on the grounds of inappropriate siting and loss of visual amenity and public park space. The proposal which was narrowly passed (March 2010) by the Cardiff Planning Committee was for a location which was more suitable, at a site on the south east side of Roath Lock. We understand however, that it is now proposed to move it from that location, where there is now an existing legitimate planning consent, because of post-hoc objections from the BBC Drama Village developers, residential developments such as Celestia and Adventurers’ Quay, and adjacent business premises. (ii) We would consider that a location at the North West corner of the barrage at Post Code CF10 4 (junction of Locks Road and Cargo Road) would be a far more suitable location, adjacent to a children’s playground, where there is readily available extensive space for parking, and where there is a need for café facilities for those crossing the barrage. (iii) We would note that the proposed actual location of planning applications 11/00563/DCI and A11/00056/DCI, near the Fish Pass and Barrage Locks, is directly in front of two listed buildings, one of which, the Custom House, has been developed as a successful restaurant, which will be significantly adversely affected by the location of a ‘funfair ride’ straight in front of it. A prestige development of the second building, the Dock Offices, will also be significantly adversely affected, and will cause loss of value to this development site. In addition, it will adversely affect another major listed building, St Augustine’s Church, Penarth.
134 (iv) The siting of the ‘Tube’ to serve as a café/restaurant, crew space and ticket office, together with the Balloon itself, and its launch platform, at this, the narrowest part of the Barrage, will create a significant health and safety risk in the even of an emergency on the Barrage or at the Locks because of the significant crowding at this point. (v) The car parking available at the Barrage Locks car park is already totally insufficient for all weekend and holiday periods. As a result, visitors already park illegally on the Quay Marinas car park, to the detriment of the Marina’s operation, and in the Plas Taliesin area to the serious disadvantage of residents. The proposed Skyrider will make matters much worse, both as a result of parking of additional Skyrider users’ vehicles, the vehicles of those watching its operation, and those using the café in the ‘Tube’ Already bad congestion on Penarth Portway will increase. (vi) Parking on Plas Taliesin, an unadopted road with parking for residents only , where parking is already at a premium for residents, will be extremely adversely affected by people parking to view the balloon from the vantage point of the Bay front. (vii) There will be significant loss of visual amenity for residents of Plas Taliesin, Plas St Andresse and Custom House Place through having a balloon over 100 feet long and rising regularly from 35 metres to about 120 metres directly across their field of vision all day and every day, and at night time as well. In addition there will be a mooring tower, which is not illustrated on the plans, but will be of further visual detriment. (viii) It is proposed for the balloon to operate from 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. These are unreasonable and antisocial hours. This will impair significantly on the residential area, and is a completely inappropriate development opposite such an area. (ix) Light pollution from this development will also be significant - this will be especially true as illuminated advertising will be used together with site arc lamps necessary to light the site after dark. (x) The closing hours for the Barrage are currently 10.00 p.m. We fail to see that it is reasonable for this development to continue for an hour after closing time. (xi) The method of advertising proposed for the balloon (Planning application A11/00056/DCI dated 6/04/11).will also be totally unsuitable for this residential area. As it is proposed to use lasers to project advertising onto the balloon across the entire width of the Bay, together with internal illumination, this will further increase garish and inappropriate light pollution, and be completely out of tune with a residential area.
In conclusion, we would note that this is an unwanted leisure facility of an inappropriate type to be erected in a quiet residential area, which will have significant adverse effect on that area.”
135 7.5.2 Councillor Sophie Williams (Vale of Glamorgan) makes the following comments in objection to the proposals:
I am writing in my capacity as Vale of Glamorgan County Councillor and Penarth Town Councillor for the St Augustine's Ward, Penarth which includes the residential area of Penarth Marina. At this point I also wish to declare an interest in the matter as a resident of Penarth Marina.
I have been contacted by many residents who wish to object to the above planning application and I have been asked to make representations on their behalf. Since being contacted by residents I have consulted within the local area, the local resident's association and my fellow ward Councillor and we are all in agreement that this application would have a huge negative impact on the quality of life of residents in Penarth Marina, would congest our roads further and would not be in keeping with the image of the bay.
Objections:
Consultation: The wrong postcode has been issued on consultation letters from Cardiff Council planning department. This is misleading to residents as it gives the impression of the attraction not being located close to the properties which indeed it is planned to be. Given this mistake and the fact that consultation has coincided with two bank holiday weekends, I would kindly ask Cardiff County Council to reissue letters to residents clearly stating the correct postcode and therefore giving residents adequate time to respond.
I assume that the correct postcode is CF64 1TP. This happens to be my residential postcode. Threfore I am surprised as a resident that I have not been consulted or at all contacted regarding this application. As a ward Councillor I am also surprised not to have been approached for views on behalf of residents as a matter of courtesy.
Below are a summary of the points that I have received from resident of which I fully support both as an elected representative for St Augustine's ward and a Penarth Marina resident:
Location: The proposed location brings with it a number of issues which I will highlight below. Generally it is thought by residents of Penarth Marina that if this attraction were to go ahead, it should be positioned on the Cardiff side by the skate park or further towards the Norwegian Church where there are not residential properties and where there is ample parking and good access. I understand that this was propsed previously and after objections it was declined, however I would urge this to be reconsidered if this Skyflyer is to go ahead.
Intrusion of privacy: The proposed 'fairground ride', as it has been referred
136 to by many residents, would invade the privacy of many residents in the surrounding area given it's proposed height and proximity to residential properties. The proposed location would make it very easy for those using the Skyflyer to view into Penarth Marina resident's properties, through windows and gardens especially Custom House Place facing the barrage and Plas Taliesin both of which would directly or at an angle face the Skyflyer. This is wholly unacceptable.
Pedestrian and traffic congestion: Due to the barrage as an attraction, Penarth Marina already suffers with traffic congestion, especially on weekends and school holidays. The charge at the barrage car park is often shunned in favour of using residential streets and private parking spaces of residents here in the marina or it is at its capacity and simply overflows into Penarth's streets.
On the side of Plas Taliesin this often causes blockages which in turn could be very dangerous shoudl emergency vehicles be needed. This has now been reported to the Vale of Glamorgan Council for consideration of options. If the barrage car park charge were to be scrapped, this would then at least keep people wishing to use the barrage using the Cardiff car parking spaces available, rather than putting the burden on the residents in the Penarth area.
Pedestrian traffic has increased and whilst enjoyment of the area by all is welcomed, there are also consequences in the increase in litter and other forms of anti social behaviour at times. My concern is that with another attraction on this side of the barrage, these issues also increase.
Image: The propsed attraction is not at all in keeping with the beauty of this seaside area. The attraction will block the view out to sea for many residents and will become a permanent scar on the landscape. Many residents have made the point that this type of attraction would quite simply impair the image of the barrage, bay and Penarth.
Light/Noise Pollution: Concerns have been raised with me at the potential pollution in both these areas until 11pm.
Green space: Currently the barrage is enjoyed by many as being a relaxing walk, ride or a place to go and side whilst enjoying the views across Cardiff or out across the channel. To situate this attraction in the proposed location would take that enjoyment away from those using the barrage, especially those using the current grass area. Gren areas are limited within the bay area and must be protected.
Cafe/Tourist Centre: Whilst in principal a cafe is welcomed on the barrage, the ideal location would seem to be at the skate park end where people are able to come from Cardiff Bay and walk to it rather than on the Penarth side.
137 Penarth simply does not have the capacity to accomodate more traffic and certainly does not have the parking space.
I believe that many of the points I have made were also made by Cardiff residents when the attraction was proposed to be located on the other side of the barrage. I understand that a number of objections have been sent by Penarth residents and I hope that all our views will be taken into consideration.
I would request that the planning committee considers holding a site visit of all members to the proposed lcoation before the matter is considered in committee so that the full extent of the intrusion and impact on this residential area can be fully appreciated. I would also ask that a copy of this email is made available to the Chairman and every committee member.
7.5.3 Penarth Town Council make the following comments in objection to the proposals:
“This Council is of the opinion that the application should not be approved for the following reasons:
x The position of the ‘Skyflier’ in close proximity to properties in Penarth Marina will have an adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties. x The proposal will increase the pressure on parking in Penarth Marina to the detriment of local residents who already experience difficulties accessing/egressing their properties particularly at weekends or on bank holidays when visitors use the Cardiff Bay Barrage and its facilities.
Whilst this Council appreciates that there is a public car park in close proximity to the proposed development site experience would suggest that many vehicle users will park on street to avoid paying car parking fees.”
7.5.4 In addition to the above, 87 letters of objection were received in respect of the original submission from residents of Plas Taliesin, Penarth Portway, Custom House Place, Plas St Andresse, Plas St Pol de Leon, Plas Pamir, Plassey Street, John Bachelor Way, Chandlers Way, Vista Court, Northcliffe Drive, Northcliffe, Pierhead View, Terranova Way, Plas Glen Rosa and Anchor Road. A further letter of objection has been received from the owners/operators of the ‘La Marina’ restaurant (the Custom House) and a letter of concern has been received from the Cardiff Bay Yacht Club.
The letters raise the following points as grounds for objection to the proposal:
138 i. Increased demand on already inadequate parking provision adding to an already unacceptable on street parking demand causing increased disturbance and inconvenience to residents; ii. Increased traffic caused by additional visitors to this end of the Barrage on roads that are already inadequate to cater for traffic needs, particularly at peak times; iii. Loss of visual amenity due to the adverse impact that a 31m x 17m balloon will have on views across the Bay and Barrage; iv. Inappropriate siting of a ‘fairground ride’ in the residential area of the Penarth Haven which may encourage further such inappropriate attractions; v. Loss of existing amenity space/linear parkland and introduction of a facility that will cause congestion and conflict between pedestrians and vehicles on the Barrage; vi. Adverse impact on two listed buildings; vii. Unreasonable and anti-social hours of opening that conflict with the Barrage hours of opening; viii. Loss of privacy due to visitors being able to look into gardens and windows of dwellings in Penarth Marina and on Penarth Head; ix. Increase pedestrian traffic causing litter nuisance and anti-social behaviour; x. The proposed Skyflier and associated advertisements will cause noise pollution due to the screams of ‘thrill seekers’ and the mechanics of the operation and will cause light pollution in the ‘beaming’ of advertisements from the opposite side of the bay close to the Norwegian Church; xi. The ticket office and café are sited close to the Norwegian Church, so the Skyflier balloon should be also; xii. Frequent adverse weather conditions make the proposals unviable; xiii. Why do people who live in Penarth Haven have to put up with this when residents on the Cardiff side of the bay, along with the BBC have rejected it? xiv. The proposal is a hazard to yachts and will result in the loss of a significant area of water, close to the Barrage shoreline to sailing; xv. The area is a ‘site of nature and conservation interest’ and the proposals would be detrimental to that. xvi. Loss of light to residents during operation. xvii. The proposal, close to Penarth Head will erode and destroy the identity of Penarth.
7.5.5 A petition of 195 signatures has been received in objection to the proposal on the following grounds:
x Visually intrusive and unsightly x Out of keeping with the surrounding area x Inappropriate location
139 x Inadequate parking x Increased traffic x Noise & light pollution x Late night operation x Poor access to site x Commercial operation close to residential site x Loss of “park” amenity
The petitioners have indicated that they would wish to take to opportunity to speak at Committee when the application is considered.
7.6 The application has been supplemented by additional & amended information and has been amended by the applicant to omit reference to an erroneous postcode. Further direct consultation has taken place with those consulted originally and with those additional persons who had submitted representations. In addition the application was re-advertised by site notice. A further 22 letters have been received which advise that previously submitted representations should be considered relevant in respect of the additional & amended information.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 An application to site a tethered ‘Skyflyer’ aerostat ride facility on an elevated platform within the impounded waters of Cardiff Bay.
8.2 The proposals include a 15m dia. sea platform with a 2.8m wide access bridge. A 12m dia. landing platform accommodating four sets of mooring winches sits atop the sea platform with a central retrieval winch and associated railings, walkways and safety nets. The platform would support the aerostat when not in flight and would serve as a boarding/disembarking point during use.
The proposals further include the re-use of the former Cardiff Bay Visitor Centre (the Tube) as a café/restaurant, crew area, ticket office and public toilets. This facility is to be sited on top of the barrage bund, running parallel with the existing footpath.
8.3 The development site does not lie within any individual land allocation within the adopted Local Plan. However, the Council’s Land Use Policy Manager advises that policy 45 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan indicates 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, assessed against relevant policies in the plan. In this case, the land is currently open amenity space with no land use allocation.
140 It is acknowledged that the development proposals will result in the loss of a relatively small area of land. As such, it is considered that the use of the land should be assessed against policy 7 of the Local Plan relating to the protection of open space.
8.4 Policy 7 of the adopted Local Plan indicates that:
“Development proposals involving the loss of recreational open space or amenity open space whether in public or private ownership, will only be permitted where:-
i. They would not cause or exacerbate a local or city-wide deficiency of recreational open space and the open space has no amenity or nature conservation importance or; ii. The developers provide satisfactory compensatory open space.”
8.4.1 Under the defining criteria for types of open space in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Open Space’ 2008 the land in question could only be attributed with ‘Amenity Open Space’ status. (The degree of slope would rule out its use as formal or informal recreational open space).
In the case of this proposal, the Land Use Planning Manager has identified that the Barrage contains approx. 3.5ha of amenity and informal recreational open space. The development proposals result in the ‘loss’ of approx. 574sqm of space (including the land underneath the bridge link that would still permit walkers and cyclists access underneath along the gravelled maintenance track), representing approx. 1.6% of the available open space.
In addition to the above, it should be noted that there is an extant planning permission for the siting of a new café in close proximity to this site with an approve floor area of approx. 500sqm and an overall site area of approx. 2200sqm. Whilst the consent for the café is still valid and, in itself results in the loss of some open space, any approval of the development subject of this application would effectively mean that the previous café consent would be unlikely to proceed.
In light of the extremely limited scale of the lost open space and the existence of an extant consent to develop close by, it is considered that the loss of space caused by the current proposals would be insufficient to have any significantly detrimental impact on the available amenity open space as a whole.
Having regard for the relatively small area of open space to be lost, it is also considered that to seek compensatory open space from the developer would be unreasonable, given the level of space remaining and the relatively isolated position of the site in relation to other land. Any such request would
141 likely fail the tests of reasonableness, and relation to the development site in respect of any legal agreement or condition.
On the point of nature conservation, the site is not within a Conservation Area and is not within any other designated statutory or local nature, landscape or beauty area. In addition, the Council’s Ecologist has advised that there are no adverse comments in respect of any ecological constraint.
8.4.2 Having regard for the above, in conjunction with the economic and employment benefits and the benefit of having the proposed attraction as a destination to attract visitors/tourism to this end of the barrage, it is considered that the proposals do not warrant refusal of consent due to conflict with policy 7 of the adopted Local Plan.
8.5 The Operational Manager Tourism Development and Visitor Services supports the proposals and has advised that the proposals meet the objective of providing a “… core of complementary elements within a tourism destination.” In addition, it is noted from the advice received that the provision of a tethered balloon facility is actually noted in the Council’s Tourism Strategy and Action Plan.
8.6 The comments of the Environment Agency are noted and the applicant has advised that measures are being undertaken to ensure that all appropriate permissions in respect of the balancing of flood protection measures due to the loss of volume created by excavation works are in place. It is noted that the Agency require any compensatory scheme to be approved and implemented prior to a decision on this application being made. Whilst it is reasonable to expect details of any scheme to have been approved, it is not reasonable to expect works to be undertaken to implement any approved scheme prior to a decision being made. (Further comments from the Agency may be likely once the water storage issue has been concluded).
8.7 With regard to the issues raised in representations (including a petition):
8.7.1 Postcode & Location - It is acknowledged that the applicant, in completion of question 4 of the planning application form indicated a non-existent postcode (CF4 1TP). It is to be noted that this is a non-existent code and does not indicate any location close to the Norwegian Church as claimed in representations. This was a typographic error on the part of the agent who has confirmed that the correct postcode should have read CF64 1TP, being the nearest postcode to the application site (the site itself, on the Barrage, has no postcode). The remainder of the site address ‘North-west side of the Barrage is correct. It is claimed in representations that the site should be ‘south-west side’ as the sign for the nearest water taxi stop reads ‘Barrage South’. The water taxi sign is correct, the stop is at the southern end of the
142 Barrage in the same way that the site address is correct in identifying the site as the north-west side of the Barrage. The erroneous postcode has subsequently been removed from the application form and has been replaced with map coordinates. Advice has been sought from the Council’s Legal Services who have advised that under Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988, the application is valid. The presence of the erroneous postcode did not result in any incorrect or invalid consultations with neighbours and the location of the development would easily have been established when viewing the submitted plans.
8.7.2 Consultations - The Council has no control over the date applications are submitted. The Council is obliged to publicise planning applications having regard for the provisions of Article 8 of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, which advises that applications should be publicised with either direct notification to land/property owners/occupiers directly adjoining the site or site notices in at least one place on or near the land subject of the application. In the case of this application, letters were sent to properties in Plas St Andresse; Plas Taliesin; Custom House Place; the Cardiff Bay Yacht Club the Custom House and the Vale of Glamorgan Council. In addition, site notices were placed on Harbour Drive; International Drive; John Bachelor Way; Plas Taliesin; the Barrage car park; at the application site; Paget Road; Northcliffe Drive and Paget Place. These consultations far exceed the requirements of Article 8. There are no special arrangements where consultation periods coincide with public holidays or the recess of Parliament or Assembly Government. Owing to the receipt of additional information, there have been two distinct consultation periods, including direct notification letters and site/press notices, commencing on the 13th April 2011 with the consecutive periods extending through to the 3rd June 2011. In this case, it is considered that there has been considerable opportunity for those who wish to make their representations to the Local Planning Authority.
8.7.3 Parking and Increased Car Traffic – The application details have been considered by the Council’s Transportation Service who have assessed the proposals against the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Standards 2010’. Their conclusion is that there is no objection to the proposals on transportation grounds, subject to a condition requiring further details of the proposed parking provision associated with the development proposals. (Full response in para. 5.1 above). The proposals have also been considered by the Vale of Glamorgan Council, which is the Highway Authority for the primary vehicle access route to the south end of the Barrage and to the existing Barrage car park (129 spaces). It is to be noted that the Vale of Glamorgan Council have not raised any highways objection to the proposals, subject to consideration of sustainable
143 transport methods and a request for £8000 towards supporting sustainable transport in the Vale of Glamorgan. (Full response in para. 7.4 above). As the Highway Authorities of both Councils do not raise any objection on traffic or parking grounds it is considered that there would be no reasonably sustainable grounds for refusal of consent in this regard.
8.7.4 Listed Buildings - The site is not adjacent to 2 listed buildings. The Custom House and adjacent former Dock Offices are approx. 410m from the site, with St Augustine’s Church approx. 820m away (with a significant difference in ground level). There are no reasonable or justifiable grounds to refuse consent on grounds of impact on listed buildings.
8.7.5 Barrage Health & Safety - With regard to the issue of overcrowding on the barrage, the application has been considered by the Operational Manager, Harbour Authority who has not raised any concerns over the impact of the proposals on health and safety grounds.
8.7.6 Site Appropriateness - Representations have sought to identify the Penarth Haven and Marina as a residential area which does not suit the proposed placement of the development proposals. However, notwithstanding the 320m distance between the sea platform and the nearest residential dwelling, it is noted that in its consideration and approval of a recent planning application for the development of a new restaurant and offices on Penarth Portway (mentioned in several representations and currently under construction), the area is identified by the Vale of Glamorgan Local Planning Authority as an area of mixed commercial and residential use, suitable for such mixed use development. When taken into account with the fact that the Barrage is (as existing) a tourist/visitor destination, it would be difficult to classify the area in the same fashion as a normal residential suburb. Having regard also for the Cardiff County Council planning policy and Tourism advice, it is considered that it would be unsustainable to refuse consent on grounds of compatibility with residential uses.
8.7.7 Visual Amenity - With regard to the visual impact of the development on the waterfront and specifically views from Penarth Haven & Marina, it is acknowledged that from some points of view, the aerostat will impede some distant views. However, these points of view would be relatively limited when considered in context of the remaining vistas that would not be so affected. In addition, it could be said that wherever the proposal would be sited within the Bay (including the approved site adjacent to Roath Basin Lock and alternative sites further along the Barrage as suggested in representations), some views would be impacted upon. In this case, it is considered that there are insufficiently sustainable grounds to refuse consent in terms of the impact of the proposal on the visual amenity or character of the bay waterfront. With regard to the visual amenity of residential occupiers, it should be noted that there is no ‘right to a view’ in planning legislation. The nearest residential
144 occupier is the occupier of 56 Plas Taliesin. This property does have windows to the side elevation which would give almost direct views of the proposed Skyflier, however at a distance of approx. 320m it would be unreasonable and unsustainable to refuse consent on the basis of any detriment to visual amenity.
8.7.8 Wildlife Impact - The Strategic Planning Manager (Ecology) has considered the application and has no objection in terms of impact on wildlife in the Bay area. The area of the site does not have any statutory or local designation.
8.7.9 Hours of Operation - The proposed hours of operation are consistent with the location and are also the subject of further controls from the Cardiff Harbour Authority and any Licensing requirements. It is noted that the hours proposed (08:00 – 23:00) include times that are outside the current Barrage public access times. This does not preclude the grant of consent for the requested times and would not supersede any other consents that may be required. It should also be noted that the new restaurant referred to in para. 8.7.6 above does not have any hours of operation condition (though there is a 21:00hrs restriction on the use of a balcony), the 2 restaurants within the Custom House are open until 00:30hrs Monday to Saturday and 22:30hrs on Sundays and the extant consent for the restaurant adjacent to the current site does not have any hours of operation restriction. It is considered that given the site context/location and the distance from dwellings there would be no sustainable justification to impose more restricted hours of operation.
8.7.10 Privacy - Representations are made in respect of loss of privacy, with concerns raised over users of the proposed Skyflier being able to look in to gardens and windows of the Penarth Haven & Marina dwellings. The nearest dwelling is approx. 320m from the sea platform and grounded viewing gondola. This distance is subject to change as the gondola rises to full viewing height. The residential elements of the Penarth Haven & Marina development are relatively dense in their layout, with a considerable degree of overlooking already taking place one dwelling to the next. In this case, it is considered that there would be no reasonably sustainable grounds to refuse consent in terms of loss of privacy from views that may be available at a distance of over 300m.
8.7.11 Anti-social Behaviour of Pedestrians – The behaviour of pedestrians passing through the Penarth Haven & Marina is not under the control of the Local Planning Authority and cannot be considered as material to the determination of this application. There is already significant pedestrian movement throughout the area and although it has been raised as a potential issue, no evidence has been submitted that shows that there would be a correlation between the potential nuisance and the development proposal.
145 8.7.12 Noise & Light Pollution – The application has been considered by the Council’s Pollution Control Manager, who has no objection, subject to a plant noise condition which requires plant (retrieval winch etc.) not to exceed the background noise level at any residential property by more than 5dB(A). Given the distance to the nearest dwelling it is considered that this condition is sufficient to regulate mechanical noise. Concerns are raised in respect of noise from persons using the facility. A condition is recommended that requires the submission, approval and operation of a management plan that includes details of staff managing users of the facility and their behaviour. It should also be noted that with 3no. food & drink outlets considerably closer to residential dwellings, it is more likely that noise disturbance from people late at night will be caused by patrons of those establishments rather than the current development proposal. The proposal includes several aspects of lighting which are the subject of a recommended condition requiring the approval of their details prior to commencement of development. (Other aspects of light are to be covered in the associated advertisement application A11/56DCI).
8.7.13 Control from Norwegian Church – There are no development proposals at or near the Norwegian Church as part of this application or the associated advertisement application. No part of the Council’s publicity for the applications, or details within the applications themselves indicate any development connected to the Norwegian Church area.
8.7.14 Commercial Viability – It is noted and acknowledged that weather patterns within the Bay area can be extremely diverse. However, the applicant has significant experience in operating lighter than air craft and it is assumed that the application has been submitted with full knowledge of the possible restrictions in use due to weather conditions. Notwithstanding this, commercial viability is not a material consideration. Should the facility become so unviable that it ceases to operate, it is understood that all of the physical development will be removed and the land returned to its former state as a result of legal agreements with the land owner (Cardiff Harbour Authority).
8.7.15 Overdevelopment – The issue of the loss of a small section of the grassed embankment is considered above. The current proposals do not result in an overdevelopment of the Barrage, taking up only approx. 1.6% of the available open space. Any future development proposals would be the subject of further planning applications and the issue of the amount of development ton the Barrage would be a material consideration in any future development proposals.
8.7.16 Relocation from Mermaid Quay - The planning history of the ‘Hiflyer’ and ‘Skyflier’ proposals around the Bay are noted above. The motives for applicants making their submissions are not material to consideration of their applications.
146 In the cases outlined above, the original ‘Skyflier’ site (09/1434C – Britannia Park) was deemed unacceptable due to impact on Britannia Park and the Listed Buildings in very close proximity. Whilst it is noted that objections were received from residential occupiers these were not considered as grounds for refusal. The second ‘Skyflier’ site application (09/1953C – South side Roath Basin Lock) was withdrawn by the applicant prior to determination. The third ‘Skyflier’ site application (09/2190C – North side Roath Basin Lock) was approved and that consent is still valid. Whilst there are apparently reasons why the applicant is not progressing that site, this is not a planning matter and is not material to the consideration of the current application.
8.7.17 Hazard to Yachts and Loss of Sailing Space – This matter has been addressed by the Harbour Authority in their comments in para. 5..4 above.
8.7.18 Loss of Light to Residents – The proposal is approx. 320m from the nearest dwellings to the south-west of the site. The will be no significant loss of light to residential occupiers as a result of this proposal.
8.7.19 Impact on the Character of Penarth – The bottom the cliff that forms Penarth Head is approx. 420m, the distance to St Augustine’s Church is approx. 820m. Whilst the proposals will undoubtedly impact on views towards and away from the headland, there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the proposals have a significant detrimental impact to the ‘..traditional, classic values…’ of the identity of Penarth.
8.8 With regard to the comments of the Vale of Glamorgan Council, the following comments are made:
1. Whilst the promotion of alternative sustainable modes of transport is supported by Cardiff County Council it is difficult to understand what demonstrable traffic harm would be caused by the development in the absence of the requested £8000 contribution. The area is currently served by bus (stop on Penarth Portway) and rail (Cogan station); the area is already a very well used pedestrian and cycle route to/from Cardiff Bay, which is also served by water taxis and (seasonally) by the ‘Road Train’.
To which end any requested financial contribution is required to meet certain tests to determine whether it is a legitimate reason to grant consent, these are:
x It must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; x It must be directly related to the development; and
147 x It must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
In its response the Vale of Glamorgan Council offer no indication why the development would not be acceptable without the requested contribution. In addition, no evidence is provided which indicates that the requested sum would be utilised in such a way that is directly related to the development under consideration. Indeed, the advice is very general in that it would be used to support sustainable transport “…in the Vale of Glamorgan.” As such, (and without reference to the third test), it is considered that the requested contribution would fail the first of the two statutory tests.
2. As discussed above, the Penarth Marina and Barrage are already served by public transport and other sustainable modes of transport and it is difficult to understand what demonstrable traffic harm would be caused by the development in the absence of the discussion requested in paragraph 2. On a general note, the existing bus stop lies within the control of the Vale of Glamorgan Council and if the current location is not considered ‘safe and convenient’, as implied in the comment, then it is a matter for that Authority to resolve.
3. The representations made by residents in respect of noise impact has been addressed above. It is recommended that planning permission be granted for a temporary period of 5 years in order to fully assess the impact of the proposal.
4. Consideration has been given to the issues raised by the residents of the Vale of Glamorgan as detailed in para. 8.7 above.
5. The Vale of Glamorgan Council’s concerns over the loss of landscaped land is noted. This issue has been addressed at para. 8.4 above.
8.9 The proposals do not appear to have any detrimental impact on any potential user group.
8.10 It is considered that the proposal will provide a new leisure facility to the area and attract more people to the Bay in line with the objectives of the City Centre Strategy and the Council’s Tourism Strategy and Action Plan, and that the visual impact would not justify refusal. Having regard for adopted planning policy, it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.
148 149 150 151 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. A11/00056/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 06/04/2011
ED: GRANGETOWN
APP: TYPE: Advertisement
APPLICANT: Lindstrand Aeroplatforms (Cardiff) Ltd LOCATION: NORTH WEST SIDE OF THE BARRAGE, CARDIFF BAY, CARDIFF PROPOSAL: ADVERTISEMENTS/PROJECTIONS IN ASSOCIATION WITH SKYFLYER, GONDOLA, TUBE & PLATFORM ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C03 Statutory Time Limit - Advertisements
2. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to any projected display details of the advertisement scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason. The submitted plans are illustrative only due to the changing nature of the advertisement regime. To protect the visual amenity of the area.
3. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, prior to any display a detailed scheme of lighting to the Aerostat, gondola, bridge and ‘Tube’ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall show that there will be no conflict with colours and/or method of operation of maritime navigation lights in operation in the vicinity of the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the beneficial use of the development and shall thereafter be so retained and maintained. Reason. In the interests of visual amenity and for mariner safety.
4. No illumination shall be allowed before 0800hrs or after 2300hrs on any day. Reason: To protect the visual amenity of the area.
5. Details submitted in respect of condition 3 above shall ensure that the illumination of the signs to the gondola walls shall be of low intensity, shall be externally sourced, and shall be directed towards the advertisements.
152 Reason. In the interests of visual amenity.
6. No advertising content other than a dragon logo and text as described in the e-mail from the agent dated 24th May 2011 shall be sited on the tail area of the Aerostat as shown on the amended plan dated 11th May 2011. Reason. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of visual amenity.
7. The projected advertisements shall be limited to the area at the base of the Aerostat as shown on plan number FI-PP-632 and no other area of the development. Reason. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of visual amenity.
8. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 11th May 2011, attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
9. The level of luminance shall comply with the guidelines set out in the Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE) Technical Report no. 5 ‘Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements’. Reason. In the interests of visual amenity.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application is for the display of changing projected advertisements and changeable material advertisements on the Aerostat envelope. Further changeable material advertisement panels are proposed for the sides of the viewing gondola, part of the bridge link and the ‘Tube’ ancillary building. No details have been provided for the advertisements as they may be subject to frequent change.
The application has been amended to reduce the size of the advertisement area to the side panel of the Aerostat, to remove reference to advertisements on the sea platform and the majority of the bridge link and to reduce the amount of advertisement on the ‘Tube’ structure. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the ‘advertisements’ to the tail area of the Aerostat will be limited to a dragon logo on the vertical tail fin and bi-lingual text ‘Cardiff/Wales’ on the upper sections of the tail cone.
1.2 The projected sign is to be focused on the underbelly of the Aerostat, directly above the viewing gondola, with the projection being made from equipment mounted on the upper cable supporting ring of the gondola.
153 1.3 The amended plans indicate that the proposed ‘banner’ advertising to the side of the Aerostat is reduced from approx. 17m x 9.0m to approx. 13m x 6.0m. This advertisement would be illuminated by the low intensity light that is to be set inside the Aerostat envelope.
1.4 The advertisements to the viewing gondola are set onto the lower sections of the side walls and are to be externally illuminated.
1.5 The amended advertisements to the bridge link occupy the first five bays out from the ‘Tube’ structure and are to be externally illuminated.
1.6 The amended advertisements to the ‘Tube’ structure show one ‘banner’ style advertisement area to both the Bay side and Barrage side of the structure. A further two freestanding boards adjacent to the point of public access are also proposed. The signs are to be externally illuminated.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The proposed development is sited partially on the Cardiff Bay Barrage and partly within the impounded waters of Cardiff Bay, on the north-west side of the Barrage, towards its southern end. At this point, the Barrage bund is a relatively steep grass bank, with a (Cardiff County Council) gravel surface maintenance track at the bottom.
2.2 The centre of the proposed platform is approx. 85m north of the Barrage fish pass, approx. 210m from Barrage Lock no.1 and approx. 318m from the nearest residential dwelling at no. 56 Plas Taliesin, Penarth Marina.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 There is no history relating to this specific site. However the following details relate to a site in very close proximity (closer to the fish pass):
07/334C – New Café – Approved
3.2 In addition to the above, the following details outline the history of planning applications for a tethered balloon ride facility within the Bay area:
09/2190C – Proposed Skyflier Aerostat with landing platform, bridge, ticket office and winch retrieval (North side of Roath Basin outer lock) – Approved.
A09/247C – Advertisements to the proposed Skyflyer Aerostat and viewing gondola – Approved.
154 A09/226C – Advertisements to a Skyflier Aerostat and gondola (North side of Roath Basin Lock) – Withdrawn.
09/1953C – Proposed Skyflier Aerostat, gondola, landing platform, sea platform and bridge (South side of Roath Basin Lock) – Withdrawn.
A09/144C – Advertisements to a proposed Aerostat balloon & Gondola (Britannia Park) – Refused.
09/1424C – Proposed Skyflier Aerostat balloon, gondola and landing platform (Britannia Park) – Refused.
08/2713C – Proposed Hyflier balloon, gondola, landing platform and winch house (Britannia Park) – Approved.
A08/205C – Proposed advertisements to Hyflier balloon and gondola panels – Approved.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 7: Outdoor Advertisement Control.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Transportation has no objection.
5.2 The Operational Manager Harbour Authority has no objection to the proposal but makes the following comments:
“This development would provide a new visitor attraction in Cardiff Bay if it is approved. The development also includes a permanent cafe together with improved public toilets and offices in a refurbished "Tube" building. Visitor surveys have consistently identified the need for improved toilets and a permanent cafe in this location and therefore this would be a welcome addition to the facilities in this area.
The position of the structure that supports the actual balloon within the Bay is in an area which is unlikely to impact on boat movements. This structure will require navigation lights to be provided by the developer as part of this project.”
5.3 The Pollution Control Manager has no adverse comment in respect of light nuisance, but offers the following advice:
155 Technical Advice Note 7 provides guidance for local authorities on considering the impact on amenity of illuminated signs. In particular, paragraph 8 refers the authority to guidance issued by the Institute of Lighting Engineers (ILE) - specifically Technical Report Number 5 - 'Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements'.
The guidance describes brightness as the visual sensation associated with luminance experienced by an observer, and is dependent on 4 main factors - luminance, size, contrast, and the observer. Luminance is the physical measure of stimulus which produces the sensation of brightness. It is measured by the luminous intensity of light emitted or reflected in candela/sq. metre. The precise relationship between brightness and luminance is yet to be established.
Whilst the local planning authority is primarily concerned with brightness the manufacturer is only able to control luminance. The ILE consider that it is possible to set upper limits of luminance for defined locations and sizes of sign so that visual amenity is not impaired unreasonably.
The issue of brightness is one of visual amenity rather than nuisance, and therefore I do not feel I have the expertise required to formally request conditions to be attached to control brightness from illuminated signs.
However the ILE have recommended limits in candela per square metre for various sizes of sign and categories of location, and these may be of assistance to you in considering whether conditions to protect visual amenity are appropriate:
Illuminated Area m2 ZoneE1 ZoneE2 ZoneE3 ZoneE4 Up to 10.00 100 600 800 1000 Over 10.00 n/a 300 600 600
Category E1: Intrinsically dark areas Examples: National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, etc E2: Low district brightness areas Examples: Rural or small village locations E3: Medium district brightness areas Examples: Small town centres or urban locations E4: High district brightness areas Examples: Town/city centres with high levels of night-time activity
The guidance advises that, where an area to be lit lies on the boundary of two zones or can be observed from another zone, the limits used should be those applicable to the most rigorous zone.
156 6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Civil Aviation Authority were consulted in respect of the associated full planning application and have no objection.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Local Members have been consulted and no comments have been received.
7.2 Alum Michael MP has been consulted following an initial request to be consulted and no comments have been received to date.
7.3 The Vale of Glamorgan Council has been consulted and the following comments are made:
“I refer to your letter registered on 19th April 2011 enclosing details of the above mentioned development and inviting this Authority to comment on the proposal.
Consideration has been given to this matter and I would inform you that this Authority has no objections to the advertisements but wishes to make the following observations on the proposal:
It is requested that none of the adverts are illuminated.”
7.4 Consultation has taken place with adjacent occupiers directly and via press and site notices with regard to the original submission and the amended plans.
7.5 The Penarth Marina and Haven Resident’s Association make the following comments in objection to the proposals:
“On behalf of the committee of the Penarth Marina and Haven Residents’ Association, which represents the 700 apartments and houses in the area, I wish to object to the proposed planning applications listed above:
Our objections are on the following grounds: · The planning applications themselves are faulty because they refer to a non-existent post code. CF4 1TP. This is misleading and inaccurate. · The second error is the description of the site as being on the north west side of the barrage. It is actually the south west side.. These two errors have caused confusion among residents and resulted in misunderstanding of a planning application and process which should have been clear from the outset. On these two grounds alone the planning applications should be dismissed. If they are not so dismissed, then we shall
157 immediately alert the Local Government Ombudsman to the Cardiff Planning Authority’s act of maladministration. The planning applications may also be subject to legal challenge.
We are also concerned that the letter of 13th April issued to residents directly affected, together with site notices, gave 21 days for response, of which 4 days were public holidays, and only 11 working days. We consider that the way this notice has been issued deprives affected persons and the public of legitimate opportunity to respond within an appropriate consultation period.
We would furthermore note the following matters, which if the applications are accepted to go forward, or were to be properly re-submitted, we would wish to be considered as objections:
(i) While we have no objection to the development as an attraction on the Cardiff Bay perimeter per se, we consider that the location proposed for this planning application is completely inappropriate. We would note that previous objections (2009) have already led to the proposal being withdrawn from the original location at Britannia Park, between the light- ship in the Roath Basin and Norwegian Church on the grounds of inappropriate siting and loss of visual amenity and public park space. The proposal which was narrowly passed (March 2010) by the Cardiff Planning Committee was for a location which was more suitable, at a site on the south east side of Roath Lock. We understand however, that it is now proposed to move it from that location, where there is now an existing legitimate planning consent, because of post-hoc objections from the BBC Drama Village developers, residential developments such as Celestia and Adventurers’ Quay, and adjacent business premises. (ii) We would consider that a location at the North West corner of the barrage at Post Code CF10 4 (junction of Locks Road and Cargo Road) would be a far more suitable location, adjacent to a children’s playground, where there is readily available extensive space for parking, and where there is a need for café facilities for those crossing the barrage. (iii) We would note that the proposed actual location of planning applications 11/00563/DCI and A11/00056/DCI, near the Fish Pass and Barrage Locks, is directly in front of two listed buildings, one of which, the Custom House, has been developed as a successful restaurant, which will be significantly adversely affected by the location of a ‘funfair ride’ straight in front of it. A prestige development of the second building, the Dock Offices, will also be significantly adversely affected, and will cause loss of value to this development site. In addition, it will adversely affect another major listed building, St Augustine’s Church, Penarth. (iv) The siting of the ‘Tube’ to serve as a café/restaurant, crew space and ticket office, together with the Balloon itself, and its launch platform, at this, the narrowest part of the Barrage, will create a significant health and
158 safety risk in the even of an emergency on the Barrage or at the Locks because of the significant crowding at this point. (v) The car parking available at the Barrage Locks car park is already totally insufficient for all weekend and holiday periods. As a result, visitors already park illegally on the Quay Marinas car park, to the detriment of the Marina’s operation, and in the Plas Taliesin area to the serious disadvantage of residents. The proposed Skyrider will make matters much worse, both as a result of parking of additional Skyrider users’ vehicles, the vehicles of those watching its operation, and those using the café in the ‘Tube’ Already bad congestion on Penarth Portway will increase. (vi) Parking on Plas Taliesin, an unadopted road with parking for residents only , where parking is already at a premium for residents, will be extremely adversely affected by people parking to view the balloon from the vantage point of the Bay front. (vii) There will be significant loss of visual amenity for residents of Plas Taliesin, Plas St Andresse and Custom House Place through having a balloon over 100 feet long and rising regularly from 35 metres to about 120 metres directly across their field of vision all day and every day, and at night time as well. In addition there will be a mooring tower, which is not illustrated on the plans, but will be of further visual detriment. (viii) It is proposed for the balloon to operate from 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. These are unreasonable and antisocial hours. This will impair significantly on the residential area, and is a completely inappropriate development opposite such an area. (ix) Light pollution from this development will also be significant - this will be especially true as illuminated advertising will be used together with site arc lamps necessary to light the site after dark. (x) The closing hours for the Barrage are currently 10.00 p.m. We fail to see that it is reasonable for this development to continue for an hour after closing time. (xi) The method of advertising proposed for the balloon (Planning application A11/00056/DCI dated 6/04/11).will also be totally unsuitable for this residential area. As it is proposed to use lasers to project advertising onto the balloon across the entire width of the Bay, together with internal illumination, this will further increase garish and inappropriate light pollution, and be completely out of tune with a residential area.
In conclusion, we would note that this is an unwanted leisure facility of an inappropriate type to be erected in a quiet residential area, which will have significant adverse effect on that area.”
7.6 The Penarth Town Council, in objecting to the associated full planning application (11/563DCI) for the Skyflier facility have advised that they endorse the comments of the Penarth Marina and Haven Residents Association.
159 7.7 In addition to the above, 48 individual letters of objection have been received from residents of the Penarth Marina area which raise the following as grounds for objection:
1. Detrimental impact on visual amenity and views across the Bay. 2. Light pollution. 3. Inappropriate siting and form of advertisement in a residential area. 4. Laser advertisements beamed from the other side of the Bay (Norwegian Church area) are inappropriate and will affect residents. 5. Moving laser projected adverts may cause medical problems in a similar fashion to flash photography.
7.8 An additional 10 letters have been received as a result of the amended plans reconsultation. These letters seek to reiterate and reinforce objections raised in respect of the original submission as above.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 An amended application to display advertisements on a tethered balloon ride facility, set on the Cardiff Bay barrage and on a platform within the impounded waters of the Bay.
8.2 The proposals include advertisement panels to the viewing gondola walls and projected onto the underside of the balloon envelope from sources fixed to the upper section of the gondola construction as well as other externally illuminated advertisements on the ground based structures.
8.3 The advert details submitted with the application are indicative only, with the advertising scheme subject to change sponsor by sponsor. Condition 2 is recommended in order for the Council to have further control over the nature of the advertising.
8.4 With regard to consultation on the application, it should be noted that the Council is not obliged to publicise advertisement applications in the same manner as full planning applications. However, in this case, given the association with the full application for the Skyflier, the Council carried out its consultations in line with that application.
8.5 With regard to the objections raised above the following comments are made:
1. Visual impact - It is acknowledged that from some points of view, the aerostat and associated advertisements will impact on some distant views. However, these points of view would be relatively limited when considered in context of the remaining vistas that would not be so affected. In addition, it could be said that wherever the proposal would be sited within the Bay (including the approved site adjacent to Roath
160 Basin Lock and alternative sites further along the Barrage as suggested in representations), some views would be impacted upon. In this case, it is considered that there are insufficiently sustainable grounds to refuse consent in terms of the impact of the proposal on the visual amenity or character of the bay waterfront. With regard to the visual amenity of residential occupiers, it should be noted that there is no ‘right to a view’ in planning legislation. The nearest residential occupier is the occupier of 56 Plas Taliesin. This property does have windows to the side elevation which would give almost direct views of the proposed Skyflier, however at a distance of approx. 320m it would be unreasonable and unsustainable to refuse consent on the basis of any detriment to visual amenity. 2. Light Pollution - The Council’s Pollution Control Manager has no objection to the proposal in terms of light nuisance. A condition is recommended that requires the submission and approval of an appropriate scheme of lighting that will need to demonstrate how external lighting of the advertisements is specifically directed at the advert and is of a relatively low intensity. The internal illumination of the balloon itself is described as low intensity. In addition, a further condition is recommended to ensure that specific guidelines for the intensity of illuminated signage is adhered to. In this case, it is considered that there are no sustainable grounds to refuse consent in terms of light pollution. 3. Site Appropriateness - Representations have sought to identify the Penarth Haven and Marina as a residential area which does not suit the proposed placement of the development proposals. However, notwithstanding the 320m distance between the sea platform and the nearest residential dwelling, it is noted that in its consideration and approval of a recent planning application for the development of a new restaurant and offices on Penarth Portway (mentioned in several representations and currently under construction), the area is identified by the Vale of Glamorgan Local Planning Authority as an area of mixed commercial and residential use, suitable for such mixed use development. When taken into account with the fact that the Barrage is (as existing) a tourist/visitor destination, it would be difficult to classify the area in the same fashion as a normal residential suburb. In this case, it is considered that there are insufficient grounds to warrant refusal of consent in terms of site appropriateness. 4. Inappropriate ‘Laser’ Advertising Across the Width of the Bay – The application makes no reference to the ‘beaming’ of advertisement using laser technology from the Norwegian Church area of the Bay. The projected advertisements are sourced from equipment mounted on the viewing gondola and are projected on a limited area of the underbelly of the balloon. 5. Medical Issues – There is no evidence that the limited projected advertisement, moving or static, can be the cause of medical problems
161 similar to those that can be caused by flash photography. The area covered by the projecting element is a relatively small area on the underbelly of the balloon and, when viewed from the nearest dwelling, would be a minimum of approx. 320m away, increasing as the balloon ascends. It is considered that there are insufficient grounds to refuse consent in this respect.
8.6 It is noted that the Vale of Glamorgan Council have no objection to the proposed advertisements. It is for the members of Planning Committee to consider their request that the advertisements be non-illuminated. 8.7 It should also be noted that Planning Committee have previously approved a similar advertisement regime in respect of a Skyflier development (A09/247C).
8.8 Having regard for adopted planning policy, it is recommended that advertisement consent be granted, subject to conditions.
162 163 164 165 166 167 168 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/00594/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 04/04/2011
ED: CATHAYS
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Cardiff Council Major Projects LOCATION: JUNCTION OF ST MARY STREET AND WOOD STREET, CITY CENTRE PROPOSAL: THE INSTALLATION OF THE PIER HEAD CLOCK AS PUBLIC ART INCORPORATING DECORATIVE PAVING AND SEATING ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
RECOMMENDATION 2 : Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant is asked to confirm and agree a cleaning regime with the street cleansing officer, to include any special cleaning requirements for the artwork and seating; and to and confirm funding stream for such maintenance liabilities as may be incurred in the future with the Council’s Estates division.
RECOMMENDATION 3 : That the applicant be forwarded a copy of the correspondence received from Welsh Water and Western Power for information purposes.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The proposal is to use the turret clock movement built in 1897, and formerly housed in the Pier Head building at Cardiff Bay, as a piece of public art incorporating a new housing, decorative paving and seating area on a site immediately North of the junction of Wood Street with St Mary Street.
1.2 This project is part of Cardiff Council’s commitment to bring contemporary art into the public realm.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 St Mary St. is currently in the process of being pedestrianised, with traffic limited to delivery vehicles between set hours and controlled by rising bollards at either end of the road. The whole of St. Mary Street is designated as a Conservation Area, and has many and varied listed buildings along its length. The new artwork is proposed and includes a defined area of public realm works at the Junction of Wood St. and St. Mary St. (near to the corner of the Royal Hotel currently occupied by O’Neils bar).
169 Wood St is currently still trafficked, and allows passage of vehicles from Westgate St. and Riverside to Customhouse St. and Adams St. but is not as busy as when St. Mary St. afforded general vehicle access to Castle St.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 None relevant
RELATED HISTORY
3.2 The Pierhead Building at Cardiff Bay was built for the Marquis of Bute as his Docks Office and opened in 1897. The building was designed by William Frame, an assistant to William Burges the architect who worked with the Marquis on Cardiff Castle and Castle Coch.
3.3 The Pierhead Building was executed in Red Brick and Terracotta work with a tall central clock tower with 6’6” diameter dials which exist to this day and look out over Cardiff Bay. The building is now owned and operated by the Welsh Assembly Government.
3.4 In 1897 the hands of the Clock were operated by a turret clock mechanism, now of considerable historic value because it is so vividly and clearly a baby ‘Big Ben’ and is suggested to be the last clock that Potts the makers made with direct involvement of Edmund Beckett Denison, (later Baron Grimthorpe) who designed the mechanism for the great clock of Westminster in the 1850’s.
3.6 In the early 1970s however, British Rail, who maintained the clock for the Docks Board decided to remove the clock mechanism and replace it with an electric mechanism which was more easily maintainable, further to which the original mechanism was taken to London, auctioned, and taken to America by a clock enthusiast Alan Heldman; but which through personal tragedy, stayed in his workshop for 30 years untouched.
3.7 In 2005 Cardiff Council bought the clock workings and shipped them back to Cardiff as part of their centenary celebrations (100 years as a city, and 50 years as Capital of Wales).
3.8 The past five years have seen the clock workings in storage in Shropshire.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
Cardiff Unitary Development Plan Deposit Written Statement 2003
Policy 2.20: Good Design Policy 2.35: Development in the Central Shopping Area Policy 2.53: Conservation Areas Policy 2.55: Public Realm Improvements Policy 2.56: Public Art
170 Policy 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Policy 2.58: Impact on Transport Networks Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Material Considerations.
Cardiff Public Art Strategy (2005) Cardiff Public Art SPG (June 2006) Cardiff City Centre Public Realm Manual (Sept 2009) City Centre Strategy (2007-2010) St. Mary St. Conservation area Appraisal (2006).
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Waste Management Officer has no observations or objections with respect to the application.
5.2 The Street Cleaning Manager has been consulted but no response has been received.
5.3 The Transportation Officer has no comment.
5.4 The Pollution Control Officer (contaminated land) has no comment on the proposal.
5.5 The Central area Conservation Group consider the proposal a splendid idea which needs serious design consideration which balances form and technology They particularly like the transparency of the current design and reason that the design needs to be elegant but also needs to be significant enough to make a bold statement and to be a focal point in the area. They further comment that the design maybe needs to be higher within the context of the surrounding buildings and ultimately of course it must be vandal proof.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Western Power have provided a plan indicating likely location of power cable and equipment installations in the area and have advised of / recommend safe working practices in respect of development near these.
6.2 Welsh Water advise that no surface water should connect directly or indirectly into the main sewer system; and have provided a plan indicating the likely location of a water main in proximity of the site and a number of conditions/limitations in the vicinity of that main.
6.3 Glamorgan and Gwent Archaeological Trust have written to advise that as the area has already been substantially disturbed and the proposed works will involve only minimal ground disturbance it is unlikely that archaeological remains will be uncovered.
6.4 South Wales Police have no objection to this application but would ask that the following points be taken into consideration and given due regard:-
171 x Bench style seating is known to attract vagrants who often utilise them for sleeping it is this behaviour that attracts other such persons who then appear to take over the area resulting in a ‘no go’ Zone for visitors and locals alike. To help prevent such situations arising it is recommended arm rests be incorporated into the design therefore providing individual seating and eliminating the risk of persons using the seating to lie on.
x The incorporation of arm rests would go some way in deterring skateboarders using the seating.
x The Design & Access Statement states the clock will be housed in a robustly designed and constructed container. It is recommended that further information be obtained regarding the fabric to be used for the container to ensure that it is adequately robust and been tested accordingly as the clock could be targeted by vandals and therefore it is imperative the clock is housed in a suitable container that is able to withstand such an attack.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Residents of 7 Windway Road in Cardiff have written as follows:
“As residents of Cardiff for sixty years we write to oppose the above planning application for the following reasons:
x The clockwork belongs to the clock which can still be seen on the historical Pierhead building at its original site in Cardiff docks. This very interesting building is open to the public and showcases part of the city’s maritime history as well as the building’s own history. This is the ideal spot to showcase the clockwork.
x The words ‘Through Fire and Water’ are inscribed on one of the building’s walls. This is particularly apt since the building stands between the site of the first dock and the Taff Vale Railway Station – both very important in the city’s expansion. Knowledge of what time it was and punctuality was important to ships and the railway: another reason for showcasing the clockwork in its rightful place.
x It is argued that the present plan is an attempt to connect the city centre to the docks. Even though the River Taff flowed close to the bottom of St Mary’s Street at one time, this was not the location of the harbour, but rather at the bottom of Quay Street. The junction between St Mary’s Street and Wood Street cannot be considered to be a suitable historical location.
x It is argued that the new plan will add to the area’s street art/attractions. In fact ever since the Council closed the end of St Mary’s Street on weekend nights to all apart from those eating and drinking, the area has become a slum – especially since the Council never cleans the streets or pavements effectively. If the current plan goes ahead then drunkards will transform the
172 place into a convenient new toilet and vomit area in no time. We remind ourselves of what happened to the statue of Cadair Idris outside the station. The fate of any new street art on the junction between St Mary’s Street and Wood Street – in the midst of all the drinking holes – will be far worse.
To save us from even more shame in our city’s plight, money should be spent on cleaning streets and pavements effectively in the area, not on a costly new toilet.”
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Land Use
The application proposes the installation of a clock and associated seating area adjacent to the corner of the Royal Hotel at the junction of St Mary Street and Wood Street within the Central Shopping Area.
Both the City Centre Strategy and the Conservation Area Appraisal promote enhancement of the public realm in this area.
The central aims of the Cardiff Public Art Strategy are to ensure that public artworks are:
x Original work of a living or acknowledged artist or craftsperson, that is physically or visually accessible to the public and which may be created as a result of a collaborative process involving other groups, such as architects, engineers, planners or members of the local community.
x Work that is site specific and not a mass-produced object or reproduction of an original artwork or a previously unrealised design.
x Work that relates in time and place to Cardiff and to the city’s unique identity and distinctive sense of place.
In general terms the proposal meets the key criteria of the Cardiff Public Art Strategy.
In summary the provision of a public time piece / public art in this location is considered appropriate in land use policy terms.
8.2 Design
This project is part of Cardiff City and County Council’s commitment to bring contemporary art into the public realm, to continue links with the heritage of Cardiff and to improve the environment of St Mary Street. The artist Marianne Forrester, was chosen by the Council because of her work with clocks and time pieces, working closely with Smiths of Leeds who will restore the clock workings.
173 In summary, the historic clock mechanism will be displayed within a glazed box, which itself will be centred within the midst of ‘wave’ of porphory stone and stainless steel seating formed into the shape of a question mark, and set within the context of the newly surfaced area of the St. Mary St. pedestrianisation scheme.
The size of the clock encasement (1.8m sq. x 4.9m high) is largely driven by the size of the mechanism. The height of the object has been chosen such that the time will be visible to pedestrians from a distance, whilst not being so high that the public cannot appreciate the intricate detail of the four clock faces (of some 900mm diameter and centred at a height of 3.7m) whilst the seating will be some 800mm wide in a circle of some 7m in diameter with the stainless steel engraved with inscriptions and images on the metal seating surface derived from community workshops and the expressive work created as a result of interaction with the people of Cardiff. The stone and stainless steel contrasts and compliments the clock while keeping it safe within its circle.
The case for the movement is designed to have a ship-like quality to the construction and detail in remembrance of the city’s sailing heritage. Natural finishes and corroded frame with struck rivets adding focal detail and ship references. Inside the movement is held on a frame of natural rusted steel; the case being deliberately pared down in order that it takes nothing away from the movement housed within the glass.
With direct reference to the architecture of Cardiff Castle and the Marquis of Bute the case also houses three monkeys reflecting the Marquis’ liking for animals and especially monkeys. These are intended to attract the public (especially children) and one of the monkeys will be seen to strike the hour on part of the clock or the table while a bell rings above the clock faces. Another monkey swings from the pendulum. A third will appear to be helping to wind the clock with the clocks essential drive mechanism.
The proposal is intended to be integrated fully into the proposed repaving currently being undertaken on the Southern end of St Mary Street. The aim is to have a high quality finish to match the finishes that form part of this overall scheme.
8.3 Historic Environment.
It is considered that the public realm works and the placement of a piece of public art (inclusive of a renovated historic mechanism) in this location will enhance the character of the St. Mary Street conservation and will hopefully encourage members of the public to the area.
8.4 Access Equality and Transportation.
The clock itself forms an item to be approached, observed and appreciated from a variety of vantage points including both distant and extremely close-up views by both adults and children. In response to those who may be partially
174 sighted, the case enclosure and wave seating will have defined edges and the 'question mark' wave will consist partly of seating and partly of level paving which is manifested merely in a change in material to allow access to all who wish to approach the clock and observe the details of the mechanism in action. Sufficient distance (1000mm) is provided between the nearest point of the clock enclosure and seating wave to allow wheelchair or perambulator/push chair access.
The development is sited so not to interfere with delivery vehicles servicing retail shops in St. Mary St. and is designed to be protected from potential collisions from such vehicles.
8.5 Response to objections.
It is accepted that from a historic building perspective, that the clock mechanism might be considered best relocated within the building from which it came. However that clock tower and clock have been modified and such a reinstallation would not be a simple affair, would involve a third party interest, involve potential damage to a grade I listed structure and would also in itself require listed building consent.
In terms of the suitability of the chosen location, this is evidently subjective, but there are no reasons to object to the location from a planning policy perspective as being suitable for a public art installation. The relevance of the location in respect of maritime/shipping activities is not a planning concern, however it is noted that historically the docks system saw water as far north as the top of Customhouse St. only a few hundred meters away.
In respect of anti-social behaviour and vandalism concerns, the clock itself will be housed in a robustly designed and constructed enclosure and has been designed to be relatively easy to clean and the design of the seating in a curved form is not considered conducive to rough sleeping, but the artist has been asked to consider this concern in respect of the finite detail of the scheme.
The finishes of the seating has been chosen to be as robust as possible in response to the public nature of the artwork. The metal tops to the seating should resist the majority of damage / any acts of vandalism.
In addition, the layout of the seating is such that it does not provide any recessed nooks or crannies where people could gather unobserved with criminal intent. The location of the piece means that the scheme will be easy to oversee, with near-constant public overlooking.
8.6 Other issues
Apart from periodic cleaning, maintenance is a key factor in the long-term care and quality of any public artwork. The identification and confirmation of who has the duty of care (responsibility) for the artwork is central to appropriate maintenance arrangements and it is considered prudent that this
175 be established prior to the commencement of work.
Given that the artwork will contain mechanical / moving parts it is essential that there is a clear identification of who will oversee the day-to-day running, maintenance and cleansing of the artwork for its lifespan.
The applicant has identified in their ‘Clock Background Booklet’ that a sum of £5,000 has been set-aside to maintain the artwork for a period of five years. There are however no details of a maintenance schedule for the artwork, a breakdown of estimated annual costs, information on how (or by who) the artwork will be managed, or details of proposed maintenance arrangements / funding from year six onwards.
A second recommendation is made in this respect.
9. CONCLUSION
That planning Permission be Granted.
176 177 178 LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/661/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 13/04/2011
ED: GABALFA
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr David Jones LOCATION: 21 WHITCHURCH ROAD, GABALFA, CARDIFF, CF14 3JN PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE FROM A1 (SHOP) TO A3 RESTAURANT ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the email received on the 23rd May 2011 from the applicant. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
3. No member of the public shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on the premises between the hours of 11pm and 10am on any day. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity of the site are protected.
4. C7X No Takeaway Sales
5. F7Q Kitchen Extraction
6. There shall be no arrival, departure, loading or unloading of vehicles between the hours of 2000 and 0800. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.
7. E7A Specified Use of Premises
8. Prior to the beneficial use of the development hereby approved. The developer shall provide a suitable grease trap to prevent entry into the public sewerage system of matter likely to interfere with the free flow of the sewer contents, or which would prejudicially affect the treatment and disposal of such contents. Thereafter the trap shall not be removed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
179 9. No development shall take place until details showing the provision of four cycle parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being put into beneficial use. Thereafter the four cycle 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.
10. C7S Details of Refuse Storage
RECOMMENDATION 2: Prior to the beneficial use of the premises a CCTV system should be installed to cover entry/exit doors and to have an evidential recording facility with minimum storage capacity of 30 days and imagery to be of evidential quality with the ability to identify persons using the premises. The CCTV system shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times.
RECOMMENDATION 3: All external doors and windows shall be of security standard PAS24 and laminated to a minimum of 6.8 thickness and certified to BS 6206:1981 and BS 7950.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of an existing Class A1 unit (shop) to a Class A3 restaurant use
1.2 It is proposed that the opening hours of the business will be from 11am - 11pm seven days a week.
1.3 The agent has submitted plans showing a 52 cover restaurant with associated kitchen, store and bar.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application premises is a two-storey building which is sited within an existing parade of shops. The ground floor is currently vacant, with residential accommodation above.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 99/1545/W – Single Storey extension to rear of property. Approved.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site is located within the Whitchurch Road District Shopping Area as designated in the Local Plan.
4.2 The Council has resolved that in addition to extant development plans, the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) should be taken into account in development control decisions.
180 4.3 The following policies of the approved City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996) are considered to be relevant to the proposal:
Policy 49 (Local and District Centres)
4.4 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are considered to be relevant to the proposal:
Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) Policy 2.36 (District and Local Centres) Policy 2.57 (Access, Parking and Circulation) Policy 2.64 (Air, Noise and Light Pollution)
4.5 The Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food and Drink uses (June 1996) is also relevant to the determination of this application.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Environment & Public Protection (Pollution Control) has raised no objection but advises the need for conditions 3, 4, 5 and 6 (see above).
5.2 The Operational Manager Transportation states that has no objection to the proposal to the principle of the proposed change of use as submitted on the basis that the vehicle trip generated associated with the proposed A3 use would be less than that which could occur should the shop be operating today.
Also recommend the provision of 4 no cycle parking spaces for use by staff and/or visitors.
5.3 The Operational Manager (Waste Management) advises the need for condition 10.
5.4 The Operational Manager (Licensing) states that the premises does not currently benefit from a Premises Licence. If they were to operate during the hours given on the planning application then a Premises Licence would be required for the provision of late night refreshment and the sale of alcohol (if alcohol were to be sold).
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water advise that a condition requiring a grease trap should be imposed.
6.2 South Wales Police state that they has no objections to the proposal, provided a CCTV system is installed and the doors and windows are to British standard.
181 7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The proposal was advertised by site notice; the consultation period expired on 26th May 2011.
7.2 Local members have been consulted and Councillor E Bridges objects to the proposal for the following reasons:
i) The application is seeking to turn no 21 from a shop (A1 planning use) to a restaurant or takeaway (A3 planning use). Do not believe this is appropriate, given the number of food outlets already in the area. The Whitchurch Road shopping district needs a variety of different businesses to be sustainable and have grave concerns about the proliferation of food outlets. ii) Do not believe that a further outlet would be in the interests of the long- term sustainability of the Whitchurch Road Shopping area, I do not want to stop anyone from making a living, but it seems to me that a street which is heavily dependent on (and geared towards) a night time economy would not be in the best interests of the long term residents of the area. iii) It is worth adding that Cardiff Council’s Planning Committee has imposed a moratorium on further A3 premises on City Road. This was because the sheer number of new A3 premises was seen to be undesirable and unsustainable. Furthermore, at the request of South Wales Police, the Council’s Licensing Committee imposed a saturation policy on City Road and Crwys Road to prevent any further alcohol licenses from being issued without exceptional circumstances. I understand that South Wales Police are considering objecting to the existing application and I hope that this is recognised by Planning as necessary because of their concerns that Whitchurch Road could develop similar problems to City Road and Crwys Road if left unchecked.
7.3 Neighbouring occupiers have been consulted. Letters and e-mails have been received from the occupiers of 49, 71, 154a and 179 Whitchurch Road, objecting for the following reasons:
i) Lack of daytime footfall. ii) Litter. iii) Noise. iv) Loss of variety of businesses. v) Area requires an array of shops & professions to bring people into street. vi) Impact on street character (i.e. empty shops, litter, anti-social behaviour). vii) There are a large number of food outlets in Whitchurch Road, impacting on day time trade.
182 7.4 It is noted that 23 letters have been received from neighbouring occupiers, 35, 83, 85, 86, 90-92, 97-99, 100, 105, 132-134, 136, 148, 152, 154 Whitchurch Road, 60 Glenroy Street, 14 Heathfield Place and 66 Canada Road. It is noted that the letters received are copies of the letter (word for word) received from Cllr Bridges (see para 7.2 above).
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The main issues in respect of this proposal are:
i) Loss of retail. ii) The impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers; and iii) highway safety/parking issues.
8.2 The application site comprises a shop unit on the ground floor, with residential accommodation on the first floor. It is noted that the site is within a designated district shopping centre.
8.3 Land use Policy comment that the proposal is subject to Policy 49 of the Local Plan, which favours new and improved retail (including A3 uses). The shop is currently vacant and was last in use 12 months ago. As a vacant shop, the unit does not currently contribute positively towards the general vitality or viability of the centre.
Total Units within Whitchurch Road District Centre = 132 (100%) Total A1 units = 48 (36%) Total A2 units = 39 (30%) Total A3 units = 17 (13%) Other = 13 (10%) Total Vacant = 15 (11%)
It is noted that the increase in an A3 unit (if approved) would alter the above figures by approximately 0.6%. It is not considered that the increase in a A3 unit would have a prejudicial impact upon the predominate shopping role and character of the centre.
8.4 In respect of the potential impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents, it will be noted that the Operational Manager Environment and Public Protection (Pollution Control) has not objected to the proposal subject to the provision of condition 3, 4, 5 and 6.
8.5 The Operational Manager, Transportation states that he has no objections to the proposal in terms of parking and highway safety.
8.6 In regard to the objection received from Cllr Bridges:
i+ii) It is noted that the shop has been vacant for over 12 months and no other uses have been found. It is not considered that there is a proliferation of A3 uses within Whitchurch Road that would justify refusal of this application. The table above shows that currently 13% of
183 units within the Whitchurch Road District Centre are A3 uses (includes restaurants, takeaways, cafes etc), there are a near equal number of vacant units within the centre and currently A1 and A2 uses account for 66% of the total number of units. See para 8.3 above iii) It is noted that Whitchurch Road is not subject to a moratorium on additional A3 premises and that each application is dealt with on its own individual merits. It is also noted that Whitchurch Road is not subject to a saturation policy in terms of licensing. South Wales Police have not raised any objections to the proposed change of use
8.7 In regard to the objections received from local residents:
i) Not a planning matter. ii) The OM, Waste Management raises no objections. iii) The OM, Environment and Public Protection raises no objections. iv + vii) See para 8.3, it is not considered that the proposal will lead to a loss of variety of uses within the district centre, there is currently a large variety of premises within centre and A3 uses constitute approximately 13% of the total number of units. v) It is not considered that the proposal would have a prejudicial impact upon the character of the street .
8.8 Approval is recommended, subject to appropriate conditions.
184 185 PETITION, MEMBER OBJECTION, AM OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/846/W APPLICATION DATE: 24/05/2010
ED: LLANDAFF
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Doublet Holdings Ltd LOCATION: THE RETREAT, PWLLMELIN ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, CF5 2NL PROPOSAL: DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT 20 NO APARTMENTS 18 2 BED x 2 X ONE BEDROOM IN TWO BLOCKS 3 STOREY RETAINING EXISTING TPO TREES AND LAYING OUT AMENITY GARDENS RETAINING EXISTING BOUNDARIES PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ACCESS OFF THE CHANTRY. ______
RECOMMENDATION: That, the contribution for public open space (POS) be increased from £16,240 to £25,133.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Committee notes the change in ownership certificate.
1. ANALYSIS
1.1 Committee will be aware that the above application was reported to the April planning meeting where it was resolved to approve the application, subject to a Section 106 Agreement. A contribution of £16,240 for off site recreational facilities (see attached appendices paragraph 5.5). The amount reported was in error the sum should be to comply with the Council’s adopted open space SPG. This report is returned to Members to seek authority to secure this amount.
Officers would also take this opportunity to report that the original application had been submitted with certificate ‘A’ signed (that the applicant has the sole interest in the land) but the application was submitted by a company (in which majority share holder is the owner of the land). Certificate ‘B’ has been signed and noticed served on the land owner to remove any uncertainty as to the validity of this certificate and to ensure nobody has been disadvantaged by this process.
ALL OTHER MATTERS REMAIN THE SAME AS THAT APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE. OFFICERS RECOMMEND THE COMMITTEE APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS ABOVE.
186 APPENDIX ONE
PETITION, MEMBER OBJECTION, AM OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 13/04/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/846/W APPLICATION DATE: 24/05/2010
ED: LLANDAFF
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Doublet Holdings Ltd LOCATION: THE RETREAT, PWLLMELIN ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, CF5 2NL PROPOSAL: DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCT 20 NO APARTMENTS 18 2 BED x 2 X ONE BEDROOM IN TWO BLOCKS 3 STOREY RETAINING EXISTING TPO TREES AND LAYING OUT AMENITY GARDENS RETAINING EXISTING BOUNDARIES PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ACCESS OFF THE CHANTRY ______
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 paragraphs 5.1 and 5.8 of the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment 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 dated 4th March, 2011 and site plans dated 15th February, 2011attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. The development shall be constructed in line with the Arboricultural Development Statement dated September, 2010 (CBA7491) with a register of the visits undertaken by the Arboriculturalist being available for inspection by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the protected trees are not harmed during the construction process
4. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro
5. C4R Landscaping Implementation
6. Prior to the beneficial use of the flats the approved parking shall be
187 implemented and maintained on site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure an acceptable provision of parking.
7. Prior to the beneficial use of the flats the approved cycle parking shall be implemented and maintained on site. Reason: To ensure an acceptable provision of cycle parking.
8. C3F Details of Access Road Junction
9. C3H Closure of Existing Access
10. C3K Provision of Road Before Occup. of Dwell
11. The internal layout of the development shall be constructed strictly in accordance with the approved dated 4th March, 2011 and no future alteration shall be made to the layout unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the residential amenity of future occupiers and the surrounding area.
12. The first floor windows on east elevation shall be non opening below a height of 1.8 metres above internal floor level and glazed with obscure glass and thereafter shall be so maintained. Reason : To ensure that the development does not prejudice the future development of adjoining land.
13. No development, including demolition, shall be undertaken that does not comply with the details to mitigate for bats, as outlined in 5.5 of the submitted bat survey details of compliance shall be made available for inspection to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure compliance with the bat survey
14. No development shall be undertaken until details of the construction and maintenance of the proposed bin store have been submitted and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority and thereafter maintained. Reason: To ensure the viability of the proposed tree.
15. Each new dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve a minimum of 6 credits under category “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
16. Construction of any dwelling hereby permitted shall not begin until an
188 “Interim Certificate” has been submitted to the local planning authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” has been achieved for that individual dwelling or house type in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
17. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes “Final Certificate” shall be submitted to the local planning authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” has been achieved for the development in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
18. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the letter from the agent dated 20th October, 2010. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
19. D7Z Contaminated materials
20. C2F Details of Floor and Ground Levels
RECOMMENDATION 2: A footway crossover reconfiguration is required as part of the proposals; contact John Haines (tel: 02920 785241) of Highway Operations in order to obtain the necessary licence and agree the specification for the works.
RECOMMENDATION 3: 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 4: It is recommended that public transport options are provided to tenants 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. Liaison with Cheryl Owen of Transportation Policy, can be sought
189 to help achieve this.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The proposal was reported to the November planning committee where it was deferred for a site visit which took place on the 6th December, 2010; then application was then presented to the December committee where it was deferred for officers to draft reason for refusal on the following grounds: out of character of context with the urban pattern of development within the area; un-neighbourly and overbearing on the properties at ‘The Chantry’ and finally highways safety as the principal access was off ‘The Chantry. A report was drafted for the January committee, this was withdrawn at the request of the application to address the concerns raised above.
The amended proposal seeks full permission to demolish the existing house and built two block of apartments: block one, closet to Pwllmelin Road would be at the same level as the existing house (50 metres AOD); the rear block (block 2) being 0.5 metres lower (49.5 metres AOD).
1.2 Since the initial proposal, the density of the scheme has been reduced from twenty-four to twenty units comprising eighteen two bedroom and two one bedroom flats. Access to these flats will be off The Chantry with an emergency services access point off Pwllmelin Road. The parking remains the same at twenty-six car park spaces and forty bicycle stand spaces
1.3 Block A the closest to Pwllmelin Road, Would have a foot print of 26 metres x 20 metres in a loose ‘L’ shape. Dormers would be inserted into the roof plane.
Block B would be located 11.6 metres to north of block A with a foot print of 21 metres x 13 metres with a two storey element closest to 1 ‘The Chantry’ with have an eaves height of 3.5 metres with a gable end up to 6.8 metres. This block would be offset from The Chantry by between 10 and 11 metres and the same from the northern boundary (butting 1 The Chantry).
Both blocks would have what can loosely described as hip rood with a sunken flat top. Both would be finished in an arts and crafts style.
The blocks are separated by the main access road into the estate.
1.4 28 car parking spaces and 42 cycle parking spaces would be provided for the proposed development.
1.5 The building would be finished in arts and crafts style.
1.6 Additional information has been submitted regarding the site levels and reallocating parking space 1 from underneath a protected tree towards block two together with basic details of the proposed bin store to overcome concerns raised by the Tree Officer.
190 1.7 A letter has been submitted by the Transport Consultant to clarify the Transport Assessment which states:
The traffic surveys were undertaken during school term time between the 13th and 19th May, 2010, over a 24 hour period for each survey day. From the survey data it has been identified that the highest traffic flows along Pwllmelin road were recorded between 0800 hours and 0900 hour during the AM peak hour and between 1700 hours and 1800 hours during the PM peak hour. The peak hour associated with the Bishop of Llandaff School is between 1430 hours and 1530 hours.
The traffic generation associated with the proposed residential use has been established using the TRICS Database, which is the accepted industry standard in order to determine development traffic flows. From the TRICS Databases it has been identified that the peak hour traffic generation of the proposed development coincides with the peak hours identified from the traffic surveys, of between 0800 hours and 0900 hours and 1700 and 1800 hours.
When assessing additional development along the highway network during the peak hour associated with the adjacent Bishop of Llandaff School, it is noted that development traffic again only represents a minor increase of 2% equating five additional vehicles (2-way).
The suitability of the junction of The Chantry and Pwllmelin Road to serve the development proposals has been considered taking account of development traffic. However, it is noted that the increase in traffic flow from the development will be insignificant and at worst will equate to less than 2 vehicles every 10 minutes passing through the junction at peak times. Therefore, it is clear that due to extremely low volumes of traffic generated by the development that a capacity analyses of the junction is not required and in any event, would not provide a meaningful assessment based on minimal traffic generation. This has been agreed with Cardiff County Council as the Highway Authority.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site comprises of a large detached residential property at the corner of Pwllmelin Road and The Chantry. It is set on a number of different levels, these levels being 48.85 metres AOD abutting Pwllmelin Road rising to 49.6 metres by the house and to 50 metres AOD abutting 1 The Chantry and includes a swimming pool, tennis courts and gardens.
2.2 The site is enclosed by hedge along the north, south and west boundaries and a 2 metres high wooden fence along the east boundary with neighbouring properties. The southern boundary is further reinforced with a number of protected mature trees (City of Cardiff (The Retreat, Llandaff) TPO 1977 and City Of Cardiff (Pwllmelin Lane)TPO 1987))
2.3 There are two access points to the site both of which are off Pwllmelin Road
191 2.4 The site is not located within a conservation or flood plain area nor is the building listed
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 Nil
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) created a statutory partnership between local authorities, the police and other key partners to work together in reducing crime and disorder in all aspects of their work. Section 17 of the Act states:
“It is the duty of the authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect on crime and disorder in its area and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.”
4.2 Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990)
4.3 Planning Policy Wales (2011) paragraph (s);
3.1.3 Factors to be taken into account in making planning decisions (material considerations) must be planning matters; that is, they must be relevant to the regulation of the development and use of land in the public interest, towards the goal of sustainability.
3.1.4 Material considerations must also be fairly and reasonably related to the development concerned. The Courts are the final arbiters of what may be regarded as material considerations in relation to any particular application, but they include the number, size, layout, design and appearance of buildings, the means of access, landscaping, service availability and the impact on the neighbourhood and on the environment. The effects of a development on, for example, health, public safety and crime can also be material considerations, as, in principle, can public concerns in relation to such effects.
3.1.7 The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. Proposals should be considered in terms of their effect on the amenity and existing use of land and buildings in the public interest. The Courts have ruled that the individual interest is an aspect of the public interest, and it is therefore valid to consider the effect of a proposal on the amenity of neighbouring properties. However, such consideration should be based on general principles, reflecting the wider public interest (for example a standard of ‘good neighbourliness’), rather than the concerns of the individual.
3.1.8 When determining planning applications local planning authorities must take into account any relevant view on planning matters expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and any other third parties. While the
192 substance of local views must be considered, the duty is to decide each case on its planning merits. As a general principle, local opposition or support for a proposal is not, on its own, a reasonable ground for refusing or granting planning permission; objections, or support, must be based on valid planning considerations. There may be cases where the development proposed may give rise to public concern. The Courts have held that perceived fears of the public are a material planning consideration that should be taken into account in determining whether a proposed development would affect the amenity of an area and could amount to a good reason for a refusal of planning permission. It is for the local planning authority to decide whether, upon the facts of the particular case, the perceived fears are of such limited weight that a refusal of planning permission on those grounds would be unreasonable.
4.4.2 Locate developments so as to minimise the demand for travel, especially by private car.
4.8.1 Previously developed (or brownfield) land (see Figure 4.1) should, wherever possible, be used in preference to greenfield sites, particularly those of high agricultural or ecological value. The Assembly Government recognises that not all previously developed land is suitable for development. This may be, for example, because of its location, the presence of protected species or valuable habitats or industrial heritage, or because it is highly contaminated. For sites like these it may be appropriate to secure remediation for nature conservation, amenity value or to reduce risks to human health.
9.2.12 Policies will be needed to cover the physical scale and design of new buildings, access, density, and off-street parking, taking account of particular residential areas and of changing needs. Strong pressure for development may give rise to inappropriately high densities if not carefully controlled. Higher densities should be encouraged on easily accessible sites, where appropriate, but these will need to be carefully designed to ensure a high quality environment. In particular, local planning authorities should adopt a flexible approach to car parking standards.
9.3.3 Insensitive infilling, or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment, including conversion and adaptation, should not be allowed to damage an area’s character or amenity. This includes any such impact on neighbouring dwellings, such as serious loss of privacy or overshadowing.
9.3.4 In determining applications for new housing, local planning authorities should ensure that the proposed development does not damage an area’s character and amenity. Increases in density help to conserve land resources, and good design can overcome adverse effects, but where high densities are proposed the amenity of the scheme and surrounding property should be carefully considered. High quality design and landscaping standards are particularly important to enable high density developments to fit into existing residential areas
4.4 Technical Advice Note 12: (Design) (2009) paragraphs;
193 2.6 Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to grasp opportunities to enhance the character, quality and function of an area, should not be accepted, as these have detrimental effects on existing communities.
5.7.4 Building at higher densities is not synonymous with high rise development and innovative good design is a prerequisite to the success of higher densities. The perception of lower density can be influenced by skilful design. Clearly defining public and private space and ensuring suitability for purpose will be particularly important where densities are high.
5.11.2 Development proposals, in relation to housing design should aim to
x create places with the needs of people in mind, which are distinctive and x respect local character x promote layouts and design features which encourage community safety x and accessibility x focus on the quality of the places and living environments for pedestrians x rather than the movement and parking of vehicles x avoid inflexible planning standards and encourage layouts which manage x vehicle speeds through the geometry of the road and building x promote environmental sustainability features, such as energy efficiency, in new housing and make clear specific commitments to carbon reductions x and / or sustainable building standards. x secure the most efficient use of land including appropriate densities x consider and balance potential conflicts between these criteria.
5.11.3 The design of housing layouts and built form should reflect local context and distinctiveness, including topography and building fabric. Response to context should not be confined to architectural finishes. The important contribution that can be made to local character by contemporary design, appropriate to context, should be acknowledged. To help integrate old and new development and reinforce hierarchy between spaces, consideration should be given to retaining existing landmarks, established routes, mature trees and hedgerows within housing areas as well as introducing new planting appropriate to the area. All residential proposals should seek to minimise energy demand, larger schemes should investigate the feasibility of a district heating schemes especially when mixed uses are proposed for the site
6.7 The appearance and function of proposed development, its scale and its relationship to its surroundings is material considerations in determining planning applications and appeals. Developments that do not address the objectives of good design should not be accepted.
Other Technical Advice Notes (TAN) that are relevant: 10 (Trees) 18 (Transportation) 21 (Waste) 22 Sustainable buildings
194 4.5 Other national guidance that are relevant: Manuel for streets W/O 35/95 ‘Use of conditions in planning permission’ W/O 13/97 ‘Planning obligations’ W/O 16/94 states that “layouts should aim to reassure the public by making crime more difficult to commit, increase the risk of detection and provide people with a safer, more secure environment” .
W/O 23/93 Paragraphs 8 &12 of Annex 3 advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused another party to incur or waste expense unnecessarily.
Paragraph 9 of Annex 3 of the Circular also makes it clear that planning authorities are not bound to accept the advice of their officers but are expected to show reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to that advice and to put forward reasonable evidence to support that decision. Failure to do so may lead to an award of costs against them.
4.6 The following policies found within the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (adopted 1997) are relevant to the determination of this application;
Policy EN1 'Towards Sustainable Development' Policy MV11 'Parking' Policy B2 'Improvement of Environmental Quality
4.7 The following policies found within 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 ‘Public open space’
4.8 The following policies found within the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003) are relevant to the determination of the application;
1.B (Achieving Good Design) 1.N (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 for Waste Management facilities in Development)
195 4.9 Information contained within the following Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant to the determination of the application:
Access, Circulation and Parking (2010); Residential Design Guide (2008); Open Space (2008) Trees and development (2007) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (2007); Energy efficient designs for new residential development (1995).
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Chief Officer Highways and Transportation states:
A Transport Statement (TS) was submitted in support of the application, which reviewed the existing transportation issues associated with the development proposals in terms of trip generation, sustainability, parking, access and accessibility. The statement derived a trip generation for the proposed residential use, and compared the forecast traffic with the existing flows on Pwllmelin Road, which represents a maximum of 2% over and above the existing situation. The TS concluded that the proposals will have no material impact along the highway network adjacent to the site including at the junction of Pwllmelin Road / The Chantry. Furthermore, it is accepted that the development peak hours will not coincide with the 'Bishop of Llandaff School' peak and as such should not make the existing situation worse at these times; On the basis of the above, I can therefore confirm that Transportation would have no objection to the proposal subject to the attached conditions and request a financial contribution of £7,000 for a bus border, carriage markings for a bus stop of Pwllmelin Road, tactile paving, dropped kerbs and the introduction of parking restrictions on the junction of Pwllmelin Road/ The Chantry.
5.2 The Operational Manager for Pollution Control raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the attached conditions and recommendations;
5.3 The Chief Highways Waste and Management Officer (Drainage) raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the attached conditions;
5.4 The Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Waste) raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the attached conditions and recommendations
5.5 The Chief Officer Enterprise (Parks) raised no objections to the proposed development but requests a financial contribution of £16,240 for the provision of off site recreational space.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer : any comments will be reported to
196 Committee.
6.2 Dwr Cymru/ Welsh Water raised no objections to the proposed development however did advise a series of recommendations to be attached to any decision notice.
6.3 Cardiff Bus: any comments will be reported to committee.
6.4 Countryside Council for Wales: No objections subject to condition and advisory note
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Seventeen neighbouring properties were notified. The application was also advertised by site and local press notice. With the following objections received:
All twelve properties on ‘The Chantry’ object to this scheme on the following grounds:
x A three storey development on this elevated site would harm their privacy and would be overbearing and visually intrusive x Out of character with the large family homes in this area. x Insufficient off street parking x Adverse effect on highway and pedestrian safety due to the close proximity of the Bishop of Llandaff School, who park their buses on Pwllmelin Road, x ‘The Chantry’ is incapable of taking the extra traffic movements, x The junction of The Chantry and Pwllmelin Road cannot cope with such volume of traffic x Over development of the site x Question the need for more flats in Cardiff compared to family accommodation. x The occupiers of 54a, 54b, 59, 63 and Léhan Pwllmelin Road agree with the above and add the following: x Question how an assessment can be made without levels and concern of the lack of detail to the plans. x Residents were informed that only large detached houses would be approved in this area x The plans are misleading x The Owner of 55 Pwllmelin Road supports the above objections and adds that they believe that the developer exhibits a lack of civic responsibility in such an inappropriate development would prefer single housing or an elderly sheltered home. x 1 ‘The Chantry’ has read the report and is concerned that the ground levels have not been assessed in terms of the impact on this property and the overshadowing that would be caused from the development.
57, 40 61 Pwllmelin Road support the above objections and raise no new
197 points.
The Chair of Governors of the Bishop of Llandaff school: objects of highway safety grounds due to the inadequacy of vision splay and believe that this development should not comprise the ability of buses to parking on Pwllmelin to pick up/drop off pupils
2 Little Orchard raises the same points as above
7.2 A petition of over 50 residents has been submitted, who object to this development on the grounds that there is a lack of parking, it is out of character with the area and as over development
7.3 Local ward member Councillor Davies objects to this scheme on the following grounds:
x Overdevelopment of the site x Out of character with area and the adjoin conservation area x Overbearing of the adjoining properties being 3 story in height x Will result in light and noise pollution x Will cause major traffic congestion. x Believes the plans are misleading
7.4 Mr David Melding, AM, objects to this application on the following grounds: Highly inappropriate to build such an elevated block of flats in the middle of a residential area. This has implications for both the line of sight and the overlooking of existing adjacent properties.
Considerable overdevelopment of a restricted site in an area with traffic problems during the school term.
Design of the proposed development in the flats would not be at all in keeping with the local character of the surrounding properties.
He notes that the site will be developed in some way in the near future but another more suitable option needs to be considered perhaps involving houses and not flats
7.5 The Llandaff Society objects to this development for the following reasons:
The loss of a large family house, which, they believe adds the character of the area. The finish does not respect the vocabulary of materials common to Llandaff.
7.6 G Powys Jones, MSc. FRTPI. – representing most of the residents occupying the houses closest to the proposal objects on the following:
Adopted Local Plan policy 11 requires all new development to be of a good design which has proper regard to the scale and character of the surrounding environment. The explanatory text provides that all new development
198 proposals must have regard for the established scale and pattern of the local built environment in terms of height, massing, spacing and character. Policy guidance and advice provided in PPW 2010. Para 9.3.4 provides that Local Planning Authorities should give careful consideration to the introduction of higher density developments into established residential areas, so as not to damage an area’s character and amenity.
This part of Llandaff is characterized by residential development, largely in the form of 2-storey dwellings set in relatively spacious and verdant surroundings. The amended scheme for the site fails the tests of local plan policy, in that it pays insufficient regard to the established scale and pattern of the local environment in terms of its scale, form, massing and general character. It is uncharacteristic of the area, and would appear incongruous in its setting when compared with the scale, massing and design of surrounding development.
His clients are not opposed to the principle of redevelopment in accordance with statutory local policy that reflects the local character. A far less dense form of development, comprised of a small number of dwellings, would be far more appropriate.
His clients are far from convinced that the traffic assessments carried out are reflective of local conditions. The timings of the surveys suggest that no consideration has been given to the chaotic and potentially dangerous conditions existing when the nearby Bishop of Llandaff School is serviced in the morning and late afternoon. The proposed development would attract additional traffic, thus exacerbating the poor traffic conditions on Pwllmelin Road at its busiest time.
His clients formally request members of the Planning Committee to visit the site before arriving at a final decision timed to coincide, morning or afternoon, with the time when the local school is at its busiest in affecting local highway conditions. Members could thus see traffic conditions for themselves, and arrive at their own, independent judgments.
7.7 The representations have been received on the amended plans from the following: ‘The Chantry’: Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Pwllmelin Road: Nos. 50, 53, 54, 54B, 55, 61, 63 Léhan A letter from JCP solicitors, acting on behalf of 1 ‘The Chantry’ 2 Little Orchard
All believe that the amended plans have not overcome their objections as initially expressed.
7.8 A fresh petition has been received on the amend plans objecting that the plans do not differ from the original, there remains an excessive number of units, and the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site, that is out of character with the area, it will adversely impact upon the residents.
199 8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The key considerations are set out below:
8.2 Impact on residential amenity of adjoining neighbours:
The Chantry (properties west and north of the site)
Currently these properties are screened from the application site by a large hedge, which it is proposed to retain, but glimpses into the site and the upper part of the development i.e. roof and new entrance would be visible from these properties. However, it is considered by officers that it is unlikely to be unneighbourly or over bearing and furthermore that it accords with adopted design guidance which seeks developments to be at least 10.5 metres away from the boundaries to protect against overlooking of gardens.
Officers note concern has been raised over the likelihood of the hedge remaining and the resultant form, which would be highly prominent but even if the hedge was removed the development is still 21 metres away and whilst the properties on The Chantry are lower than the application site it still would not, in the view of officers, result in an overbearing nor un-neighbourly form of development.
Number 1 ‘The Chantry’ is affected more than most being that it is to the north and has a common boundary with the development. The amended scheme provides for the nearest block be located approximately 11 metres away from the property and the proposed windows ( reduced to just two , one first floor on ground) that would overlook the garden and side window will be conditioned to be non-opening and obscurely glazed to protect their privacy. Officers believe that the retention of the boundary trees the reduced height and the ground level being 0.5 metres lower than the existing house ensures that the amended scheme does not unreasonable harm their amenity
Maes Derwen, 54A, 54B Pwllmelin Road
These properties are sited to the east of the development and currently enjoy an outlook over the application site. This proposal would block that outlook but these properties are located approximately 8 metres away from the boundary and 16 metres away building to building and with the resultant building would on the element closet to them be smaller than the one currently on site. Given the distance and orientation of these building from the development and the proposed ridge height it is considered by officers that the proposal accords with adopted design guide lines and would not unreasonably harm the amenities of these properties.
Officers note that there are a number of first floor windows overlooking these properties but the separation distance meets with privacy standards of 10.5 metres set within the council’s adopted guidance. A condition is recommended for the first floor windows to be obscurely glazed and non- opening below 1.8 metres.
200 57-65 (Odd) Pwllmelin Road
The remaining properties on the opposite side of Pwllmelin Road are located 15 metres away between garden boundaries with the buildings themselves set back beyond that furthermore they are screened to a degree by the protected trees. As a result it is considered by officers that the development would neither harm their amenities or be un-neighbourly or overbearing.
8.3 Parking/highways safety
Grave concern has been raised by residents over the lack of off street-parking for the development which, they believe, would result in on-street parking in an area which, during school term, becomes highly congested (residents have provided photographic evidence of this) and will become more so with the planned autistic centre for the nearby Bishop of Llandaff School.
However, the proposed parking is above the minimum parking standards contained within the Council’s adopted SPG and is in line with the aspiration of national policy to reduce car dependency. The site itself has good access to public transport and is within easy walking distance of a railway station and bus stop. The Transport study by the developer concurs with this view and whilst the residents believe this study to be floored it has been conducted using national recognised techniques. Officers believe that the proposal would not cause highway safety concerns, which is supported by the transport assessment.
Concern has also been raised over the use of the Chantry as the principle means of access to the development as residents believe that the road was not designed for such a use. Officers believe that the road could handle such a development; the transport assessment undertaken by the developer provides evidence, and would not undermine highway safety.
Officers note that an access for emergency vehicles is proposed off Pwllmelin Road, a condition is recommended to control its use by emergency vehicles, details are to be submitted.
8.4 Density
Neither local nor national policies define a numerical acceptable level of density. However, national policy does seek efficient use of brownfield sites that are in close proximity to public modes of transport. Officers believe that this site meets those objectives and that twenty-two two bed-roomed flats would not, on balance, result in over development given the amount of amenity space and foreland provided within the site and the off set from the boundaries. Officers note that brownfield land as been re-defined in England but that policy stance has not been adopted in Wales.
8.5 Impact upon the character of the area
201 The area is defined by a number of distinct characteristics: The northern side of Pwllmelin Road in the vicinity of the application site has been the subject of infill and subdivision of a larger residential plots. The Chantry was developed on land which formerly belonged to The Retreat, 54, 54a, 54b Pwllmelin Road and Little Orchard are all sub-divisions of larger plots and thus to some extent define the character on the northern side of the road. Pwllmelin Road, is a mixed period of large family houses set well within large plots and back from the road. Officers believe that the proposed development, as amended, respects the established spatial character and built form of the area in terms of design, scale, layout and set back from the road. The colour palette and materials in an arts and craft style are also considered to respond positively to the area, if there is any criticism that the art the design is too pastiche.
8.6 Amenity of the future occupiers
Officers believe that the flats are bright and airy with a good circulation and useful amenity space that is safe secure and private. Parking and waste are in appropriate locations that residents can use.
The ground floor flats would have privacy defended by the creation of hedging beneath windows to ensure a stand off distance.
8.7 Impact upon protected trees
Officers note the arboricultural development statement believe that the proposed development and with measure for replacement trees will ensure that the overall visual impact of the development would not unreasonable harm the character of the area. Whilst some trees will be removed (4) three of these are for sound arboricultural management regardless of the development and there are replacement trees for those lost. The amended plan which relocate a parking space and the details of bin storage and overcome the initial concerns of the trees officer. Further details have been conditioned but the principle is acceptable.
8.8. Crime of the perception of crime is a material consideration. However, officers believe that there is defensible space, both in hard and soft form. There is also natural surveillance in and around the site from the proposed flats it is considered by officers that the proposal would not result in a scheme that would increase crime in this area.
8.9 The request for financial contribution from parks and highways is in accordance with adopted plans and relate directly to the impact of the proposed development. It is considered by officers that the request accords with advice contained in W/O 13/97 ‘ Planning Obligations’ and does not conflict with the new CIL regulations.
8.10 Other matters not covered above
Bats: A Bat survey has been undertaken which recommends a number of conditions (Section 5). Both The Council Ecologist and Countryside Council
202 for Wales raise no objections subject to conditions dealing with necessary mitigation.
Water/sewerage capacity Welsh Water raises no objections to this scheme, therefore officers conclude that the system can accommodate the development.
Noise and light pollution: Officers note these concerns but given the residential character of the development, whilst at a more intense level than currently exists, would not undermine the residential nature of the area. It is anticipated that low level lighting will be used for the parking area
Need for flats: Officers note the concern that Cardiff as a whole is ‘flooded’; with un-sold flats with two named developments within the Llandaff area. However, these flats being two bedrooms extend the range of accommodation in a sought after area and close proximity to a sought after school where there is a predominance of large family housing.
Sustainable buildings: the development has undertaken a sustainable assessment and meets national minimum standards of design. To ensure compliance conditions have been attached.
A request to listed the building has been made CADW have responded that they do not believe the building meets its criteria for listing
8.11 The proposal has been assessed against the policy cited above and the material matters raised have been considered. In the opinion of officers it is compliant with the objectives of the policy cited and will not result in an unreasonable impact upon residential amenity of the occupants and neighbours, visual amenity of the area, highway safety or any other material matter subject to the conditions recommended above.
8.12 The application is recommended for approval.
8.13 As instructed officers have returned the reasons for refusal below, however members are advised to reflect upon these reasons in the light of the amended plans.
1. The proposed flats would be by virtue of their scale, design and massing result in an incongruous and alien form of development that would be out of character in an area of predominantly detached two storey family residential dwellings contrary to policy 11 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), 2:20 of the deposited Cardiff Unitary Development (2003) and advice contained in paragraph 9.3.3, 9.3.4 of Planning Policy Wales (2010), paragraph 2.6, 5.11.3, 6.7 of TAN 12.
2. The proposed development would, due to its scale, siting, massing and elevated position above the dwellings on The Chantry, be an overbearing and un-neighbourly form of development contrary to policy 11 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), 2:20 of the deposited Cardiff
203 Unitary Development (2003) and advice contained in paragraph 9.3.3, 9.3.4 of Planning Policy Wales (2010), paragraph 2.6, 5.11.3, 6.7 of TAN 12.
The third reason relates to traffic generated by this proposal. Before reaching its decision Members are asked to consider the further comments of the Transportation Manager who states:
‘With regard to Committees concerns, I would make the following comments:
(i) That the trip generation associated with the proposal would likely be 8 No. (2 way) in the morning peak hour, 5 No. (2 way) trips in the school peak hour and 9 No. (2 way) in the evening peak hour. These figures are contained within the submitted Transport Statement, as predicted by TRICS (which is a national database used to determine the trip generation for various use classes – in this case residential) and are deemed to be negligible in terms of traffic impact. (ii) No evidence has been put forward to suggest that those figures referred to in (i) above may be higher in practice and as such without any data to substantiate this concern, it would be difficult to sustain an objection at appeal on the basis of traffic generation alone.’
Failure to provide any substantive evidence that traffic flows would be higher than predicted by the TRICS database or to demonstrate precisely why such a small change in flow would have such an impact so as to make the highway conditions unsafe could be seen as unreasonable and lead to an award of costs at appeal. For this reason, officers do not recommend the use of the third reason for refusal provided below.
3. That the impact on The Chantry (which the proposed development would be accessed off) would be unacceptable in terms of additional traffic associated with the proposed development, resulting in a development that would be detrimental to the efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the site; contrary to policies 17, 18 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996).
PAGE NO. 125 APPLICATION NO. 10/00846/W ADDRESS The Retreat
FROM: Councillor Aubrey
SUMMARY: Asks the following questions: x Has any consideration been given to how the site will be accessed during construction? I know in the past that we’ve put conditions relating to the production of a satisfactory site access plan, has/could this be done in this case? (This is particularly relevant given that the application involves construction of a new access
204 point and residents will be concerned about the prospect of construction traffic using it!) Can you remind me what condition was suggested in relation to the hedge on The Chantry side? Residents have pointed out P.16 of the design and access statement, which appears to show the bin store even closer to the hedge than before (and indeed now actively fouling the hedge line!)
REMARKS: Question one: Requesting a condition on traffic management has been used in the past on large projects. However, this is hard to enforce by the LPA as anybody can park on the public highway. This, in view of officers, fails one of the test of a valid condition (these tests can be found in W/O circular 35/95) it must also be remembered that third parties cannot enforce planning conditions i.e. the highways nor the police could enforce planning conditions. Any blocking of a public highway can be enforced through the police (I accept that it is unlikely to be a high priority for them) or if the van etc park on the double yellows the council can enforce that. However, if the committee feel fit that such a condition should be imposed officers offer the following: No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development v. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate v. wheel washing facilities vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. Reason: to protect the amenities of adjoining neighbour. Question two: The plans show the hedge would be reduced in height to around 4 metres. The value of the hedge to the street scene is questionable its protection would be for 5 years in line with the standard landscaping condition.
205 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/1209/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 06/07/2010
ED: PENYLAN
APP: TYPE: Removal of condition(s)
APPLICANT: Lanebridge Investment Management Limited LOCATION: UNIT 5, THE AVENUE RETAIL PARK, NEWPORT ROAD, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 9AE PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF CONDITION 19 OF 03/2923/R TO ALLOW THE UNRESTRICTED SALE OF CLASS A1 GOODS AT UNIT 5 ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons :
1. The applicants have not satisfactorily demonstrated a need for the proposal contrary to national planning policy contained in Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February, 2011) and Technical Advice Note 4 : Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
2. The proposal does not accord with the Council's retail strategy, the main objective of which is to protect and enhance the viability and vitality of district and local centres and is therefore contrary to Policy 50 (Retail Development) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), Policy R4 (Out of Centre Retail Development) of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure plan, Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February, 2011) and Technical Advice Note 4 : Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
3. The proposal adversely affects the recent regeneration scheme in Clifton Street by diverting potential investment and expenditure to an out-of- centre car based location contrary to Policy 50 (Retail Development) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), Policy R4 (Out of Centre Retail Development) of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan, Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February, 2011) and Technical Advice Note 4 : Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning application 10/923/E sought to vary condition 19 of planning permission 03/2923/R to allow the expansion of the range of goods that could be sold at Unit 5, The Avenue Retail Park, essentially to enable approximately half of the unit to be occupied by Boots the Chemist. The planning application was subsequently refused at Planning Committee meeting on the 15th December 2010.
1.2 The current application (ref 10/1209/DCO) seeks the removal of condition 19 to allow a range of retailers to occupy the unit (controlled by legal
207 agreement). It was reported to Planning Committee on 12th January 2011 with a recommendation that planning permission be refused. However, members deferred the application at the request of the Applicants who indicated that whilst they were reviewing whether to lodge an appeal following the refusal of application 10/923E, they were keen to maintain a positive dialogue with the Council, and with this in mind, they advised that they intended to submit a further planning application for the Boots proposal, incorporating updated retail information and responding to the Council’s reasons for refusal.
1.3 That planning application (ref: 11/134) was submitted on 10th February, 2011 and is also reported on this schedule.
1.4 The report which follows relates to planning application 10/1209/DCO and remains unaltered from report to Committee on 12th January, 2011.
1.5 Planning permission was granted in August 2004 (ref: 03/2923R) for the erection of buildings for use within Class A1 at Avenue Retail Park. Condition 19 of the planning permission was conditioned to restrict the range of goods that could be sold from the premises and states :
The retail floorspace hereby permitted shall not be used for purposes other than the sale of home improvement and DIY products, plumbing and hardware goods, timber and building products, paint and wallpaper, garden supplies, furniture, carpets and other floor coverings, soft furnishings, homewares, electrical goods, gas appliances, computers, office equipment and supplies, pets and pet products and motor accessories and shall not be used for any other purpose including those set out in Class A1 of the Schedule for the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or any Order revoking, amending or re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: The implications of other uses or changes to the format of sales have not been tested in relation to this application and would need to be examined fully in line with each of the criteria and tests of the retail strategy of the development plan and/or government planning guidance.
1.6 This current application relates to Unit 5 within the Retail Park where planning permission is sought to remove the condition to allow the unrestricted sale of Class A1 goods.
1.7 The proposal seeks to remove the existing bulky goods condition applicable to Unit 5 and to replace this with a Unilateral Undertaking or Section 106 Agreement that restricts the ranges of goods that can be sold in the same way as the condition, but which also allows a range of retailers selling other goods, provided their occupation has been found to be acceptable to the Council. The Agents state that the range of retailers permitted could change from time to time with the agreement of the Council and they outline the proposed heads of terms for such an agreement as follows :
The retail unit shall only be occupied by retailers that accord with Schedule A,
208 B or C.
Schedule A : Retailers that already have stores in Cardiff City Centre. The retailers must maintain their City Centre stores for at least a period of five years from the date of opening a store at Avenue Retail Park. The initial proposed list is :
Boots the Chemist Home Bargains Poundstretcher
Schedule B : New retailers to Cardiff. These would only be permitted provided that they submit details to the Local Planning Authority of sites in the City Centre that are available and give sufficient explanation that none are suitable or viable for their use. The initial proposed list is :
Aldi B & M Stores Asda Living
Schedule C : “Bulky Goods” retailers i.e. selling goods already permitted under planning permission ref 03/02923/R.
1.8 The application is supported by a Retail Impact Assessment and Transport Statement.
1.9 The Agent concludes, with regard to the Retail Statement that for the limited list of retailers proposed, there would be no unacceptable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. Rather, he states that the proposal:
1. Accords with policy objectives to promote investment and deliver accessible, competitive and innovative retail provision. 2. Is accessible by a range of means of transport. 3. Will deliver new investment and jobs to Cardiff and help to sustain a viable future for the Retail Park. 4. Will meet the need from retailers for large format accommodation in the local area. 5. Will provide qualitative benefits for consumers. 6. Will have only a negligible effect on the overall turnover of the Park and the amount of retail capacity or expenditure available. 7. Will compete with existing out-of-centre retail warehouses and food superstores and would not have a significant impact on exiting centres; 8. Could not be accommodated in existing centres as there are no sequentially preferable sites that are suitable, viable and available for any of the named retailers.
1.10 The overall conclusion of the Transport Statement is that the development proposal would be acceptable in transport terms. It states that small increase in vehicle trips (35 additional two-way trips during the Saturday peak hour) would not have any noticeable impact on the safety and operation of the
209 A4161 Newport Road / Rhymney River Bridge Road signalised junction and the provision of 345 car parking spaces would be more than adequate to accommodate the parking demand generated by the retail park.
1.11 The Agent concludes that the proposal :
x Will help to deliver jobs, inward investment and improvements to the local retail offer. x Accords with the principal retail policy considerations set out in the development plan and national planning policy guidance; and x Is acceptable in transport terms.
1.12 A separate planning application was submitted by the Applicants in July, 2010 seeking to vary condition 19 to permit the occupation of approximately half of the unit by Boots the Chemist (ref. 10/923E). The application, which was subsequently amended to omit the use of the premises as a Pharmacy and Optician, was considered by the Planning Committee on 15th December, 2010, when it was resolved that planning permission be refused.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 Unit 5 which extends to some 1737sq metres is located at the eastern end of the main retail terrace within the Avenue Retail Park. It was formerly occupied by MFI and is currently occupied by C & H Simply Furniture on a short term let. The retail park is located on Newport Road which forms one of the main arterial routes into the City. A variety of large format retail warehouses are located in the area along both sides of Newport Road.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 Planning Application 10/923E – Variation of Condition 19 of planning permission 03/2923R to allow the expansion of the range of goods to be sold. The application was refused on the 15th December, 2010.
3.2 Planning permission 07/2064E - Variation of condition 19 of permission 03/2933R to enable 929 square metres food retail sales and 232 square metres non food retail sales floorspace from Unit 4 (as identified on plan (D)PO1 Rev C) – Approved April 2008. Unit 4 is now in use as Marks and Spencer’s Simply Food.
3.3 Planning permission 03/2923/R - Erection of buildings for use within use class A1, new means of access and new service access, car parking, landscaping together with alterations to the highway – Approved August 2004.
210 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996)
x Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) x Policy 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) x Policy 50 (Retail Development)
4.2 South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan
x Policy R4 (Out of Centre Retail Development)
4.3 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003)
x Policy 2.20 (Good Design) x Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) x Policy 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements)
4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance
x Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (January, 2010)
4.5 National Planning Guidance
x Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February, 2011)
TAN 4 (Retailing and Town Centres, 1996)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation advises that the submitted Transport Statement demonstrates that the existing highway network can adequately accommodate the anticipated limited increase in the numbers of vehicles and also that there is adequate capacity within the existing car park. He therefore raises no objections to the application on highway/transportation grounds.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 Nil.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Neighbouring business premises have been notified of the application. No representations have been received.
7.2 A letter of objection has been received from consultants acting on behalf of the St David’s Partnership (Capital Shopping Centres and Land Securities) who own St David’s Shopping Centre. Having reviewed the application, they are concerned that it does not satisfy key retail policy tests and are of the view
211 that the application should be refused. The letter concludes as follows :
As the application site is located out of centre, it is necessary for the proposal to satisfy the planning guidance provided in PPW and the Local and Structure Plans for Cardiff. In this case, we do not consider this has been done and the applicant has failed to demonstrate a need for additional convenience and non-bulky comparison floorspace and has not undertaken a thorough sequential approach to site selection.
As it stands therefore, the proposals are contrary to national planning guidance in the form of PPW (July 2010) and TAN 4 (November 1996). The proposals are also contrary to Policy 50 “Retail Development” of the Local Plan and Policy R4 “Out-of-Centre Development” of the approved Structure Plan. There are no other material considerations that would outweigh a determination to be made in accordance with development plan and on this basis we trust that this application will be refused planning permission.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 This planning application seeks to remove the existing bulky goods condition applicable to Unit 5, Avenue Retail Park and to replace this with a Unilateral Undertaking or Section 106 Agreement to allow for the sale of Class A1 goods but limiting the occupation of the unit to retailers who already have stores in Cardiff City Centre (with a restriction that they must maintain their City Centre stores for at least five years) and new retailers to Cardiff providing that they give details to the Council of sites that are available in the City Centre and provide sufficient explanation that none are suitable or viable for their use. The Agreement would also permit occupation by retailers selling goods already permitted under the existing planning permission.
8.2 The application proposes an initial list of occupiers, including Boots the Chemist. The variation of condition 19 to specifically permit occupation by this retailer has been separately considered under planning application 10/923E and was recently refused on retail policy grounds.
8.3 The main issues to consider in this application are:-
1. Whether the proposal is in accord with the retail strategy for Cardiff as set out in the development plan, and with national planning guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales. 2. Whether the sale of non-restricted goods in this out-of-centre location would be harmful to the viability or vitality of recognised district and local centres in close proximity or any strategy aimed at protecting or regenerating such a centre. 3. Whether the proposed use meets the criteria of retail need, sequential test location and retail impact in the area.
8.4 Policy 50 of the Local Plan and Policy R4 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan provide the development plan policy framework.
212 8.5 Local Plan Policy 50 only allows for retail development other than those defined in Policies 34, 47 and 49, if the proposal would meet the following criteria;-
(i) the proposal cannot be satisfactorily accommodated within or adjoining an existing or planned centre and; (ii) there is no need to preserve the site for its existing or allocated use, assessed against the relevant policies of the plan and; (iii) the proposal in not within the countryside or urban fringe; and (iv) the proposal would not cause or contribute unacceptable harm to the vitality or viability of existing or planned centres, or strategies aimed at sustaining or enhancing such centres; and (v) the proposal would not cause or contribute harm to approved regeneration schemes; and (vi) resultant traffic flows, travel patterns, energy use and other emissions would be minimised; and (vii) the proposal would be well located by reference to public transport and for those wishing to travel other than by car; and (viii) car parking provision and servicing facilities are adequate; and (ix) the proposal is acceptable in terms of scale, design and amenity considerations.
8.6 Agents for the applicants have provided a supporting ‘Retail Statement’ which aims to address this policy framework.
Retail Need
8.8 Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February, 2011) requires that in determining applications best located in a town centre, including variations of conditions, the need for the development should be considered. Where need is a consideration, precedence should be accorded to establishing quantitative need to address a provable unmet demand for the provision concerned.
Quantitative Need
8.9 Agents for the application have demonstrated that the increase in turnover of the retail park, if any one of the new suggested retailers occupied the unit, would be negligible and would therefore have no significant impact on turnover in the City Centre. This analysis, however, falls short of identifying a quantitative need for the type of store proposed by the applicant and that the proposal would support a provable unmet demand. The agents also refer to the Council’s Retail Capacity Study. However, the main conclusion of the Retail Capacity Study is that after commitments are taken into account, there is no quantitative need for additional non-bulky comparison goods floorspace in the County to 2021. Indeed, the Retail Capacity Study (paragraph. 7.24 and Table 7.8) identifies an undersupply of bulky goods floorspace in 2021 in Zone 4 (the area in which the application site is located). If approved, this application would exacerbate the oversupply of non-bulky comparison
213 floorspace, whilst the loss of the bulky goods floorspace would compound the emerging shortage in Zone 4.
8.10 The key conclusions and recommendations outlined in the Retail Capacity Study for non-bulky comparison goods are as follows:-
x Despite the economic downturn, consumer expenditure per head on non- bulky comparison goods is expected to increase significantly over the medium to long term (to 2021), which will generate a need for additional retail floorspace provision within the County as a whole. x In practice, however, this will be more than met by known retail commitments – resulting in a modest expenditure shortfall and an over supply of sales floorspace. x Only when the expenditure set aside for real increases in the store productivities of existing retail floorspace through to 2021 is discounted, do figures produce a need for further retail floorspace in excess of present floorspace commitments. x Need is focused principally in Cardiff City Centre. Analysis confirms a strong need for St. David’s 2, although due to the forecast dip in real consumer expenditure growth in the short term, its opening is likely to lead to a potential floorspace over supply across the County as a whole. x By 2021, a need for an additional 10,000 sq. ft. of non-bulky comparison goods floorspace in the City Centre beyond St. David’s 2 and other current commitments. x There are no obvious ‘gaps’ in the existing supply of non-bulky comparison goods floorspace within the County. x Current sales densities outside the City Centre are relatively low, which means many District Centres are likely to be trading at or below retail equilibrium levels. Accordingly, any growth in available spend at these centres should be set aside to boost existing stores productivities and therefore the trading performance of existing retailers. x For District Centres, retail policy should therefore be aimed at protecting and enhancing the quality of the existing retail offer and environment rather than planning for additional provision.
Sequential Approach
8.11 In terms of the sequential approach, the supporting evidence provides a sequential search of other possible locations nearest to the application site including:-
x Cardiff City Centre x Rumney Local Centre x Clifton Street/Broadway x Albany Road/Wellfield Road and; x Splott Local Centre
8.12 The applicant has identified 5 vacant units in the city centre and a total of 44 vacant units in the Clifton Street, Splott Road and Albany Road centres. The
214 retail statement concludes that all these opportunities have been discounted on the basis of suitability, viability and availability.
8.13 Planning guidance notes that the application of the sequential approach requires flexibility and realism. The sequential approach adopted by the agents appears to be inflexible in terms of their preferred trading model, given that any of the units are available, suitable and viable to trade non-bulky comparison goods.
Impact
8.14 Agents for the application have assessed the impact that the potential occupiers of the proposal would have on Cardiff City Centre and the district and local centres, including Clifton Street, and conclude that the proposal would have no significant impact on the turnover of the City Centre or any other district centres. However, in terms of impact, it is also relevant to assess the impact of the proposal on regeneration strategies for district and local centres. The Council has recently completed a major physical regeneration project in the Clifton Street District Centre with the assistance of WAG funds. An associated project to give grant assistance for shop front upgrades in the street is still in operation. The key objectives of the regeneration strategy for the streets are to:
x Improve the quality of the environment; x Strengthen vitality and viability; and, x Promote community wellbeing.
8.15 As has been discussed, the vacancy rate in Clifton Street remains high and there are a number of sequentially preferable sites there, which could be occupied by any of the national stores proposed in the application. The benefits that any one of the proposed national stores could bring to the centre, in terms of vitality, viability and attractiveness are clear, particularly in the current economic climate where uptake of vacancies has been slow.
8.16 The current proposal seeks to relax a trading condition at a nearby out-of- centre location, which would increase its capacity to compete with Clifton Street, both for non-bulky goods retailers and retail expenditure. This would not only divert a potential occupier from the designated district centre but could also adversely affect future potential investment there. It is also relevant to note that a non-bulky comparison goods retailer located in the retail park would be far less accessible to non-car owning sectors of the local community than one located in Clifton Street which has a large walk-in catchment and where the physical regeneration scheme has significantly improved the pedestrian environment. These issues represent a clear threat to the regeneration strategy for Clifton Street and to the wider retail strategy which seeks to protect and enhance such centres.
215 Summary
8.17 Taking the above factors into consideration it is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:
(i) The applicants have not satisfactorily demonstrated a need for the proposal contrary to national planning policy contained in Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February 2011) and Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
(ii) The proposal does not accord with the Council’s retail strategy, the main objective of which is to protect and enhance the viability and vitality of district and local centres and is therefore contrary to Policy 50 (Retail Development) of the Cardiff Local Plan (1996), Policy R4 (Out of Centre Retail Development) of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan, Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February 2011) and Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
(iii) The proposal adversely affects the recent regeneration scheme in Clifton Street by diverting potential investment and expenditure to an out-of- centre car based location contrary to Policy 50 (Retail Development) of the Cardiff Local Plan (1996), Policy R4 (Out of Centre Retail Development) of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, 2011) and Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
216 217 LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTIONS AND PETITION
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/1665/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 19/10/2010
ED: FAIRWATER
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr Michael Costas-Michael LOCATION: 56A & 56B PLAS MAWR ROAD, FAIRWATER, CARDIFF, CF5 3JX PROPOSAL: EXTENSIONS TO CREATE THREE STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING 2 NO. RETAIL UNITS RETAINED AT GROUND FLOOR, 3 NO. SELF CONTAINED 2 BEDROOM FLATS AT UPPER FLOORS, 2 NO DORMERS TO FRONT ELEVATION, PLUS EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That 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 received on 27th January and 23rd March, 2011, attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. The first and second floor stairwell windows to the rear (east) elevation and the first and second floor windows to the side (south) elevation 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.
4. D3C Parking Within Curtilage
5. C3S Cycle Parking
6. A scheme of sound insulation works to the floor/ceiling structure between the ground floor commercial units and first floor residential unit shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing and implemented prior to occupation. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.
7. D7Z Contaminated materials
8. E7Z Imported Aggregates
218 9. C7S Details of Refuse Storage
10. 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 in writing 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.
11. E1B Samples of Materials
12. Prior to the commencement of development details of the bollards hereby approved on the amended plan dated 23 March 2011 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The bollards shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development
13. D4A Landscape Scheme
14. E4A Implementation of Landscape Scheme
15. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure
16. C1J Standard Overarching Condition
17. C1K Pre-Commencement Condition
18. C1L Post Construction Condition
19. Details of scheme for the installation of a CCTV monitoring system at the premises shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to its installation on site. Thereafter the system shall be installed before any customers are served. Reason: To deter the occurrence or antisocial behaviour in the vicinity to protect residential amenity of neighbours residents in accordance with policy 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff District Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales 3rd paragraph 4.10.12.
. RECOMMENDATION 2: That the applicant be advised to contact the Operational Manager, Transportation Policy to provide future occupiers of the flats with a public transport information welcome pack to encourage sustainable travel behaviour.
. RECOMMENDATION 3: That the applicant be advised to obtain the permission of the Operational Manager, Highways Operations, prior to undertaking any works in the public highway
219 RECOMMENDATION 4: 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) 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 5: 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
1.1 Full planning permission is sought for extensions to the existing single-storey building to create 3 no. flats above 2 no. retained commercial units (Class A1 Use), facilitated by a first and second floor and roof space at 56A and 56B Plas Mawr Road, Fairwater.
1.2 The following extensions to the existing premises are proposed:
(i) Single-storey rear extension to shop No. 2 (ground floor) measuring 1.3 metres by 1.6 metres. (ii) Two-storey extension over existing premises matching existing footprint creating an eaves height of approximately 8.5 metres and a ridge height of approximately 12 metres. (iii) Three-storey side extension to create stairwell set back 1.4 metres from the existing front elevation and set down approximately 0.8 metres from the proposed new roof ridge.
1.3 The extended building would have a hip-roofed design to the south elevation. The three-storey side extension would have a gable end to the north
220 elevation.
1.4 The retained Class A1 ground floor retail units would have a customer floorspace of approximately 30 square metres and 13 square metres respectively. The 3 no. 2 bedroom flats would occupy first, second and third floors. 2 no. gable dormer extensions are proposed to the front elevation which are shown to be set within the roof slope away from the roof edge.
1.5 Amended plans have been received to include waste and recycling storage provision, to show the proposed 3 no. off-street parking spaces set back from the public highway, to exclude the adopted highway from the application site and to correct inaccuracies in the previous plans.
1.6 The applicant has also submitted a letter from a building company belonging to the Federation of Master Builders who confirm in writing that the existing building has sufficient concrete footings to support the proposed extensions.
1.7 A design and access statement has been submitted with the application.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site is currently occupied by 2 no. semi-detached single-storey flat roof commercial units in Class A1 use (shops) with a customer floorspace of 30 and 13 square metres respectively.
2.2 A three-storey flat-roof building is located to the immediate north, which is occupied by a parade of shops at ground floor with residential accommodation over. Members will recall that the neighbouring property at 58 Plas Mawr Road was recently subject to an application for a side extension to create a fast food takeaway (ref: 10/2218/DCO) and received planning permission in April 2011.
2.3 Two-storey pitch-roof residential properties are located to the south. The Fairwater Rugby Club is opposite the site to the west.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 04/2535/W: Permission refused in October 2009 for the creation of one three- storey block of 9 no. flats for the following reason:
A planning obligation to secure a payment for improvements to local public transport facilities has not been signed. The development would therefore be contrary to policy MV2 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Developer Contributions for Transport.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site is on land identified as ‘existing housing’ on the City of Cardiff Local Plan Proposals Map (January 1996).
221 4.2 The following Local Plan Policies are of relevance to the determination of this application:
11 Design and Aesthetic Quality 17 Parking and Servicing Facilities
4.3 The following Policies from the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are also of relevance:
2.20 Good Design 2.24 Residential Amenity 2.57 Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements
4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance
Access, Circulation and Parking Standards (January 2010) Residential Design Guide (March 2008) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Waste Management notes the proposals for the refuse storage. He notes that each flat would have a 240 litre bin for general waste and a communal 240 litre bin would be provided for food waste. He advises that storage space will be required for recycling bags. In order to reduce the footprint he advises that a communal storage option is considered, which would require 1x660 litre bin for general waste, 1x660 litre bin for recycling and 1x240 litre bin for food waste. A commercial contract will also be required for the disposal and collection of commercial waste.
5.2 The Operational Manager, Transportation is satisfied with the amended plans showing the amended car parking spaces set behind the limit of the public highway. He advises that the line of the existing public footway will need to be retained to the front of these spaces and be constructed as a footway crossover, with dropped kerbs. Subject to relevant conditions he has no objection.
5.3 The Operational Manager, Environment (Pollution Control) has no objection subject to conditions relating to sound insulation, imported soil, imported aggregates and a recommendation relating to contamination and unstable land.
5.4 The Operational Manager, Drainage Division, notes that the Design and Access Statement suggests that soakaways will be used to discharge surface water from the site. He recommends that the proposals also be forwarded to Welsh Water for comment. He recommends that a condition be attached to any permission regarding the use of soakaways where appropriate.
222 6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 The South Wales Police Architect Liaison Officer notes that the site is located within a PACT priority area. He confirms that there are anti-social behaviour problems that but the reasons are complex and considered to be down to many factors including the fact that the shops act as a general gathering place for young people amongst other issues. It is considered that the proposed development would add to legitimate use (capable guardianship and surveillance) which would generally be seen as positive and that the affordability of accommodation could not be seen as an indicator of future problems from tenants. However, both the Neighbourhood Policing team and the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Officer have indicated that the current temporary CCTV camera (which is short term and maybe removed) has had a positive impact on the level of anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the proposed development. He advises that there were 200 crimes recorded in Fairwater between July and September 2010, which is considered to be an average level. He makes the following recommendations:
(i) rear yard behind shops be made secure with 2 metre fencing or walling and secure lockable gates; (ii) communal and flat doors to PAS 24:2007 OR LPS 1175 security rating 2; (iii) audio access control fitted to communal entry doors for flats; (iv) vandal proof lighting on communal doorway entrances; (v) a void climbing features on rear storage areas; and (vi) provision of CCTV via a condition.
6.2 Welsh Water advises that drainage conditions are required.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Local Members have been consulted. Councillor L Ford objects to the application and requests that Committee undertake a site visit prior to determination of the application. Councillor Ford’s objections are:
(i) the plans and design information submitted is inconsistent; (ii) papers do not state the existing building will be demolished; (iii) most of the pavement will be removed; (iv) application has not been signed.
7.2 Councillors McEvoy, Ford and Parry also raise objections on the following grounds:
(i) the pavement width will be reduced which will create a specific danger to wheel chairs users who will not be able to turn in the area available. They consider that the pavement width should match that of the adjoining houses as has been the case since 1947. They request that a traffic survey be carried out to assess the risk to school children from the reduced pavement width. (ii) Lorries have difficulty accessing the back entrance to the shops and have to resort to mounting the kerb. Lorries do not observe the entry
223 restriction on the frontage road. Highway related hazards are so bad that two residents have been almost knocked down in this area. (iii) the amended plans still show that the building will be 4 storeys high. (iv) The amended plan has been brought forward in the fruit shop and corner has been taken off at rear. (v) There have been alterations to the door to the proposed stairwell. (vi) Residents object to the balconies shown on the plan. (vii) There is also a problem with anti-social behaviour in this area. (viii) The position of the neighbouring house is shown in accurately in the plans; (ix) They query the external finishes as none are shown on the plans.
7.3 The proposals were advertised by a discretionary site notice which was placed outside the existing premises. The consultation period expired on 18 November 2010.
7.4 Neighbouring occupiers have been consulted. Five letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 58 Plas Mawr Road, 32 and 44 Hirst Crescent, and 3 no. unaddressed emails, who object to the proposals for the following reasons:
(i) loss of privacy through overlooking from stairwell and rear/side facing windows; (ii) proposals will hinder any future development at 58 Plas Mawr Road; (iii) drainage capacity concerns; (iv) refuse storage would adjoin No. 58 and rear pedestrian access gate is too narrow for bins; (v) the previous plans showed provision for 5 no. cars; (vi) anti-social behaviour; (vii) building would be four-storeys high; (viii) forms are incorrect; (ix) no refuse storage details have been provided; (x) pavement outside existing premises should be retained as a pavement. Proposed vehicle spaces would take up almost whole pavement causing danger to pedestrians; (xi) parking problems; (xii) proposals are out of character with the area; (xiii) disruption to existing residents; (xiv) the premises are leased to the applicant by the Council, who also own the pavement; (xv) the applicant should not be allowed to profit from a Council property; (xvi) proposals are not in line with existing properties: and (xvii) proposed development will be built in a very dangerous position for the general public.
7.5 A petition of 57 signatures objecting to the proposals has been received on the grounds of height of the building, traffic issues, current footpath, main water supply, drainage and sewerage in the vicinity
224 8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The application was deferred from Planning Committee in April 2011 to enable Members to undertake a site visit. The site visit took place on 3rd May, 2011.
8.2 The key issues for the consideration of this application are the principle of the development, the design and appearance of the building, parking and access arrangements, and residential amenity impact.
8.3 The site is located within an existing housing area and the existing use of the 2 no. units is Class A1 retail (shops). The principle of a mixed used development of the site retaining ground floor commercial units and introducing residential use at upper floors is therefore considered to be acceptable.
8.4 The site is considered to be suitable to accommodate a three-storey building with a fourth storey in the roofspace. The neighbouring building to the north comprises a three-storey building and the previous proposals for the site were for a three-storey pitch roof building (ref: 04/2535/W) (see attached plans). Members should note that, although this previous application was eventually refused having originally been recommended for approval, the reason for refusal related solely to the Section 106 Agreement (see paragraph 3.1); the application was not refused on grounds of height or scale.
8.5 In comparison with the previous scheme, the current proposals would be 0.5 metres higher to the eaves height and 1.2 metres higher to the ridge height. The relationship with 56 Plas Mawr Road has also been improved by introducing a hip-roofed design to the south elevation as opposed to a gable end elevation. Given that the existing access lane also separates the site from this neighbouring occupier, this relationship is considered to be acceptable. Conditions are attached to safeguard the privacy of this neighbouring occupier.
8.6 In respect of the relationship with the neighbouring occupier at 58 Plas Mawr Road, (which is a ground floor commercial unit with residential accommodation above), a relevant condition is attached to ensure that no overlooking can occur from the proposed internal stairwell, which is the nearest part of the building to this neighbouring occupier. It should also be noted that the proposed building would be orientated facing eastwards ensuring that any rear-facing windows would overlook the far end of the service yard to this neighbouring occupier. This relationship is considered to be acceptable.
8.7 Subject to conditions to agree final details, the amended access and parking arrangements are considered to be acceptable, as advised by the Operational Manager, Transportation (see paragraph 5.2).
8.8 In respect of the outstanding concerns in paragraph 7.3 and 7.5 which have not yet been addressed in this analysis:
225 (i) any proposed development at 58 Plas Mawr Road will be assessed on its own planning merits; (ii) in respect of drainage capacity concerns, see condition 10; (iii) condition 9 will ensure the provision of satisfactory refuse storage arrangements; (iv) the previous application was for 9 no. flats which required a high provision of car parking spaces; (v) it is not considered that the proposals would encourage anti-social behaviour. Indeed, the proposals would improve security through increased natural surveillance. However CCTV would be secured via condition 19; (vi) matters relating to the applicant’s lease with the Council are not relevant planning considerations. The lease arrangements are a matter for the Chief Legal Services Officer; (vii) the amended plans retaining the existing buildings accurately show that the premises will not extend beyond the existing building line; (viii) regarding disruption to residents, see Recommendation 5; and (ix) the amended plans and additional information contains all the necessary information for this application to be determined.
8.9 Regarding the outstanding objections by Local Councillors in paragraph 7.2, Members should refer to the ordnance survey extract submitted on 27January 2011 for the relative position and footprint of the property (see attached plans). Condition 11 requires samples of external finishes to be submitted for approval with the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development.
8.10 It is considered that the amended proposals are acceptable in all respects therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to relevant conditions.
8.11 However, should Members be minded to refuse to grant planning permission, the following could form reasons for refusal:
1. The proposed development, by reason of its height and scale, would result in a poor overall design that has a harmful impact upon the visual amenities of the streetscene, contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996), and Policy 2.20 (Good Design) of the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
2. The third floor flat in the roofspace of the dwelling fails to provide adequate head clearance to the detriment of future occupiers of this flat, contrary to the provisions of Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) of the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
8.12 Upon further consideration of the Members’ concerns relating to head clearance (Reason 2), officers recognise that aspects of the internal layout, as shown on the submitted plans, have poor utility because of their relation to the
226 internal ceiling heights. They are, however, of the opinion that sufficient usable space exists within the third floor flat for the further occupiers’ reasonable utility. It should also be noted that alternative internal arrangements could further improve the usability of the proposed flat for future occupiers.
227 228 229 230 231 232 LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/1722/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 04/10/2010
ED: PENYLAN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr Steve Kralis LOCATION: 27 BRONWYDD AVENUE, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 5JQ PROPOSAL: DEMOLISH EXISTING DEFECTIVE DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT NEW DWELLING IN SIMILAR STYLE. AS APPROVED UNDER APP NO. 09/02164/E ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition2:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 9th May, 2011, attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. The ground floor side (north east) and first floor north-west elevation facing windows 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.
4. 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 further windows shall be inserted in the side (south west , north east and first floor northwest) elevations of the dwelling hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
5. D3D Maintenance of Parking Within Site
6. No part of the building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in TAN15, and the results of the assessment provided to the local planning authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the
233 submitted details shall:
(i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method (ii) employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the (iii) measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface (iv) waters; (v) include a timetable for its implementation; and provide a management and (vi) maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the (vii) arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and (viii) any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its (ix) lifetime. Reason: to ensure an acceptable drainage
7. The dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve a minimum of 6 credits under category “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
8. Within two months of approval an “Interim Certificate” shall have been submitted to the local planning authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” has been achieved for that individual dwelling or house type in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards
9. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes “Final Certificate” shall be submitted to the local planning authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” has been achieved for the development in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
10. Any topsoil [natural or manufactured], subsoil, aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material to be imported shall be
234 assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced”
11. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA), in accordance with the current British Standard for trees in relation to construction.
An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), setting out the methodology that will be used to prevent loss of or damage to retained trees. It shall include details of on-site monitoring of tree protection and tree condition that shall be carried out throughout the development and for at least two years after its completion.
A Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in the form of a scale drawing showing the finalised layout and the tree and landscaping protection methods detailed in the AMS that can be shown graphically.
Unless written consent is obtained from the LPA, the development shall be carried out in full conformity with the approved AMS and TPP.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess: the effects of the proposals on existing trees and landscape; the measures for their protection; to monitor compliance and to make good losses.
12. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro
13. C4R Landscaping Implementation
14. C2H No Structures Within Curtilage
RECOMMENDATION 2: 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.
RECOMMENDATION 3: That the Chief Legal and Democratic Services Officer be authorised to issue an Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the removal of the existing
235 footings.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Full permission is sought for a new 4 bed-roomed dwelling with a double integrated garage. The siting of the building has been amended, the building, now proposed, will be moved further from the common boundary with the properties at Ty Gwyn Crescent to a position from 1.1 metres to 3.6 metres away. As a consequence the 1 metre separation from the property at 29 Bronwydd Avenue closed so the proposal now abuts the common boundary.
1.2 The foot print would be approximately 12.5 metres x 19 metres with an eaves height of 5.4 metres sloping up to 6.5 metres ridge and lower closer towards 29 Bronwydd Avenue. The proposed scale, form and material is similar to that approved under planning reference 09/02164/E. A significant area of the rear garden would be finished in timber decking and or white concrete porous soft landscaping is proposed along the boundary with the properties at Ty Gwyn Crescent.
1.3 The agent has advised that the reason for demolishing and rebuilding is that it is cheaper to construct a new building that does not attract VAT than to carry out the approved alterations which do.
1.4 Committee will be aware that there are existing footings on site as an unauthorised development has commenced, these will be removed
1.5 Works have taken place on site to remove part of the single storey extension and put soil down. This is at the request of the Tree Officer to ensure that the protected Silver birch is not further damaged.
1.6 The application was reported to the March committee where it was deferred for a site visit which took place on 4th April. The application was then deferred for the applicant to clarify the detail of the proposal.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site formerly comprised of a large detached house within a residential location. The dwelling was set within its plot with a drive to the front and gardens to the side and rear. The land slopes down in a north westerly direction. 2.2 Surrounding the application site are residential properties mainly detached within their plots. To the south west at the junction of Bronwydd Avenue and Ty-Gwyn Crescent is a block of flats. 2.3 Within the rear garden of 4 Ty Gwyn Road is a large Birch tree which overhangs onto the application site. This is the subject of a tree preservation order. (City of Cardiff (Penylan Area stage 4) TPO 1975). 2.4 The site is not located in a conservation area or a flood area and the building is not listed.
236 3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 09/02164/E - 2 storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extensions and alteration works – approved by committee.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) created a statutory partnership between local authorities, the police and other key partners to work together in reducing crime and disorder in all aspects of their work. Section 17 of the Act states:
“It is the duty of the authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect on crime and disorder in its area and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.”
4.2 Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) places a duty on local planning authorities to ensure, wherever it is appropriate, that in granting planning permission for any development, adequate provision is made by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees.
4.3 Planning Policy Wales (2011)
4.4 Technical Advice Notes:
9 (Enforcement); 10 (Trees); 12 (Design); 15 ( Development and flood risk) 18 (Transportation); 21 (Waste), 22 (Sustainable buildings)
4.5 Other national guidance that are relevant:
Manual for Streets W/O 35/95 ‘Use of Conditions in Planning Permission’ W/O 16/94 ‘Planning Not Crime’ states that “layouts should aim to reassure the public by making crime more difficult to commit, increase the risk of detection and provide people with a safer, more secure environment”
4.6 The following policies found within the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (adopted 1997) are relevant to the determination of this application;
Policy EN1 'Towards Sustainable Development' Policy MV11 'Parking' Policy B2 'Improvement of Environmental Quality Policy C7 ‘Woodland and Hedgerows’
237 4.7 The following policies found within 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)
4.8 The following policies found within the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003) are relevant to the determination of the application;
1.B (Achieving Good Design) 1.N (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 for Waste Management facilities in Development)
4.9 Information contained within the following Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant to the determination of the application:
Access, Circulation and Parking (2010); Residential Design Guide (2008); Trees and development (2007) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (2007); Energy efficient designs for new residential development (1995).
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Chief Officer Highways and Transportation has no objections subject to conditions.
5.2 The Operational Manager for Pollution Control has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the attached conditions and recommendations.
5.3 The Chief Highways Waste and Management Officer (Drainage) has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the attached conditions.
5.4 The Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Waste) has raised no objections.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Nil.
238 7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Eight neighbouring properties have been notified with additional publicity undertaken by site notice.
The following objections have been received:
The owners of 41 Cyncoed Road believe there is no justification in demolishing the dwelling, and the submitted plans are defective. Questions whether conditions are being complied with for the protection of the silver birch tree
RM Brett solicitors, acting for 4 and 6 Ty Gwyn Crescent advise that their original objections on the previous application remain valid.
Harmers planning consultants, acting for 4 and 6 Ty Gwyn Crescent object to this scheme on the following grounds: Inaccurate plans; impact upon the protected trees, the scale massing and design is inappropriate in this area, overbearing and un-neighbourly development.
4 Ty Gwyn Crescent state that after commissioning chartered architects the above owners make the following comments in addition to their previous one: There is a breach of the Building Regulations Act 1984 ( S.80 require the council to notified on any demolition)
The applicant has commenced excavations and constriction works without permission which has damaged the protected and requests the immediate removal of the building works and treatment of damage to the root system.
The planning officer has clearly ignored best planning practise and not given due weight to the over development of the plot and the impact this will have on the houses surrounding as the development would be 3 foot from his fence would block out light
There is little mention of the height at which the house is being built in the plans and is not adequately conveyed to the committee. The significant increase in height of the new build will clearly allow sight from all the windows without difficulty into both 4 and 6 Ty Gwyn Crescent. To state that the planting will protect us from that lack of privacy is incorrect.
In the detail report, undertaken by Petersen Williams chartered Architects, that was attached to the above letter states the building to plot ratio has gone from 28% to 47% (an increase of 70%)
The objector at 6 Ty Gwyn Crescent update his objection as follows:
It is clear that the developer was aware he was breaching the planning and building regulations as he has taken down part of the development prior to the inspection by the planning committee. The objector re-iterates his objection on the following grounds:
239 Height of the development, Damage to the protected tree, Proximity and lack of privacy for 4 and 6 Ty Gwyn Crescent Damage to the adjoining wall Surface water run which floods 4 Ty Gwyn Crescent
The above objectors have been notified of the amended plans and their objections still stand.
Additional objection has been received from 29 Bronwydd Avenue who objects on the following grounds:
It is not clear that the formal boundary line has been adhered to. The legal boundary was the line of the concrete posts (now removed) and not the original stone wall with fence panels. There was an approx strip of land 500mm wide between the concrete post (legal boundary) and party wall of 29 Bronwydd Ave.
The proposed development as shown will result in the roof over hang & gutter being located on 29 Bronwydd Ave Land. Hence construction / maintenance will also have to take place on 29 Bronwydd Ave land.
The ‘existing’ trees along within 29 Bronwydd Ave boundary boarding the boundary have been removed without prior consent or permission.
The ‘existing’ stone & timber wall boundary has been replaced with a brick wall – the location of which raises concerns see item 1.
The window to the utility room outlooks at or below ground level of 29 Bronwydd Ave. This is not acceptable.
There will be a decrease in natural daylight due to relocation and increased mass of building, overshadowing 29 Bronwydd Garden area.
No party wall agreement has been agreed to.
No details of how the proposed ‘retaining wall/side elevation’ will be supported constructed without conflict on to 29 Bronwydd Ave.
The layout of the existing area consist of dwelling which are not zero plotted against their boundary and have as a rule two access points to the rear garden.
7.2 Local Councillors Salway, Kelloway object to this application on the following grounds:
x The height and massing of the proposed building, combined with the fact that Bronwydd Avenue is on rising land, means that the proposal is likely to have an un-neighbourly and overbearing effect on adjacent properties
240 in Bronwydd Avenue and Ty Gwyn Avenue and, as such, it will be detrimental to the amenity of the occupants of those properties.
x The proposed development will increase the floor area of the property by over 100 square metres, thereby resulting in an overdevelopment of the site.
x The scale of the proposed development would reduce the size of the garden - reducing amenity space and thus conflicting with the Householder Design Guide.
x The proposed development, by virtue of its height, prominence and massing would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Officers believe the following are the main issues:
Impact upon the adjoining protected tree; Impact upon the adjoining properties; and Impact on the street scene.
8.2 Impact upon the adjoining protected tree Committee will be aware that the application was recommend for refusal at the March Committee on tree grounds. Amended plans have now been received which show the relocation of the building 1 metre further to the north than previously shown, this ensures that the majority of the building would be out of the root protection zone and whilst the proposed development will incur slightly into the branch spread of the tree, but not to such an extent that remedial pruning will be required that is likely to destroy the health, form or amenity value of the tree. To ensure that the tree rooting can grow a condition has been imposed to ensure that there is no hard surface within the root protection area and enforcement action is proposed to remove the existing footings way from the protected tree.
8.3 Impact upon the adjoining neighbours Officers note that the single storey element of the proposed new building would be sited 3.3 metres away from the rear boundary of the property at 4 Ty Gwyn Avenue. To ensure this neighbours amenities and privacy are protected the applicant proposes a 2.7 metres high close boarded fence (3.2 metres in height when viewed from the 4 Ty Gwyn Crescent). The eaves of the single storey would be 3.4 metres sloping up to away with a ridge height of 4 metres and that the finish floor level would be 20.41 (AOD).
It must be noted that the new location of the single storey is further away from this neighbour than the previous approval and the original house. The main building be 600mm closer to the than the original but Officers do not believe that the proposal, including the fence, would be un-neighbourly or over bearing given the distance and proposed height of the fence and ridge at the original.
241 The mass of the main building is off set by 5.7 metres and at an angle from this property’s rear boundary. Officers believe that is arrangement ensures that the proposal, as a whole, would not unreasonably harm the amenity of No. 4 Ty Gwyn Avenue.
Surface run-off has been raised as a concern but officers believe that this could be controlled via condition and is require to be looked at as part of the sustainable homes assessment, which is mandatory on all development.
The nearest point of the proposal to No. 6 Ty Gwyn Crescent would be approximately 6.7 metres away, with the main building being between 9/ 10 metres away whilst this distance is less then the suggested 10.5 metres recommended in the design guide. Officers believe that as the first floor windows facing the objector’s site are non-habitable these can be obscurely glazed and non-opening below 1.8 metres the existing fence and vegetation ensure this property’s amenity is protected at ground floor.
Officers believe that the distance, off set from the boundary and orientation of No. 6 Ty Gwyn Crescent from the application site ensures that the proposal does not result in an overbearing and un-neighbourly form of development.
The property most affected by these amendments is 29 Bronwydd Avenue. This property is approximately 1.1 metre higher than the application site and off set from the common boundary by approximately 2.3 metres and benefits from a smaller garden than is characteristic of the area. Whilst the proposed dwelling would abut the common boundary officers believe that due to the reduced roof ridge height closest to them, difference in proposed levels and in the previous approved extension the proposal would, on balance, not have am impact on amenity that would be significantly worse than that of the approved extension.
8.4 Impact upon the street scene Officers note that the frontage of the proposed new building would be larger than the former building on site but even so this is not a reason itself to refuse. Whilst one of the side boundaries is lost this relationship is not unusual and can be seen at 48 & 50 Brownydd Avenue.
Even though the proposal would abut the common boundary it would not cause a terracing effect and rear access is still maintained from the south as a result officers not believe that the proposal would cause visual harm to the character of the area
8.5 Concern was raised on the ground that the proposal could subsequently be split info flats, the plans to not indicate such a proposal. Furthermore, any changes to flats would require permission in its own right
8.6 Officers note concern has been raised that the site would be overdeveloped, resulting in a poor quality of amenity space. Officers do not support the view in the light of the following analysis:
242 Building Percentage of plot
Existing 22% Building
Building by 32% 09/2164E
Proposal 33% Now Before Committee
Even using the objectors figures that the proposal would only occupy 47% of the site (compared to 28% when the property was built), this leaves 53% not built on, officers believe that having more than half the space demonstrates that the site is not over development.
8.7 Matters not covered above Any criminal damage is not a matter the planning authority can pursue.
Works have taken place on site to remove part of the single storey extension and put soil down. This is at the request of the Tree Officer to ensure that the protected Silver birch is not further damaged.
Compliance with Building regulation is an important element in any building work, enforcement of these regulations are controlled through other legislation. The Building Control Section are aware of the issues that have been raised by the objector.
Party wall and access onto adjoining land are private matters. The objector at 29 Bronwydd Avenue believes that some of the development is taken place on their land. Officers have asked the agent to re-confirm that the correct certificate has been signed (certificate ‘A’) and that all development is on his clients land; the Agent has confirmed that all development will be on his client land.
Para 13.5.1 of Planning Policy Wales make it clear that determining the extent and effects of instability or other risk remains that of the developer. It is for the developer to ensure that the land is suitable for the development proposed, as a planning authority does not have a duty of care to landowners.
243 244 245 246 247 248 LOCAL MEMBER CONCERN
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/2315/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 21/12/2010
ED: HEATH
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Diagonal Properties LOCATION: 5 HEATH PARK LANE, CAERPHILLY ROAD, HEATH, CARDIFF, CF14 4AL PROPOSAL: CREATION OF NEW HOUSE ADJACENT TO 5 HEATH PARK LANE AND REAR TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO 5 HEATH PARK LANE ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The car parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be maintained and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking 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, in accordance with policy 17 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
3. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include details of construction traffic routes, the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors, loading and unloading of plant and materials, storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development, site hoardings, site access and wheel washing facilities. The construction shall be managed strictly in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity, in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
4. No development shall take place until details showing the provision of five sheltered and secure cycle parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter the cycle parking spaces shall be maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose.
249 Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles in accordance with policy 18 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
5. No development shall take place until ground permeability tests have been undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and a scheme for the drainage of the site, including the disposal of surface water and any connection to the existing drainage system, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include sustainable drainage techniques if, as a result of the ground permeability tests, these have been found to be feasible. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme is carried out and completed as approved. Reason: In the interests of the proper drainage of the site, in accordance with policy 2.61 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
6. 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 shall be inserted in the side elevations of the dwelling house and the extension hereby approved other than those shown on the approved plans. Reason : To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected in accordance with policy 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
7. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed means of site enclosure shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include lockable gates or bollards to enclose the parking area at the rear of the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity and site security, in accordance with policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policies 2.20 and 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
8. Any topsoil (natural or manufactured) or subsoil to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced, in accordance with policy 10 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.63 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
250 9. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced, in accordance with policy 10 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.63 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
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) 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: The developer is advised that foul and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site and that no land drainage run-off shall be permitted to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system.
251 RECOMMENDATION 5: The developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155 prior to any development being undertaken if a connection to the public sewerage system is required.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the addition of a two storey, 5 bedroom house to the side of an existing semi-detached dwelling and the addition of a two storey rear extension to the existing dwelling to enable it to be converted to a 5 bedroom dwelling.
1.2 The new dwelling will be 6m wide and will be flush with the front and rear elevations of the adjoining building, with a two storey extension projecting 5.4 metres to the rear at ground floor level and 4 metres at first floor level. It will have a hipped roof and bay windows to match the existing house and will be finished in matching materials (spar dash render and concrete roof tiles).
1.3 The rear extension to the existing house will be linked to and will match, in terms of dimensions and appearance, that of the new dwelling. It will be set in from the boundary with no.7 Heath Park Lane by 2.4 metres.
1.4 An existing garage at the rear of the site will be retained for no. 5 Heath Park Lane and 2 additional parking spaces, which will be accessible to both properties, will be provided adjacent to the garage. A bin and cycle store will be provided to the rear of the new dwelling. The garage and parking spaces will be accessed from the rear lane.
1.5. The application was originally reported to the Planning Committee on 13th April 2011 and was deferred for a site visit, which took place on 3rd May 2011. It was subsequently returned to the Planning Committee on 11th May and deferred to enable officers to draft reasons for refusal based on the Committee’s objections to the proposal on the grounds that the two storey extension at the rear of the new dwelling would have an unacceptable impact on no.3 Heath Park Lane and that the development would result in an intensification of use of the site.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site is an existing mid-20th century semi-detached house and its curtilage. The house has a hipped roof, bay windows to the front and a small single storey extension at the rear. There are 3 pairs of identical semi-detached properties located along Heath Park Lane, which is a narrow pedestrian footpath linking St Agnes Road and Caerphilly Road. Vehicular access is available only via the lane at the rear of the houses.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 10/01357/W - New dwelling alongside existing building. Granted 14/10/2010.
252 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Cardiff Local Plan –
10 (Contaminated or Unstable Land); 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality); 12 (Energy Efficient Design); 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities); 18 (Provision for Cyclists); 19 (Provision for Pedestrians); 28 (Subdivision of Residential Property); 30 (Insensitive or Inappropriate Infilling); Supplementary Planning Guidance - Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (January 2010); Cardiff Residential Design Guide (March 2008); Householder Design Guide (March 2007); Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007); Infill Sites (April 2011).
4.2 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan –
2.20 (Good Design); 2.22 (Subdivision of Residential Properties); 2.24 (Residential Amenity); 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements); 2.63 (Contaminated and Unstable Land); 2.74 (Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development).
4.3 Planning Policy Wales (2011):
4.10.9: Visual appearance, scale and relationship to surroundings and context are material planning considerations. 4.10.11: Local planning authorities and developers should consider the issue of accessibility for all. 4.10.12: Local Authorities are under a legal obligation to consider the need to prevent and reduce crime and disorder in all decisions that they take. 4.11.2: Development proposals should mitigate the causes of climate change by minimising carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions associated with their design, construction, use and eventual demolition. 4.11.3: Development proposals should also include features that provide effective adaptation to and resilience against the current and predicted future effects of climate change, for example by incorporating green space to provide shading, sustainable drainage systems to reduce run-off , and are designed to prevent over-heating and to avoid the need for artificial cooling of buildings. 4.11.4: sets out the sustainability standards that the Assembly Government expects new buildings to meet. 8.4.2: minimum parking standards are no longer appropriate. 8.7.3: The proposed access to a development should reflect the likely travel patterns involved. 9.1.1: The Assembly Government will seek to ensure that previously developed land is used in preference to Greenfield sites; new housing and
253 residential environments are well designed, meet national sustainability standards and make a significant contribution to promoting community regeneration and improving the quality of life, and new housing development in towns, villages and edge of settlement locations is a mix of affordable and market housing that retains and where possible enhances important landscape and wildlife features in the development. 9.1.2: Local authorities should promote sustainable residential environments, avoid large housing areas of monotonous character and make appropriate provision for affordable housing. Local authorities should promote mixed tenure communities, development that is easily accessible by public transport, attractive landscapes around buildings etc. 9.2.13: Sensitive design and good landscaping are particularly important if new buildings are successfully to be fitted into small vacant sites in established residential areas. 9.3.1: New housing should be well integrated with and connected to the existing pattern of settlements. 9.3.2: Sensitive infilling may be acceptable though much will depend on the character of the surroundings. 9.3.3: Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity.
4.4 Technical Advice Note 12 (Design):
5.11.3: The design of housing layouts and built form should respect local context and distinctiveness.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Operational Manager Transportation:
In terms of the SPG (Access, Circulation and Parking) the parking requirement is for 'between minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1' spaces per unit for a House in Multiple Occupation. Therefore, notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed by residents and the local member, since the proposed provision of 2 spaces would fall within the middle of this range I consider that it would be difficult to sustain an objection on parking grounds at any subsequent appeal and would therefore have no objection.
5.2 I would request the re-imposition of conditions 2 and 3 from previous consent 10/1357/DCO, which related to retention of parking and the submission of a construction management plan - and would request a further condition relating to the provision of 5 cycle stands within a lockable structure in order to promote this mode of travel.
5.3 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Drainage):
No objection in principle. The applicant refers to the disposal of surface water to a soakaway but no ground permeability tests have been undertaken, therefore a condition should be added requiring permeability tests to ascertain
254 whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and a drainage scheme should be submitted for approval. No discharge of surface water from the completed development including driveways will be permitted to drain to the public highway or any highway drain. 5.4 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Waste):
No objections. Waste must not be stored on the highway.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water:
Foul and surface water discharges must be drained separately. No surface water shall be allowed to connect to the public sewerage system unless agreed by the local planning authority. No land drainage will be permitted to discharge to the public sewerage system.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application was advertised by neighbour notification. 7 letters have been received objecting to the development on the following grounds:
(1) Insufficient parking provision for two 5 bedroom properties; (2) Loss of light to the living room window at the rear of no.7 Heath Park Lane; (3) Loss of privacy to no.7 Heath Park Lane; (4) There is already a problem with people living in/visiting Heath Park Lane parking inconsiderately and blocking access to the garages on St George’s Road. These problems will increase if the development goes ahead and there may also be problems with access for emergency vehicles. If permission is granted, there should be a condition that no skips or builders' vehicles be parked in the lane or block access from both ends; (5) The creation of two dwellings with ten double bedrooms in this small area of three bedroom houses will alter the character of the lane; (6) The drainage/sewerage system may not be able to cope with such a large development; (7) It would be inappropriate to have two houses in multiple occupation in an area with limited access and services; (8) Fire safety concerns may not have been addressed and the development could be hazardous for residents and neighbours; (9) Councillors and officers should carry out a site visit before determining the application. (10) The developer never intended to build the development that has been approved. It was used as a lever to force the Council’s hand in respect of the current application. (11) The parking spaces would not be of adequate dimensions and gates could not be accommodated. (12) There is insufficient turning space for vehicles and there would not be room to access the site with a bicycle if cars were parked on the site.
255 (13) The parking spaces would not be overlooked and there is no lighting, therefore security would be poor. (14) There will be an increase in traffic on St George’s Road. (15) Loss of privacy to 3, 4 and 7 Heath Park Lane due to windows in the side elevation. (16) Increased disturbance due to the property being a HMO. (17) Overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the character of the area. No other houses in the area have 2 storey extensions and the house will be very visible from the busy footpath at the front of the site.
7.2 Councillor Fenella Bowden raises the following concerns:
(a) The creation of 2 x 5 bedroomed houses, each with a 2 storey rear extension, seems to be an overdevelopment of this site. (b) Number 7 would effectively change from a semi-detached house into a terrace and the residents now face the prospect of a very large, bulky development in terms of the two storey extensions as well as the two dwellings being converted into HMOs. (c) Access to Heath Park Lane is difficult. Numbers 5/5A will be dependent on vehicular access from the rear, and at the bend of the lane. It is not possible to park in the lane as access is needed at all times for the houses of both Heath Park Lane and St George’s Road. The site will be providing accommodation for 10 bedrooms with, I believe, inadequate parking space for the occupants. This is a significant issue in this part of the Heath Ward (which has resident only parking), especially in the light of the impending changes to the resident permit arrangements across the city. (d) The communal living/sitting and cooking space within the development seems extremely small considering the number of bedrooms in each house.
7.3 Councillor Bowden requests that this application is referred to the Planning Committee for debate and a site visit if recommended for approval.
7.4 Councillor Page wishes to address the Committee and wishes the following points to be considered:
(1) The previous application to build a second house on this site may be acceptable but the application to extend the original and the proposed houses is out of keeping with the existing properties (2) There could be 10 occupants requiring parking spaces in an area already under pressure from hospital parking. (3) Parking in the access lane could block garages and prevent access for emergency vehicles. (4) People already park and drive dangerously down St Agnes Road. This will be made worse if proposals in the LDP to build on the Gabalfa site at the end of St Agnes Road go ahead. (5) The development would be contrary to the design guidance for infill sites in terms of: (a) Loss of privacy and spaciousness; (b) Loss of
256 daylight; (c) Inadequate access; (d) Loss of garden space. and which states that “It is important to strike a balance between maintaining the established positive character of a residential street... to avoid a town cramming effect.” and: “Proposals must respect the urban grain and consider locally distinct patterns of streets and spaces including predominant housing layouts - terraced, semi detached or detached.” (6) The new Local Development Plan will in all probability lead to large scale development on the periphery of Cardiff and could well lead to a surplus of properties and therefore there is less pressure placed on sites such as the one in question.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The site lies within an existing, highly accessible residential area therefore there are no objections to the principle of residential development. Planning permission has already been granted for the addition of a new dwelling to the side of 5 Heath Park Lane of the same dimensions as that now proposed but with a 3.2m long single storey rear extension rather than a 4m – 5.4m long 2 storey rear extension. The site is large enough to accommodate the proposed dwelling house and the extension to no.5 whilst retaining adequate off-street parking and outdoor amenity space for both properties.
8.2 It is not considered that the development would adversely affect visual amenity or the character of the area. The only difference between this proposal and the approved scheme is the two rear extensions and the resulting increase in the number of bedrooms in each property from 3 to 5. As with the approved development, the proposal will result in the formation of a “terrace” of 3 houses within a row of semi-detached dwellings but the site is not in a prominent location and is visible from a public viewpoint only from the narrow footpath at the front of the house and from the rear access lane. The side of the new dwelling will be briefly visible from North Road in the gap between 3 and 4 Heath Park Lane. The building line and width of frontage will be maintained, and the style, form and detailing will be consistent with the adjacent dwellings; therefore the impact on visual amenity and character is considered to be acceptable.
8.3 The extension to the rear of no.5 will be set in from the side boundary and reduced in length at first floor level; therefore it will not overshadow the rear of no.7 to an unacceptable extent or appear too overbearing when viewed from that property.
8.4 With regard to the objections received:
(1) The Transportation officer has raised no objections relating to parking provision for the proposed development, which is in accordance with the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance. (2) The rear windows of 7 Heath Park Lane face north and are to the east
257 of the proposed extension, and the extension will be set in from the boundary by around 2m, therefore loss of sunlight will be minimal. It is not considered that loss of light to adjoining properties would be severe enough to justify refusing planning permission. (3) There will be no new windows facing towards the windows of no.7. A side-facing living room window at ground floor level will be screened by a 1.8m high fence. There will be bedroom windows facing the rear garden of no.7 at an angle, but this is no more intrusive than the existing situation and will not result in loss of privacy to the whole of the adjoining rear garden. (4) The additional traffic generated by this development will not significantly increase congestion in the lane. No objections have been raised by the Transportation officer on these grounds, and access for construction traffic can be controlled via a construction management scheme. (5) The lane will retain its residential character. Such an increase in the number of bedrooms could occur in any of the houses in the area without the need for planning permission provided the house was occupied by a family or there would be no more than 6 occupants living as a single household. (6) No concerns have been raised by Welsh Water or the Council’s drainage engineer. (7) The site is in an accessible location, reasonably close to the city centre and to existing services. It is not an inappropriate location for houses in multiple occupation, and in Planning Policy Wales the Welsh Assembly Government encourages mixed tenure communities in accessible locations. (8) The development will have to conform to the appropriate Building Regulations, which include fire safety. (9) The case officer has visited the site and it is for the Chair and/or Members of the Planning Committee to decide whether they also need to visit the site before determining the application. (10) It cannot be assumed that this is what the applicant intended. It is normal for developers to change their minds about proposals or to apply for additions to developments for which they have recently obtained planning permission. (11) The Operational Manager Transportation has raised no concerns about the details of the proposed parking arrangements, which are identical to those approved for application 10/01357/DCO. Bollards could be used rather than gates to avoid encroaching on the access lane. (12) The Operational Manager Transportation has raised no concerns about the proposed manoeuvring arrangements, which are identical to those approved for application 10/01357/DCO. Bicycles could access the site via the pedestrian lane and would not have to pass the parking area. (13) Proposed condition 7 is intended to address the issue of security for vehicles at the rear of the site. (14) The issue of traffic is addressed above. No objections have been raised by the Operational Manager Transportation. (15) The only side facing windows would be at ground floor level and screened by boundary walls or fences. Condition 6 would prevent
258 windows being inserted in the side elevations in the future. (16) It is not considered that the potential disturbance would be significantly greater as a result of the development. The existing and approved houses could each be occupied by a family of any size, or by no more than 6 people living together as a single household, without the need for planning permission. The proposal is for these properties to each be 5 bedroom houses. If there will be more than 6 people living in either of the houses and/or the residents will not be living together as a single household then planning permission will be required, at which point issues such as noise and disturbance would be considered further. (17) The proposed 2 storey extensions are not unusually large or out of scale with the existing buildings. The fact that no other houses in the vicinity have 2 storey extensions is not adequate grounds for refusal of this application. The issue of “overdevelopment” is addressed earlier in this report.
8.5 With regard to Councillor Bowden’s objections:
(a) It is considered that the site is large enough to accommodate the development without compromising parking standards or the privacy and amenity of neighbouring dwellings, and with adequate outdoor amenity space for both properties, therefore it does not constitute overdevelopment. (b) The issue of terracing was discussed when the previous application for the additional dwelling was considered. That application was approved, therefore it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission for this proposal on the grounds of terracing. The two rear extensions will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents – their height is minimised by the use of hipped roofs with low ridge lines, the first floor has been set back and they are set in from the side boundaries to avoid unacceptable overshadowing and an overbearing appearance. Conversion of a dwelling house to a House in Multiple Occupation does not require planning permission (although consent is required under other legislation) therefore the question of whether or not these houses would become HMOs is not a material consideration. Provided the houses are not used by more than 6 residents, and they are living together as a single household, they will remain in the same use class as “family” houses, albeit that they will have 5 bedrooms. (c) The proposed parking arrangements for the development are in accordance with the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance “Access, Circulation and Parking Standards (Jan 2010)”. The Operational Manager Transportation has raised no concerns regarding access or parking based on the assumption that the dwellings will be Houses in Multiple Occupation requiring between 0 and 1 space per unit. However, even if the houses do not become HMOs but remain as 5 bedroom houses, the parking requirement (according to the SPG) is still only a minimum of 1 and maximum of 3 spaces per unit. Therefore, the proposed 2 spaces plus existing garage are adequate. (d) Research suggests that the size of the rooms appears to be in line with the accepted standards of a number of other local authorities which have
259 published planning guidance on such issues. If the houses are to become HMOs, they will have to be licensed as such, at which time they will have to achieve acceptable standards with regard to kitchen and bathroom facilities, fire safety etc.
8.5 In conclusion, the proposed development is considered to represent an efficient use of urban land in an accessible location and there are no sustainable objections on traffic or parking grounds The appearance of the new dwelling and the extension to the existing dwelling will harmonise with existing buildings in the area and there will be no unacceptable reduction in privacy and general amenity enjoyed by neighbouring residents. There will potentially be a noticeable increase in the number of residents on the site but planning permission has already been granted for the additional dwelling and both houses could in any case be converted to 5 bedroom dwellings without the need for further planning permission. Planning permission would be required if more than 6 residents who are not members of the same family occupied the houses or if they were divided into separate flats, and implications with regard to residential amenity and the character of the area could be further considered at that stage. Also, a licence will be required if they are to be used as “houses in multiple occupation”.
8.6 In response to Councillor Page’s comments:
(1) This point is addressed at 8.1, 8.2 and 8.4(5) above. (2) This point is addressed at 5.1, 5.2, 8.4(1) and 8.5(c). (3) This point is addressed at 8.4(4). (4) Dangerous parking/driving is dealt with under other legislation, and it cannot be assumed that future residents would add to this problem. The site at the end of St Agnes Road is a Candidate Site being considered as part of the LDP process. There are no firm proposals for its development and its status as a candidate site cannot influence current development proposals in the area. Refusal of the application on these grounds could not be justified. (5) The Infill Sites SPG was adopted in April 2011, after the application was first reported to the Planning Committee. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with this guidance. These points are all addressed as part of the analysis in this report. (6) No such large scale development has taken place. There remains a need for housing in sustainable locations within Cardiff. The possibility that in future there may be less of a demand for housing is not relevant to the determination of this application. Refusal of the application on these grounds would be unreasonable.
8.7 If the Committee is minded to refuse the application, the following reasons for refusal are suggested to reflect the concerns expressed at the Planning Committee meeting of 11th May 2011:
1. The proposed new house would, due to its scale and siting in close proximity to the existing property at 3, Heath Park Lane, be un-
260 neighbourly and over bearing upon that property, contrary to policy 11 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), policy 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003) guidance in the council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance “Infill Sites” (April 2011) and advice in paragraphs 4.10.9 and 9.3.3 of Planning Policy Wales (February 2011).
2. The proposed development would, due to its scale and to the increase in the number of bedrooms, result in an unacceptable intensification of use of the site, to the detriment of residential amenity and the character of the area and contrary to policy 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003) and paragraph 9.3.3 of Planning Policy Wales (February 2011).
261 262 263 LOCAL MEMBER SUPPORT
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/134/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 10/02/2011
ED: PENYLAN
APP: TYPE: Variation of conditions
APPLICANT: Lanebridge Investment Management Limited LOCATION: UNIT 5, AVENUE RETAIL PARK, NEWPORT ROAD, PENYLAN PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF CONDITION 19 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 03/2923/R TO ADD ADDITIONAL ITEMS TO THE RANGE OF GOODS THAT CAN BE SOLD TO ALLOW THE UNIT TO BE OCCUPIED BY BOOTS. ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The application has not satisfactorily demonstrated a need for the proposal contrary to national policy contained in Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February 2011) ‘Planning for Retailing and Town Centres’ and Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
2. The proposal does not accord with the Council’s Retail Strategy, the main objective of which is to protect and enhance the viability and vitality of district and local centres and is therefore considered to be contrary to policy 50 (Retail Development) of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan and Planning Policy Wales ‘Planning for Retailing and Town Centres’ (Edition 4 February 2011).
3. The proposal adversely affects the recent regeneration scheme in Clifton Street by diverting potential investment and expenditure to an out of centre car based location, contrary to Policy 50 (Retail Development) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996) and Planning Policy Wales ‘Planning for Retailing and Town Centres’, (Edition 4, February 2011).
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This planning application relates to Unit 5, Avenue Retail Park, Newport Road where planning permission is sought to vary condition 19 of planning permission 03/2923R which limits the range of goods that can be sold from the unit. The purpose of the application is to allow chemist goods and related items to be sold thereby facilitating occupation of part of the unit by Boots the Chemist.
1.2 A similar planning application was refused at Committee in December, 2010
264 for the reasons outlined in Section 3.1 of this report (ref 10/923E).
1.3 The applicants indicated that whilst they were reviewing whether to lodge an appeal, they were keen to maintain a positive dialogue with the Council. With this in mind, they have submitted the current application incorporating updated retail information and seeking to respond to the Council’s reasons for refusal.
1.4 It is intended to sub-divide the unit into two (Unit 5a and 5B) so that approximately half of it, amounting to 10,000 square feet GIA (929 square metres), can be let to Boots the Chemist. No external alterations are proposed.
1.5 It is proposed to vary condition 19 of planning permission 03/2923R as follows: (the new wording is highlight in bold text).
‘Unit 5a shall not be used for purposes other than the sale of:
(a) home improvement and DIY products, plumbing and hardware goods, timber and building products, paint and wallpaper, garden supplies, furniture, carpets and other floor coverings, soft furnishings, homewares, electrical goods, gas appliances, computers, office equipment and supplies, pets and pet products and motor accessories; or
(b) chemist goods, health and beauty products, baby products and clothing, corrective eyeglasses and contact lenses; and shall not be used for any other purpose. Ancillary food items including confectionary, health and dietary foods, baby foods, sandwiches and related cold food drinks and snacks are also permitted within the unit, up to a maximum of 5% of the net sales floorspace.
The sale of chemist goods, health and beauty products, baby products and clothing, corrective eyeglasses and contact lenses and ancillary food items shall be limited to a single unit only with a gross ground floor area not exceeding 929 square metres.
1.6 A further condition to limit the size of the unit for the sale of chemists’ goods is proposed, as follows:
Should Unit 5a be used for the sale of chemists goods (category b) as listed in condition 19, the amount of gross floorspace shall be limited to 929 sq m and no additional floorspace at mezzanine level shall be permitted...
1.7 A condition to prevent a dispensing pharmacy or ophthalmic services from being provided at the unit is also offered as follows:
The provision of a dispensing pharmacy or opticians is prohibited.
265 1.8 The applicant has also indicated a willingness to enter into a legal agreement (either as a unilateral undertaking or under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act) to limit occupation under the new permission to Boots only.
1.9 In summary, the applicant’s case is outlined as follows:
The Proposal
(i) The proposal is for a Boots retail park format store, which provides greater depth of choice than local stores and is therefore able to compete more effectively with out-of-centre supermarkets which carry large health and beauty ranges. The store will not include a dispensing pharmacy, and so is a completely different format to a much smaller Boots pharmacy that can be found in many locations in Cardiff.
(ii) The new store will provide over 25 additional jobs supported by a national branded retailer with training, investment and job security benefits. These new jobs will generate £340K of additional income each year in the local economy. These are considerable benefits in an area of high unemployment (approximately 8.7%).
The Sequential Approach
(iii) There are no sequentially preferable sites that meet the criteria of being suitable, viable and available. Boots is committed to retaining all of its existing stores in Cardiff and has no requirement for a further City Centre store, where there are three already, as it would simply ‘cannabilise’ sales from the Company’s existing stores and would not be viable.
(iv) There are no opportunities in local centres, as the available vacant units are too small to be suitable. The proposal does not include a dispensing pharmacy so there is no credible case that the Company should be required instead to operate a completely different format and open a further local pharmacy instead. This would be a completely different format and open a further local pharmacy instead. This would be completely unreasonable and goes significantly beyond any rational interpretation of the requirements of the sequential approach. In the event, this would not be possible because no further pharmacy licenses are available in the Cardiff area.
Need
(v) A significant proportion of Boots core health and beauty ranges are now sold by the supermarkets. Supermarket operators now have a larger share of the market than the health and beauty specialists. The new store will compete with these and provide additional choice for shoppers.
(vi) A quantitative need for comparison goods floorspace also exists, forecast to be some £5.1 at 2016, even after the turnover of the proposal (£6.7m) is take into account.
266 Impact
(vi) Boots remains committed to its town centre stores, including those in Cardiff City Centre and surrounding local centres. The Company has also opened stores in some retail park locations in the larger towns to compete more directly with the supermarkets and to seek to recapture part of the trade that has already moved out-of-centre. Boots has not replaced any town centre store with an out-of-centre store and continues store openings in town centres. The Boots store at Avenue Retail Park will therefore have a complementary role to the City Centre Boots and will expand the Company’s presence in Cardiff. It would not be a replacement or relocation for an existing store.
(vii)Boots’ principal competitors across all of their main ranges are the large foodstores which have expanded considerably into the health and beauty sector in recent years. The alternative to a trip to Boots is, therefore, generally a visit to a large foodstore with a significant health and beauty section. Insofar as Boots would divert trade from such stores, this would be at a negligible level and would have no material impact on their turnover.
(viii)The proposal will not harm the recent regeneration scheme in Clifton Street. Plainly, it cannot be harmful to investment in physical upgrades to shop units that has already occurred. Moreover, given the conclusions on the sequential approach, it could have no impact on future investment either, as there is no realistic prospect that Boots would open a store in the centre.
Accessibility
(ix) The application site is accessible by a range of means of transport and has frequent bus links. There are no highway objections to the proposal.
1.10 The applicant states that the decision notice for the refusal of planning application 10/923E identified two reasons for refusal relating to impact (refer to paragraph 3.2). The updated Retail Statement consequently seeks to assess the potential impact of the proposal as follows (in summary):
(i) It assumes the maximum uplift in turnover of the proposal to be £0.9m at 2011, representing a worst case, robust assessment and states that forecast expenditure (e.g. 2014 or 2016) would mean that the actual impact overall would be far less.
(ii) With respect to trade draw, the Report states that the largest impact would most likely be on out-of-centre developments in each of the relevant zones identified within the Cardiff Retail Capacity Study Area and, in particular, the out of centre foodstores located in zones 4 and 5. It states that the impact on the identified district centres would be negligible, viz:
267 a. Albany Road/Wellfield Road – 2.25% b. Clifton Street/Broadway – 0.19% c. Rumney – 0.31% d. Splott Road/Carlisle Street – 0.30%
(iii) The Report states that it is highly unlikely the proposal would cause or contribute unacceptable harm to the vitality and viability of the district or local centres identified within the Local Plan.
(iv) It considers that the proposal will not have a negative impact on future private sector investment in Cardiff, noting that the City Centre has undergone substantial positive regeneration by the development of St David’s 2, in which units have steadily been taken.
(v) It states that the Boots proposal would not divert investment from the City Centre which already has three Boots stores (Queen Street, Wood Street and the Capital Centre), and where there are no suitable or viable sites or units that could accommodate a fourth Boots store.
(vi) The report identifies the nearby district and local centres as Clifton Street/Broadway, Albany Road/Wellfield Road, Splott Road/Carlisle Street, Rumney. The Report identifies those shops selling chemists goods/health and beauty goods as only a very limited proportion of outlets in each centre with only ten units overall specialising in similar goods to Boots in the four centres. It states that these are the national multiples specialising in chemist products, including Boots, Superdrug and Savers, or independent pharmacies supported primarily by prescription trade from nearby doctors’ surgeries and health centres. In relation to the impact on pharmacy and ophthalmic services it reiterates that neither of these services are proposed and concludes that the impact of a new Boots store on the district/local centres could not be significant if there are very few retailers that Boots would compete with.
1.11 The Retail Statement notes that the Council’s second reason for refusal (in respect of planning application 10/923E) states the proposal does not accord with the Council’s retail strategy and that the reason refers to various policy documents. In response, the Report states that none of the policy documents seek to prevent any out of centre retail development but identify criteria against which proposals for retail development outside of centres should be assessed. The report states that to refuse the application because it is ‘contrary to retail policy’ should be placed in context. In this regard, it refers to a successful appeal to allow Boots to open a store in Ty Glas Retail Park when the Inspector commented as follows:
‘It is clear that the shopping policies of the approved development plan and the emerging Unitary Development Plan are designed to protect and enhance the retail strength of established centres. So where a proposed development is acknowledged to not harm those interests, it seems unlikely that it can be successfully claimed that it would have an adverse impact on the strategy as
268 a whole’.
1.12 With respect to the impact on Clifton Street Regeneration Scheme (reason for refusal 3 of planning application 10/923E), the Report States that:
(i) It cannot be harmful to investment in physical upgrades to shop units that have already occurred. (ii) Given the conclusions on the sequential approach, the proposal could have no impact on future investment as there is no realistic prospect that Boots could open a store in the centre. (iii) The amount of trade diversion forecast from existing shops in the Centre is negligible. The two existing pharmacies in the Centre are predominantly supported by prescription trade from doctors surgeries in the area. Boots will not have an effect on the prescription service. Therefore there will not be a negative impact on the stores.
1.13 The applicant’s Retail Statement concludes as follows:
The proposal will deliver new investment and jobs to Cardiff and help to sustain a viable future for the Retail Park.
The proposal will meet a qualitative and quantitative need for a health and beauty store in the local area in accordance with paragraph 10.3.3 of Planning Policy Wales, paragraph 10.3.1 of MIPPS 02/2005.
There will be no adverse impact on existing centres or to the retail strategy in accordance with Policy 50 (iv) and (v) of the Local Plan, Policy R3 of the South Glamorgan Structure Plan and Paragraph 10.3.1 of Planning Policy Wales. Rather, the principal impact will be out-of-centre superstores which have extensive health and beauty ranges as part of wider product offer.
There are no sequentially preferable sites that are realistically suitable, viable and available for the Boots business model proposed in accordance with Policy 50(i) of the Local Plan, paragraph 10.3.4 of MIPPs 02/2025 and 10.3.1 of Planning Police Wales, and, the site is accessible, has adequate parking and is acceptable in transport terms required by Policy 50 (vii) and (viii) of the Local Plan, Paragraph 6 of TAN 4, Paragraph 10.3.1 Planning Policy Wales and objective 4 of paragraph 10.1.1 of MIPPS 02/2005.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 Unit 5, which extends to some 1737 square metres is located at the eastern end of the main retail terrace within the Avenue Retail Park. It was formerly occupied by MFI and is currently occupied by C & H Simply Furniture on a short term let. The Retail Park is located on Newport Road which forms one of the main arterial routes into the City. A variety of large format retail warehouses are located in the area long both sides of Newport Road.
269 3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 Planning Application 10/1209/DCO - removal of condition 19 of 03/2923/R to allow the unrestricted sale of class A1 goods at unit 5. The application is reported for determination on this schedule.
3.2 Planning application 10/923E – Variation of condition 19 of planning permission 03/2923R to allow the expansion of the range of goods to be sold. The application was refused on the 15th December, 2010 for the following reasons:
1. The applicants have not satisfactorily demonstrated a need for the proposal, contrary to national policy contained in Planning Policy Wales (Edition 3, June 2010), MIPPS 02/2005 (Planning for retailing and town centres) and Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
2. The proposal does not accord with the Council’s retail strategy, the main objective of which is to protect and enhance the viability and vitality of district and local centres and is therefore contrary to policy 50 (retail development) of the Cardiff Local Plan (1996), Policy R4 (Out of Centre Retail Development) of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan, MIPPS 02/2005 (Planning for retailing and town centres) and Planning Policy Wales (Edition 3, June 2010) and Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
3. The proposal adversely affects the recent regeneration scheme in Clifton Street by diverting potential investment and expenditure to an out of centre car based location contrary to policy 50 (retail development) of the Cardiff Local Plan (1996), MIPPS 02/2005 (Planning for retailing and town centres) and Planning Policy Wales (Edition 3, June 2010) and Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
3.3 Planning permission 07/2064/E - Variation of condition 19 of permission 03/2933R to enable 929 square metres food retail sales and 232 square metres non food retail sales from unit 4 (as identified on plan (d)po1 rev c) – Approved April, 2008. Unit 4 is in use as a Marks and Spencer’s Simply Food. Store.
3.4 Planning permission 03/2923/R - erection of buildings for use within use class A1, new means of access and new service access, car parking, landscaping together with alterations to the highway – Approved August 2004.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (January, 1996)
Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) Policy 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) Policy 50 (Retail Development)
270 4.2 South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan : Policy R4 (Out of Centre Retail Development)
4.3 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003)
Policy 2.20 (Good Design) Policy 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements)
4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance : Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements.
4.5 National Planning Guidance
MIPPS 02/2005 (Planning for Retailing and Town Centres) Planning Policy Wales Edition 4, February 2011 TAN 4 (Retailing and Town Centres, 1996)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation advises the submitted Transport Statement adequately demonstrates that the limited increase in parking demand and numbers of vehicle movements can be adequately accommodated within the existing car park and by the adjacent highway network. He also notes that 16 existing cycle stands are to be retained in association with the proposed use. The Officer therefore raises no adverse comments.
5.2 The comments of the Land Use Policy Officer have been incorporated into the Analysis section of this report.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 Nil.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Councillor J Kelloway supports the application, commenting that he understands the grounds for the refusal of the previous application, submitted on behalf of Boots Stores at this location, were several but that the current application has been suitably amended and addresses those grounds.
As a local member for Penylan, he recognises the benefits that a Boots Store would bring to the area he represents – both in terms of the added convenience that such a retail outlet at this location would represent to my residents and in terms of the economic development and employment benefits that would accrue.
7.2 Councillor Salway endorses the comments of Councillor Kelloway stating that the store would be an added convenience for residents, and since the
271 applicants have made amendments to the original application. The Councillor hopes that planning permission will be granted.
7.3 Neighbouring businesses have been notified of the application. No representations have been received.
7.4 A letter has been received from Boots (the intended occupier of the development) in support of the application. The letter raises the following issues:
1. The Boots programme of opening stores in out-of-centre locations is in response to significant changes in the health and beauty retail market. In recent years the expansion into this market sector by the main grocery chains has resulted in a market share loss from town centres. There is now a drive to recapture this trade by competing with the existing out-of- centre supermarkets. 2. The proposed Boots store is intended to operate in a complementary role to the existing stores located in the District and Local Centres. There is no intention to close any existing stores within the area. 3. Locating within the Clifton Street Local Centre would not achieve the objective of providing an out-of-centre facility, which would compete with supermarkets in terms of level of choice and convenience, due to store, size and location. In addition, the Clifton Street Local Centre is already served by three pharmacies. The proposal would create thirty new jobs and provide greater consumer choice.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 This planning application seeks to vary condition 19 of planning permission 03/2923R to allow chemist goods and related items to be sold from approximately half (929 square metres) of Unit 5, which it is proposed to sub divide to enable occupation by Boots the Chemist.
8.2 In addition to the variation of Condition 19, conditions are proposed to limit the amount of gross floorspace to 929 square metres (thereby preventing the provision of additional floorspace at mezzanine level), and to prohibit the provision of a dispensing pharmacy and opticians. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to enter into a S106 Agreement to limit the occupier to Boots only.
8.3 There are no objections to the application on highway/parking ground (refer to paragraph 5.1).
8.4 Unit 5 was formerly occupied by MFI until it entered administration in October 2008. After a period of vacancy, it has been occupied on a temporary basis by a furniture retailer since August, 2009.
8.5 The application site is within an out-of-centre location in terms of retail policy. Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February, 2001) is clear that planning applications to vary retail trading conditions in out-of-centre locations should
272 be assessed against the following tests:-
(i). compatibility with a Community or up-to-date Development Plan Strategy; (ii). consideration of need; (iii). the sequential approach to site selection; and (IV). the impact on existing centres.
8.6 Policy 50 of the Local Plan and Policy R4 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan provide the development plan policy framework.
8.7 Local Plan Policy 50 only allows for retail development other than those defined in Policies 34, 47 and 49, if the proposal would meet the following criteria;-
i. the proposal cannot be satisfactorily accommodated within or adjoining an existing or planned centre and; ii. there is no need to preserve the site for its existing or allocated use assessed against the relevant policies of the plan and; iii. the proposal in not within the countryside or urban fringe; and iv. the proposal would not cause or contribute unacceptable harm to the vitality or viability of existing or planned centres, or strategies aimed at sustaining or enhancing such centres; and v. the proposal would not cause or contribute harm to approved regeneration schemes; and vi. resultant traffic flows, travel patterns, energy use and other emissions would be minimised; and vii. the proposal would be well located by reference to public transport and for those wishing to travel other than by car; and viii. car parking provision and servicing facilities are adequate; and ix. the proposal is acceptable in terms of scale, design and amenity considerations.
8.8 The Agents for the application have provided a supporting ‘Retail Statement’ which aims to address this policy framework and have named the proposed occupants of the store as Boots the Chemist.
The Agents have outlined how this resubmission amends/clarifies certain aspects of the proposal by:
1. reducing the red line area on the site location plan to cover only half of the existing unit (just over 929 sq. m. of floorspace); 2. updating the proposed new planning condition limiting the range of goods that can be sold; 3. proposing a personal permission for Boots; 4. relinquishing the right to intensify the use of the building by adding additional floorspace on a mezzanine floor; 5. proposing a new condition to prevent a dispensing pharmacy or ophthalmic services.
273 8.9 In terms of the current application, the amendments outlined above are not considered significant enough to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. The previous application excluded a dispensing pharmacy and ophthalmic services and involved 929 sq. m of floorspace. If planning permission had been granted conditions would have been imposed limiting the range of goods that could be sold and restricting the floorspace. Therefore, the ability to install a mezzanine floor would not have been possible.
8.10 The main issues to consider in the application are:-
1. whether the proposal is in accord with the retail strategy for Cardiff as set out in the development plan, and with national planning guidance provided by Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February 2011); 2. whether the operation of a Boots retail store at this location would be harmful to the viability or vitality of recognised district and local centres in close proximity or any strategy aimed at protecting or regenerating such a centre; 3. whether the proposed use meets the criteria of retail need, sequential test location and retail impact in the area.
Quantitative Need
8.11 Paragraph 6.4 of the Retail Statement and Table 4 of the supporting appendices assume that all of the available expenditure generated within the study will remain available within it. Clearly, a large part of the expenditure generated locally will be spent in the City Centre and elsewhere and no assumptions are made about how much of this will leak out. This is not reflected in the capacity assessment, meaning that the expenditure available to support the store is overestimated.
8.12 Table 5 of the appendices is based on a residual turnover for the Boots proposal of £0.9m (turnover in excess of the bulky goods store currently permitted). This is not considered to be a fair comparison as the proposal introduces a new sales sector which competes in a very different way to bulky goods. It is considered that the total Boots turnover identified in Table 5 should be £3.28m. This would impact differently across the named centres.
Sequential Approach
8.13 It is accepted that Boots take a sequential approach towards the location of their stores, as they cover the whole County. It is not necessary for the Company to consider another city centre location when they perceive the need to be in the east of the City. Therefore, the sequential test in this case is whether a suitable site would be available within a district or local centre in this eastern sector.
8.14 The supporting evidence provides a sequential search of other possible locations nearest to the application site, including:-
274 x Clifton Street/Broadway x Splott Road/Carlisle Street x Albany Road/Wellfield Road and; x Rumney
8.15 Boots already has a store in Albany/Wellfield Road and there are no vacant units in Rumney. However, both Clifton Street/Broadway and Splott Road/Carlisle Street have high vacancy rates.
The agents state that the largest vacant site is 223 square metres on Clifton Street and that potentially units 144 and 145 could be amalgamated. This would result in a unit of 339 square metres. which is 590 square metres smaller than the application site. The Agents conclude that no suitable, viable premises are available in Clifton Street. However, Boots operates from similar size premises within other centres. For example, the Boots store on Cowbridge Road East is 283 square metres and the Albany Road store is 321 square metres.
8.16 Planning guidance notes that the application of the sequential approach requires flexibility and realism. The sequential approach adopted by the agents appears to be inflexible in terms of store format.
Impact
8.17 It is accepted that as the proposal would occupy an approved retail warehouse unit, the scheme would not result in an increase in floorspace. Therefore, in terms of impact, the main consideration is the type of goods to be retailed from the unit and the subsequent trade diversion from existing centres.
8.18 The agents state that in terms of the sale of health and beauty goods the store would trade on a like-with-like basis with out-of-centre supermarkets who sell a range of health and beauty goods.
8.19 However, it is also relevant to assess the impact of the proposal on regeneration strategies for district and local centres. The Council has recently completed a major physical regeneration project in the Clifton Street District Centre with the assistance of WAG funds. An associated project to give grant assistance for shop front upgrades in the street is still in operation. The key objectives of the regeneration strategy for the street are to:
x Improve the quality of the environment; x Strengthen vitality and viability; and, x Promote community wellbeing.
8.20 The vacancy rate in Clifton Street remains high and there are a number of sequentially preferable sites there, which could be occupied by Boots and which compare favourably with many other store formats that the Company operates successfully across the City. The benefits that a major multinational such as Boots could bring to the Centre, in terms of vitality, viability and
275 attractiveness are clear, particularly in the current economic climate where uptake of vacancies has been slow.
8.21 The current proposal seeks to relax a trading condition at a nearby out-of- centre location, which would increase that Centre’s capacity to compete with Clifton Street both for non-bulky goods retailers and retail expenditure. This would not only divert a potential occupier from the designated district centre but could also adversely affect future potential investment in the Centre. It is also relevant to note that a Boots store located in the Retail Park would be far less accessible to non-car owning sectors of the local community than one located in Clifton Street which has a large walk-in catchment and where the physical regeneration scheme has significantly improved the pedestrian environment. It is considered that these issues represent a clear threat to the regeneration strategy for Clifton Street and to the wider retail strategy which seeks to protect and enhance such centres.
Summary
Taking the above factors into consideration, it is considered that the application should be recommended for refusal for the following reasons:
1. The applicants have not satisfactorily demonstrated a need for the proposal; contrary to national policy contained in Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February 2011), ‘Planning for Retailing and Town Centres’ and Technical Advice Note 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996).
2. The proposal does not accord with the Council’s retail strategy, the main objective of which is to protect and enhance the viability and vitality of district and local centres and is therefore contrary to policy 50 (Retail Development) of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996) and Planning Policy Wales ‘Planning for Retailing and Town Centres’, (Edition 4, February 2011).
3. The proposal adversely affects the recent regeneration scheme in Clifton Street by diverting potential investment and expenditure to an out of centre car based location contrary to Policy 50 (Retail Development) of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan Centres’, (Edition 4, February 2011).
276 277 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/142/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 17/02/2011
ED: WHITCHURCH/TONGWYNLAIS
APP: TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Cardiff County Council LOCATION: RESOURCE CENTRE FOR THE ELDERLY, HEOL DON, WHITCHURCH, CARDIFF, CF14 2XG PROPOSAL: OUTLINE PLANNING FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. A. Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved B. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
C. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
Reasons: A. In accordance with the provisions of Article (3)1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2008. B and C. In accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development shall not begin until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing as part of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme and shall meet the definition of affordable housing in Annex B of TAN 2 or any future guidance that replaces it. The scheme shall include: i. the numbers, type, tenure and location on the site of the affordable housing provision to be made which shall consist of not less than 40% of housing units/bed spaces;
278 ii. the timing of the construction of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the market housing; iii. the arrangements for the transfer of the affordable housing to an affordable housing provider (or the management of the affordable housing if no Registered Social Landlord is involved) ; iv. the arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and v. the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate affordable housing for the local community in accordance with the Council’s adopted interim planning policy “Affordable Housing Delivery Statement” (October 2010).
3. Prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into beneficial use provision shall be made within the site for the parking of vehicles in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, such approval shall be obtained prior to the commencement of development. The parking areas shown in the approved details shall be provided prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be maintained and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. Reason : To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing the site in accordance with policy 17 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
4. No development shall take place until details of a turning space within the curtilage of the site to enable service 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; in accordance with policy 17 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
5. No development shall take place until details showing the provision of cycle parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being put into beneficial use. Thereafter the cycle 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 accordance with policy 18 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.”.
279 6. No development shall take place until details of the junction between the access road and the highway at Heol Don, together with visibility splays, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include, but not be limited to, improvements to the point of access including the reconstruction/resurfacing of the footways and carriageway, kerbs, edging, drainage, lining, signing and lighting (as required). The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure the comprehensive enhancement/improvement of the adjacent public highway, to facilitate access to the proposed development and 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; in accordance with policy 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policies 2.57 and 2.58 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
7. No development shall take place until detailed plans showing the position and form of construction of all roads and footpaths within the site and the method of disposal of all surface water drainage therefrom 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 in accordance with policies 17, 18 and 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.” . 8. No dwelling shall be occupied until that part of the road and footpath which provides access to it and all surface water drainage works for the said road have been laid out, constructed and completed (except for the final surfacing) in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development and to make provision for satisfactory access to the dwelling by the future occupants in accordance with policies 17, 18 and 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
9. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, to include details of construction traffic routes, times of deliveries, site hoardings, site access, wheel washing facilities and parking of contractors’ vehicles. The construction shall be managed strictly in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity, in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
10. 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 in writing by the local planning authority, which shall include sustainable drainage
280 techniques if, as a result of the ground permeability tests, these have been found to be feasible. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme is carried out and completed as approved. Reason: In the interests of the proper drainage of the site, in accordance with policy 2.61 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
11. No trees on the site identified in the Tree Survey dated 3rd December 2010 as being within categories B1 & 2 shall be felled, lopped or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, in accordance with policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policies 2.20 and 2.45 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
12. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA), in accordance with the current British Standard for trees in relation to construction: An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), setting out the methodology that will be used to prevent loss of or damage to retained trees. A Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in the form of a scale drawing showing the finalised layout and the tree and landscaping protection methods detailed in the AMS that can be shown graphically. Unless written consent is obtained from the LPA, the development shall be carried out in full conformity with the approved AMS and TPP. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the effects of the proposals on existing trees and landscape, the measures for their protection, to monitor compliance and to make good losses, in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.45 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
13. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for boundary walls and/or fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and thereafter maintained. Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity, in accordance with policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policies 2.20 and 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
14. Each new dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve a minimum of 1 credit under category “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (November 2010). The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards, in accordance with policy 12 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff
281 Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 4.11.4 of Planning Policy Wales (February 2011).
15. Construction of any dwelling hereby permitted shall not begin until an “Interim Certificate” has been submitted to the local planning authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” has been achieved for that individual dwelling or house type in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (November 2010). Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards, in accordance with policy 12 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 4.11.4 of Planning Policy Wales (February 2011).
16. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes “Final Certificate” shall be submitted to the local planning authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” has been achieved for the development in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (November 2010). Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards, in accordance with policy 12 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 4.11.4 of Planning Policy Wales (February 2011).
17. This permission does not extend to a development of more than 18 dwellings. Reason: The indicative proposals submitted with the outline application relate to no more than 18 dwellings and the implications of erecting more than 18 dwellings on the site have not been considered.
. RECOMMENDATION 2: That the Chief Financial Services Officer be requested to ensure that:
(i) a financial contribution of £7,280 is made from the revenues generated by the disposal of the land to fund improvements to public transport (for the provision of two bus boarders at the bus stops closest to the site) in accordance with the advice of the Operational Manager Transportation given at paragraph 5.1 of the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer’s report; (ii) a financial contribution is made from the revenues generated by the disposal of the land towards the improvement (including design and maintenance) of existing open space in the locality, the sum to be calculated at the time of the approval of reserved matters when details of the number and size of the residential units becomes available, in accordance with the advice of the Chief Officer Culture, Leisure and Parks
282 (Parks Services) given at paragraph 5.3 of the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer’s report. (iii) a covenant is attached to the disposal of the land to ensure that any residential development of the site shall consist of affordable housing (as defined in Annex B of Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 2, or any future guidance that replaces it) at a rate of not less than 40% of housing units/bed spaces. RECOMMENDATION 3: The applicant is advised that the details submitted for approval of the reserved matters should take into account the design principles outlined in the site development brief “Options appraisal for residential development” (August 2010) submitted with this application and the residential design objectives set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance “Cardiff Residential Design Guide” (March 2008).
RECOMMENDATION 4: It is recommended that public transport options are provided to residents, 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. Liaison with Miriam Highgate (tel: 02920 872213) of Transportation Policy can be sought to help achieve this.
RECOMMENDATION 5: The developer is advised that those conditions above (and any other works) which relate to the existing or proposed adopted highway are to be subject to an agreement under Section 38 and/or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 between the developer and Local Highway Authority.
RECOMMENDATION 6: 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 7: In the interests of crime prevention and site security, it is recommended that this development be built to Police specified “Secured by Design” standards as promoted by South Wales Police. Information on these standards is available on the website www.securedbydesign.com
RECOMMENDATION 8: The developer is advised that foul and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site. No land drainage run-off shall be permitted to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system and the developer should contact the Local Authority Drainage Services for advice if it is intended to drain surface water to the public sewerage system.
283 RECOMMENDATION 9: The developer is advised to contact Welsh Water with regard to the position of the public sewer which crosses the application site. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No part of the building shall be permitted within 3m either side of the centre line of the public sewer. permitted within 3m either side of the centre line of the public sewer.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for residential development, with all matters of layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping reserved for future consideration. The minimum/maximum height of the buildings would be 7.5m/8.5m; the minimum/maximum width would be 5m/5.5m. The buildings would achieve code level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
1.2 Six indicative options for the proposed layout have been submitted. These show how the site could accommodate between 9 and 18 residential units whilst retaining five of the most important trees.
1.3 The application was originally reported to the Planning Committee on 11th May, 2011 and was deferred for a site visit, which took place on 1st June 2011.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site covers around 0.7 hectares, is relatively level, roughly triangular in shape and lies to the rear of houses on Heol Don. The building formerly located on the site was used as a Council resource centre before being demolished in 2010. Three areas of mature trees remain on the site.
2.2 The eastern and southern boundaries abut the playing fields of Whitchurch High School, and there are private gardens of houses on Heol Don and Kelston Place to the west and north. Access is via a 53m long, 10m wide lane running between 26 and 28 Heol Don.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 91/01672 – Change of use from former children’s centre to elderly persons’ resource centre. 92/00795 – Change of use to elderly persons’ resource centre – replacement and replanting of trees. 92/00933 – Residential development. Advised County Council that proposal was unacceptable backland development and would interfere with tree replacement programme. 98/2084 – Provision of additional car parking.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 –
284 EV1 (Towards sustainable development); MV1 (Location of New Developments); MV2 (Commuted Payments); MV11 (Parking); H1 (New Dwelling Requirement); H4 (Special Housing Provision); H5 (Affordable Housing); H6 (Community Facilities); B1 (Conservation of the Built Environment).
4.2 Cardiff Local Plan – 3 (Development in Conservation Areas); 10 (Contaminated or Unstable Land); 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality); 12 (Energy Efficient Design); 16 (Traffic Calming); 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities); 18 (Provision for Cyclists); 19 (Provision for Pedestrians); 24 (Affordable and Special Needs Housing); 25 (Affordable Housing Within the Built Up Area); 30 (Insensitive or Inappropriate Infilling); 31 (Residential Open Space Requirement);
4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance - Access, Circulation and Parking Standards (January 2010); Cardiff Residential Design Guide (March 2008); Trees and Development (March 2007); Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007); Affordable Housing (March 2007); Community Facilities and Residential Development (March 2007); Open Space (June 2000).
4.4 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan – 2.20 (Good Design); 2.21 (Change of Use or Redevelopment to Residential Use); 2.23 (Affordable Housing); 2.24 (Residential Amenity); 2.26 (Provision for Open Space, Recreation and Leisure); 2.45 (Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows); 2.53 (Conservation Areas); 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements); 2.63 (Contaminated and Unstable Land); 2.74 (Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development).
4.5 Planning Policy Wales (2011): 4.4.2: Planning policies and proposals should: Promote resource-efficient and climate change resilient settlement patterns, wherever possible avoiding development on greenfield sites. Locate developments so as to minimise the demand for travel, especially by private car Contribute to the protection and improvement of the environment so as to
285 improve the quality of life and protect local and global ecosystems Help to ensure the conservation of the historic environment and cultural heritage Ensure that all communities have sufficient good quality housing – including affordable housing – in safe neighbourhoods Promote access to employment, shopping, education, health, community facilities and green space Foster improvements to transport facilities Foster social inclusion 4.6.4: Local planning authorities should assess the extent to which developments are consistent with minimising the need to travel and increasing accessibility by modes other than the private car. Higher density development should be encouraged near public transport nodes or near corridors well served by public transport. 4.10.9: Visual appearance, scale and relationship to surroundings and context are material planning considerations. 4.10.10: In areas recognised for their landscape, townscape or historic value, it can be appropriate to seek to promote or reinforce traditional and local distinctiveness. 4.10.11: Local planning authorities and developers should consider the issue of accessibility for all. 4.10.12: Local Authorities are under a legal obligation to consider the need to prevent and reduce crime and disorder in all decisions that they take. 4.11.4: sets out the sustainability standards that the Assembly Government expects new buildings to meet. 5.2.9: Local Planning Authorities should seek to protect trees, groups of trees and areas of woodland where they have natural heritage value or contribute to the character or amenity of a locality. 6.1.2: Local authorities have an important role in securing the conservation of the historic environment while ensuring that it accommodates and remains responsive to present day needs. 6.5.17: If any proposed development would conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, or its setting, there will be a strong presumption against the granting of planning permission. 8.7.5: planning conditions and obligations may be used in appropriate circumstances to secure on-site or off-site facilities or improvements in public transport, walking and cycling where such measures would be likely to influence travel patterns to the site. 9.1.1 : The Assembly Government will seek to ensure that previously developed land is used in preference to Greenfield sites; new housing and residential environments are well designed, meet national sustainability standards and make a significant contribution to promoting community regeneration and improving the quality of life, and new housing development in towns, villages and edge of settlement locations is a mix of affordable and market housing that retains and where possible enhances important landscape and wildlife features in the development. 9.3.3: Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity.
286 5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Operational Manager Transportation: On the basis that no more than 18 dwellings are proposed; no objection subject to conditions requiring approval of details of parking, turning space, cycle parking provision, the access road junction, all roads and footpaths within the site and a construction management plan. Recommend that travel information is provided to residents, that the conditions relating to existing or proposed adopted highway are subject to an agreement under Section 38 and/or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 between the developer and Local Highway Authority, and that a financial contribution be secured towards Public Transport Improvements, this figure to be £7,280, for the provision of two bus boarders at the bus stops closest to the site.
5.2 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Drainage): No objection subject to a condition requiring ground permeability tests to be undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and approval of a drainage scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage.
5.3 Chief Officer Culture, Leisure and Parks (Parks Services): In view of the current availability of existing public open space in proximity to the site, I would recommend that the Council seeks an off-site contribution in lieu of the provision of new open space on-site, for the improvement (including appropriate design and maintenance costs) of existing open space in the vicinity. It will be necessary for the applicant to agree a financial contribution toward the improvement of nearby public open space. As there are a number of options proposed I am unable to calculate the financial contribution required. The Agreement will also need to define when the contribution will be calculated, normally at the approval of reserved matters stage when details of the units become available.
5.4 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Waste): The reserved matters application must show individual refuse storage for houses and communal refuse storage for flats.
5.5 Chief Officer, Housing and Neighbourhood Renewal (Housing Strategy): Cardiff has an extremely high housing need for affordable housing in this area of the City. Data available from the Council’s current housing waiting list (February 2011) indicates there are 5,400 households waiting for a property in Whitchurch with only 44 properties becoming available within the last 12 months.
5.6 As the site is suitable for affordable housing, we would seek a 40% affordable housing contribution, which is in-line with the interim planning policy target in the Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (AHDS), with the mix to be representative of the development as a whole. We would as a priority seek family accommodation as per the Council’s strategic housing priorities. In terms of design, traditional family housing would be the priority.
287 5.7 For information, at this stage we could not guarantee that Social Housing Grant (SHG) would be available for the units, as this will depend on the availability and in particular the timescales for delivery of the affordable housing. Therefore the scheme should be appraised on a nil-SHG basis, and we anticipate that a Registered Social Landlord could pay in the region of 33% of WAG’s Acceptable Cost Guidance for the appropriate size unit.
5.8 All affordable units must meet WAG Development Quality Requirements (DQR) & Welsh Housing Quality Standards (WHQS). The Council will identify a preferred RSL partner for delivering the affordable housing on this site.
5.9 We would use legal contract/agreement to cover: the provision of affordable housing on site including numbers, site mix and layout; the timing and phasing of the provision as relating to open market housing provision. The precise terms of the legal contract/agreement would be drafted by Legal Services.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 Cardiff Bus: No response to consultation.
6.2 North West Conservation Group: No comments to make until detailed proposals are submitted. Would like the Council to adhere to the design principles.
6.3 Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor: Crime and anti social behaviour is average in the Whitchurch area. The design and access statement makes reference to ‘promoting community safety’ and a ‘safe and secure realm’ but fails to illustrate sufficient detail of how community safety and crime issues will be addressed through design stages. South Wales Police have contacted the applicant with an offer to work with the developer to clarify a number of issues (e.g. layout of homes to maximise surveillance, clarification of boundary treatments etc) prior to any detailed application. South Wales Police have no objection in principle at this stage but recommend developers liaise with South Wales Police Crime Prevention Design Advisors to ensure that community safety issues are properly addressed in the design and layout of the development.
6.4 Welsh Water: Foul and surface water discharges must be drained separately. No surface water shall be allowed to connect to the public sewerage system unless agreed by the Local Planning Authority. No land drainage will be permitted to discharge to the public sewerage system. No development will be permitted within 3m of the centreline of the sewer that crosses the site. No development should commence until a comprehensive and integrated drainage scheme has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. No problems are envisaged with the waste water treatment works and a water supply can be made available to serve the development.
7.. REPRESENTATIONS
288 7.1 The application was advertised by press notice, site notice and neighbour notification. 7 letters/emails have been received which raise the following concerns:
(1) Increased traffic on Heol Don will have a negative impact on safety, access and parking; (2) The access lane is too narrow to accommodate two lanes of traffic and a pavement; (3) The buildings may detract from the Edwardian character of the conservation area, particularly if more than 2 storeys in height; (4) The removal of trees would be detrimental to biodiversity and to the character and appearance of the area; (5) The privacy of existing residents may be compromised by buildings of more than 2 storeys; (6) The restored coach house at the rear of 30 Heol Don should be protected from inappropriate development that could detract from its architectural merits.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 There are no objections to the principle of residential development on this site. The application site falls within an existing area allocated for education in the Cardiff Local Plan but the Council Resource Centre has been demolished and, given that the site is cleared, not in educational use and located in a primarily residential area, the application raises no land use policy concerns. Six indicative layout options have been included within the development brief for this site, with proposals ranging in the number of dwellings from 9 to 18 units. Whilst the layout options proposed at the lower densities would be more reflective of the large dwellings and generously sized residential plots in this area, it is considered that the site could support a scheme within this density range whilst adequately maintaining local characteristics.
8.2 However, there are a number of requirements not relating to “reserved matters” that would need to be secured by the imposition of conditions and/or legal obligations if outline planning permission is to be granted.
8.3 Whilst the presence of a number of trees in the application site has been considered within the six indicative layout options, the outcome of a tree survey should be used to inform the final layout. A landscaping scheme should be submitted with any detailed application, including full details and specifications for new trees. This should be drawn up in conjunction with the site layout plan to ensure there is no conflict between the future growth of trees and dwellings/car-parking/access roads. The planting scheme should include selected specimens capable of large size and long-life, and it should also include a component of native species and evergreen planting to benefit biodiversity and year round visual amenity.
8.4 In accordance with the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Community Facilities and Residential Development (2007), a financial
289 contribution for improvements to existing community facilities or the provision of additional community facilities should be sought on all significant developments (if no onsite provision is proposed) where it has been identified that investment in community facilities will be required to meet the needs of the new population. However, this relates only to residential developments containing 25 or more new dwellings and condition 17 above would restrict the development to no more than 18 dwellings; therefore such a contribution cannot be sought.
8.5 A financial contribution would be required, in lieu of on-site open space provision, for the improvement of existing open space in the area but, in the absence of details of the number of residential units and habitable rooms, it is not possible to calculate the amount at this stage.
8.6 The design principles outlined in the site development brief and the residential design objectives set out in the Cardiff Residential Design Guide SPG should also be considered within any reserved matters scheme for this site in order to ensure that the privacy of residents living in close proximity to the site is protected through careful positioning and orientation of dwellings, dwellings are set back from the boundary with Whitchurch High School to protect both the future residents of the site and the users of the school playing fields, the development creates an environment which provides both active and perceived surveillance over the streets and public spaces, the access road leading into the site is upgraded in order to allow for the safe and convenient access of both vehicles and pedestrians without conflict, development within the site respects the urban form, scale and massing of the surrounding residential area and an appropriate level of useable private amenity space is provided for each dwelling.
8.7 As there is an extremely high housing need for affordable housing in this area of the city and the site is suitable for affordable housing, a 40% affordable housing contribution should be sought, which is in-line with the interim planning policy target in the Affordable Housing Delivery Statement. A condition should be imposed on the outline planning permission requiring at least 40% of the dwellings to be affordable and the Chief Financial Services Officer should be requested to ensure that a covenant is attached to the sale of the land which would require any residential development on the site to consist of at least 40% affordable housing.
8.8 A number of concerns and objections have been raised by local residents, as detailed above, to which I would respond as follows:
(1) The Operational Manager, Transportation, has raised no objections on traffic, parking or highway safety grounds. The existing access is capable of being upgraded to an appropriate standard, traffic generation would not be excessive for such a relatively small development, and adequate on- site parking can be provided. (2) The access lane is approximately 10m wide and can be upgraded appropriately; (3) The scale and appearance of the buildings will be considered at the
290 reserved matters stage, when the proximity of the site to the conservation area will be taken into consideration; (4) The removal of significant trees can be prevented by planning conditions. The final layout can be required to take account of the need to retain trees; (5) Privacy issues will be considered when the details of layout and design are submitted. (6) The impact of the development on the setting of buildings within the conservation area will be considered at the reserved matters stage.
8.9 In conclusion, there are no policy objections to the principle of redeveloping this site for residential use. The existing access is capable of being upgraded to a suitable standard and, with careful design, adverse impacts on the adjoining conservation area and on the amenities of neighbouring residents can be avoided, and significant mature trees can be retained. Planning conditions can be imposed to ensure that important design principles are adhered to and, this being Council-owned land, the Chief Financial Services Officer can be requested to ensure that appropriate legal obligations are in place when the land is sold for development.
291 292 293 294 295 LOCAL MEMBER COMMENT
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/150/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 16/02/2011
ED: PENYLAN
APP: TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Cardiff County Council LOCATION: TY GWYN SPECIAL SCHOOL, TY-GWYN ROAD, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 5JG PROPOSAL: OUTLINE PLANNING FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That outline planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. A. Details of the access, appearance, landscape, layout and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved B. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. C. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Reasons: A. In accordance with the provisions of Article (3)1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2008. B and C. In accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development shall not begin until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing as part of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme and shall meet the definition of affordable housing in Annex B of TAN2 or any future guidance that replaces it. The scheme shall include:
296 i. the numbers, type, tenure and location on the site of the affordable housing provision to be made which shall consist of not less than 40% of housing units/bed spaces; ii. the timing of the construction of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the market housing; iii. the arrangements for the transfer of the affordable housing to an affordable housing provider (or the management of the affordable housing if no Registered Social Landlord is involved) ; iv. the arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and v. the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate affordable housing for the local community in accordance with the Council’s adopted interim planning policy “Affordable Housing Delivery Statement” (October 2010).
3. Prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into beneficial use provision shall be made within the site for the parking of vehicles in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved parking shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be maintained and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic.
4. No development shall take place until details of a turning space within the curtilage of the site to enable service 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; in accordance with policy 17 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
5. No development shall take place until details of the junction between the access road and the highway at Ty-Gwyn Road, together with visibility splays, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include, but not be limited to, improvements to the point of access including the reconstruction/resurfacing of the footways and carriageway, kerbs, edging, drainage, lining, signing and lighting (as required). The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure the comprehensive enhancement/improvement of the
297 adjacent public highway, to facilitate access to the proposed development and 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; in accordance with policy 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policies 2.57 and 2.58 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
6. No development shall take place until detailed plans showing the position and form of construction of all roads and footpaths 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 in accordance with policies 17, 18 and 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
7. No dwelling shall be occupied until that part of the road and footpath which provides access to it and all surface water drainage works for the said road have been laid out, constructed and completed (except for the final surfacing) in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development and to make provision for satisfactory access to the dwelling by the future occupants in accordance with policies 17, 18 and 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan
8. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, to include details of construction traffic routes, times of deliveries, site hoardings, site access, wheel washing facilities and parking of contractors’ vehicles. The construction shall be managed strictly in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity, in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
9. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in TAN15, and the results of the assessment provided to the local planning authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall:
(i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;
298 (ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Reason: To ensure a sustainable form of drainage
10. The details submitted in compliance with condition 1 above shall include the proposed access arrangements to the adjoining park at Fford Bodlyn together with the proposed finished levels and any associated ground modelling. Reason: to ensure an acceptable form of development.
11. C2F Details of Floor and Ground Levels
12. Each new dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and achieve a minimum of 6 credits under category “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
13. Construction of any dwelling hereby permitted shall not begin until an “Interim Certificate” has been submitted to the local planning authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” has been achieved for that individual dwelling or house type in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
14. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes “Final Certificate” shall be submitted to the local planning authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 6 credits under “Ene 1 – Dwelling Emission Rate” has been achieved for the development in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (May, 2009). Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.
15. Any topsoil [natural or manufactured],or subsoil, to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures
299 specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the local planning authority/ Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced”
16. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced
RECOMMENDATION 2: That the Chief Financial Services Officer be requested to ensure that:
(i) if the detailed scheme involves the provision of 25 dwellings or more, a financial contribution is made from the revenues generated by the disposal of the land to fund improvements to existing community facilities or the provision of additional community facilities in accordance with the advice of the Chief city development (Neighbourhood Regeneration) given at paragraph 8.8 of the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer's report; (ii) a financial contribution of £8,198 is made from the revenues generated by the disposal of the land to fund improvements to public transport (for the provision of power supply and CCTV camera at the new bus stop on Ty Gwyn Road at the bus stops closest to the site) in accordance with the advice of the Operational Manager Transportation given at paragraph 5.1 of the Chief City Development Officer’s report; (iii) a financial contribution is made from the revenues generated by the disposal of the land towards the improvement (including design and maintenance) of existing open space in the locality, the sum to be calculated at the time of the approval of reserved matters when details of the number and size of the residential units becomes available, in accordance with the advice from the Chief Officer Culture, Leisure and Parks (Parks Services), which will be in line with the open space SPG.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The applicant is advised that the details submitted for approval of the reserved matters should take into account the design principles outlined in the indicative plans submitted with this application and the residential design objectives set out in the Supplementary Planning
300 Guidance “Cardiff Residential Design Guide” (March 2008
RECOMMENDATION 4: 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 5: It is recommended that public transport options are provided to tenants 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. Liaison with Cheryl Owen of Transportation Policy, can be sought to help achieve this.
RECOMMENDATION 6: In the interests of crime prevention and site security, it is recommended that this development be built to Police specified “Secured by Design” standards as promoted by South Wales Police. Information on these standards is available on the website www.securedbydesign.com
. RECOMMENDATION 7:The developer is advised that those conditions above (and any other works) which relate to the existing or proposed adopted highway are to be subject to an agreement under Section 38 and/or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 between the developer and Local Highway Authority
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Outline permission, with all matters reserved, is sought for residential development on the former special school. Indicative plans show access to the site from Ty Gwyn Road into a new crescent. The indicative proposal shows 27 family dwellings (3 and 4 Bedroom) situated in good size plots. The indication height of the buildings would be 7.5 metres – 9 metres to roof ridge; 5 metres – 6 metres eaves; 7 metres – 8.5 metres width and 9-10 metres length. Thirty percent of the dwellings would be allocated for affordable housing.
1.2 No details have been submitted to show how access to the adjoining public park at Ffordd Bodlyn could be provided.
1.3 No parking is shown on the illustrative plans
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The plot size is 1.44 ha in area and contains a single storey special school
301 with two storey building at the entrance (former caretakers house) and a two storey teachers centre by the boundary with 87-93 (odd) Cyncoed Road.
2.2 The site is elevated above adjoining park and the properties at Ffrodd Cwellyn
2.3 Access to the site is off Ty Gwyn Road.
2.4 The site is not located within a conservation or flood plain area nor are their any listed buildings affected. There are Tree preservation orders along the south western eastern (Pen-y-lan Court) and by the entrance into the site.
2.5 The site is bounded by a small terrace to the north east (Pen-y-lan Court); to the south is the university buildings to the west is parkland and residential property both lower than the application site.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 10/02010/DCO - Demolition of existing brick block building including caretakers house & outbuildings – prior approval granted.
3.2 10/00235/E - Residential development – withdrawn
3.3 06/01807/E - Proposed Siting of demountable classroom and associated external works to include new outdoor play area – approved
3.4 03/01167/R - Demountable double classroom unit – approved
3.5 97/01525/N - Demountable unit - approved
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) created a statutory partnership between local authorities, the police and other key partners to work together in reducing crime and disorder in all aspects of their work. Section 17 of the Act states:
“It is the duty of the authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect on crime and disorder in its area and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.”
4.2 Planning Policy Wales (2011);
4.3 Technical Advice Note: 2 (Affordable housing); 10 (trees); 12: (Design) (2009) 18 (Transportation) 21 (Waste);
302 22 Sustainable buildings
4.4 Other national guidance that is relevant:
Manual for streets W/O 35/95 ‘Use of conditions in planning permission’ W/O 13/97 ‘Planning obligations’ W/O 16/94 states that “layouts should aim to reassure the public by making crime more difficult to commit, increase the risk of detection and provide people with a safer, more secure environment”
4.5 The following policies found within the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (adopted 1997) are relevant to the determination of this application;
EV1 (Towards sustainable development); MV1 (Location of New Developments); MV2 (Commuted Payments); MV11 (Parking); H1 (New Dwelling Requirement); H4 (Special Housing Provision); H5 (Affordable Housing); H6 (Community Facilities);
4.6 The following policies found within the City of Cardiff Local Plan (adopted 1996) are relevant to the determination of this application;
10 (Contaminated or Unstable Land); 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality); 12 (Energy Efficient Design); 16 (Traffic Calming); 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities); 18 (Provision for Cyclists); 19 (Provision for Pedestrians); 24 (Affordable and Special Needs Housing); 25 (Affordable Housing Within the Built Up Area); 30 (Insensitive or Inappropriate Infilling); 31 (Residential Open Space Requirement);
4.7 The following policies found within the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003) are relevant to the determination of the application;
1.B (Achieving Good Design) 1.N (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 for Waste Management facilities in Development)
303 4.8 Information contained within the following Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant to the determination of the application:
Access, Circulation and Parking (2010); Residential Design Guide (2008); Open Space (2008) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (2007); Community Facilities and Residential Development (March 2007) Energy efficient designs for new residential development (1995)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Chief Officer Highways and Transportation states:
No objection in principle. since the new road serving the proposed development will need to be to adoptable standard, I would request a condition requiring that the current crossover type arrangement at the existing access of Ty Gwyn Road be up-graded to a 5.5 metre wide road together with 6 metre radii. A further condition is needed requiring the provision of off-street parking in accordance with the SPG (Access, Circulation & Parking). I also requests financial contribution of £8,198 for works at the new bus shelter at Ty Gwyn Road to provide CCTV.
5.2 Chief Officer Culture, Leisure and Parks (Parks Services): In view of the current availability of existing public open space in proximity to the site, I would recommend that the Council seeks an off-site contribution in lieu of the provision of new open space on-site, for the improvement (including appropriate design and maintenance costs) of existing open space in the vicinity. It will be necessary for the applicant to agree a financial contribution toward the improvement of nearby public open space. The Agreement will also need to define when the contribution will be calculated, normally at the approval of reserved matters stage when details of the units become available.
5.2 The Operational Manager for Pollution Control raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the attached conditions and recommendations;
5.3 The Chief Highways Waste and Management Officer (Drainage) raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the attached conditions.
5.4 The Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Waste) raises no objections.
5.5 Chief Officer Infrastructure (Public rights of Way) raises no objections.
5.6 Chief Officer, Housing and Neighbourhood Renewal (Housing Strategy) advises that Cardiff has an extremely high affordable housing need in this area of the City. Data available from the Council’s current housing waiting list
304 (February 2011) indicates there are 6,718 households waiting for a property in Roath (includes Penylan) with only 2 properties becoming available within the last 12 months.
Since the site is suitable for affordable housing, we would seek a 40% affordable housing contribution, which is in-line with the interim planning policy target in the Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (AHDS), with the mix to be representative of the development as a whole. We would as a priority seek family accommodation as per the Council’s strategic housing priorities. In terms of design, traditional family housing would be the priority.
For information, at this stage we could not guarantee that Social Housing Grant (SHG) would be available for the units, as this will depend on the availability and in particular the timescales for delivery of the affordable housing. Therefore the scheme should be appraised on a nil-SHG basis, and we anticipate that a Registered Social Landlord could pay in the region of 33% of WAG’s Acceptable Cost Guidance for the appropriate size unit.
All affordable units must meet WAG Development Quality Requirements (DQR) & Welsh Housing Quality Standards (WHQS). The Council will identify a preferred RSL partner for delivering the affordable housing on this site.
We would use legal contract/agreement to cover: the provision of affordable housing on site including numbers, site mix and layout; the timing and phasing of the provision as relating to open market housing provision. The precise terms of the legal contract/agreement would be drafted by Legal Services.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer, any comments received will be reported to Committee verbally.
6.2 Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water raised no objections to the proposed development however it did provide a series of recommendations to be attached to any decision notice.
6.3 Cardiff bus any comments received will be reported to Committee.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Forty-two neighbouring properties were notified with additional publicity undertaken by site and local press notices. Nine letters if representations have been received from 49, 51, 53 Ffordd Cwellyn, 42, 43,46,48 Ty Gwyn Road, 5 Penylan Court all object to this application on the following grounds: The density is still too high and out of keeping with the character of the area and should follow the principles set at Sovereign Chase.
Have concerns over 30% affordable housing as there is little for children to do, they ( the residents of Ty Gwyn Road) believe that due to the quietness an element of retirement or disabled social housing would be more appropriate.
305 Believe that any flats that may be proposed would be inappropriate given the scale and the impact on light and privacy of adjoining neighbours.
Believe that the proposed density and single access point would have an adverse effect upon highways. They also would oppose any increase in the widening of the existing access. Suggest that a new access could be made through the existing Sovereign Chase development.
48 Ty Gwyn Road requests that the existing wall is retained if not improved. These occupiers further state any proposed dwellings that replace the existing caretakers house would not be supported if it invades their privacy in terms of height, positioning or windows that face their property.
43 & 46 Ty Gwyn Road supports the above points.
45 Ffordd Cwellyn request details on the link between the proposed road and the park at Sovereign Chase.
5 Penylan Court generally supports residential development on this but raises objections that one of the proposed dwellings would result in the loss of view.
49 Ffordd Cwellyn raises concerns over access to the open space (Sovereign Chase Park) as the area suffers from anti-social behaviour during the evening, which the owner believes is down to a path connecting to Birchwood Lane and requests that this lane is closed. It also raises the issues over the difference in land levels between the site and adjoining park and how this will allow access raises concerns over one house on the southwest corner of the plan would, due to its closeness and difference in height, overlook the adjacent properties.
51 Frordd Cwellyn objects to this application on the following grounds: They state that their property is at least 2.5 metres lower than the development site; they believe that given the level and proximity of one of the proposed dwellings would look into their garden and all of their floors by just standing in the garden. If this property was removed and a good quality wall was built to a reasonable height then they would withdraw their objections.
53 Ffordd Cwellyn objects believing that the proposed properties would, due to their close proximity, cause a shadow cast over their garden. Due to the long time it would take to complete any development the accumulation of the dust and noise would hinder their quality of life. They have a naturally nervous dog that does not like noise and would bark the construction traffic/workmen; they believe the continual barking would affect their neighbours right to peace and quite. They request that consideration be given to the existing residents who have lived here for 20 years.
7.2 Local Ward Member Councillor Kelloway makes the following comment:
I do not object to the outline planning application which, if allowed, would
306 establish the principle of residential use at this location. Furthermore, I support the indicative layout plan that accompanies the application - showing 27 detached housing units. However, I object to the comments of the "affordable housing group" which seek an allocation of 40 per cent (equating to 11 units) affordable housing at this location.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Land Use The application site falls within an existing area for education as defined by the City of Cardiff Local Plan. The site of the former Ty Gwyn Special School is now vacant and surplus to requirements.
Given that the site is no longer in active educational use and is located in a primarily residential area, the proposed use for residential purposes raises no land use policy concerns.
8.2 Impact on residential amenity of adjoining neighbours: Officers note that properties at 51 & 53 Ffordd Cwellyn are located to the south-west of the application site and share a boundary with it. These properties are lower by at least 2.5 metres than the application site. The buildings are located 7 metres (53) and 13 metres (51) at their nearest point. Officers believe that, on balance, that the location of the illustrative buildings would not unreasonable harm their amenities (see sectional drawing) it is believed that a 2 metre high solid means of enclosure would ensure that these properties retained their privacy. The precise detail and relationship would nevertheless have to be considered in a reserved matters application.
Officers note that the development would be located to the south of the properties at Penylan Court, Comborough Lodge and Cyncoed Road. It is considered that as there are existing buildings and trees in close proximity to those properties that the illustrative layout would not unreasonable harm their amenities to warrant refusal and the site is capable of residential development without unreasonable harm to the amenities of neighbours here.
Ty Gwyn Road
The proposed entrance to the development would be opposite the properties at 46-50 (even) Ty Gwyn Road, concerns has been raised by these residents in terms of traffic generation and highways safety. Officers believe that subject to conditions the access, if widened, would be acceptable. In terms of their amenities officers believe that as these properties are located approximately 20 metres away (boundary -to-boundary) there is unlikely to be an unreasonable impact on this residential amenity as a consequence of the proposed dwelling or the associated traffic movements. The precise detail and relationship would nevertheless have to be considered in a reserved matters application.
8.3 Parking and highway safety Officers note that this is an outline application with the required indicative
307 details layout showing an arrangement of 27 new dwellings which, included may be unworkable in it would appear to preclude the provision of off-street parking for a number of those dwellings. The layout in any future reserved matters application should address this and also demonstrate by means of tracking diagrams that adequate provision is made to allow the passage of larger vehicles
8.4 Design
Scale/density The illustrative details show a two storey development, with 2.5 storeys at key places in the streetscape, with 27 family homes is appropriate for the character of the area. However, officers recognise that due to its location and close proximity to sustainable modes of transport a higher density could be achieved on site, in line with national and local policies. The final details of the scheme would have to be considered in a subsequent reserved matters application by the details, generally illustrate the physibiity of such a development.
Layout The layout responds to the context and site boundaries. It takes account of the principles in the Cardiff Residential Design Guide SPG; the buildings are orientated in a perimeter block arrangement which:
Maximises overlooking of the street and the park, Creates active streets Creates defensible spaces.
Park/green space The plans indicate that the park boundary (currently a 2-metre high brick wall) will be reviewed to create a positive outlook onto the green space. Creating a direct visual and physical link between the new development and the park is vital to achieving good design at this site but officers recognise that further details will be required at reserve matters stage on how this relationship would function.
At reserve matters stage, justifications for the materials and height of the boundary treatment should be fully detailed. The boundary should respond to the character of the area.
Also at reserve matters stage, a pedestrian footpath access should be introduced to link the park and the new development. Regarding the location of the access, account will need to be taken of the play equipment in the park, how people currently utilise the area, and talks will need to be undertaken with the Parks Department. New access will aid permeability and create an accessible, useable green space feature which can become an asset for the surrounding community.
TAN 12 states the importance of context in design:
308 5.5.5 It is important that the qualities of the urban landscape (townscape) are appreciated and considered in the design of the development. Townscapes are closely related to topography, natural features such as rivers, existing patters of vegetation, parks, green corridors and planting tin streets and public spaces.
5.11.4 In general, every effort should be made to orientate dwellings so that they front existing roads and spaces ensuring a balance with the need to promote feature of environmental sustainability. The relationship of the perimeter of a development to its setting is important and developments which turn their back on existing roads do not integrate well with their context.
There is no reason to believe that these objectives cannot be satisfied.
Streets The principles of streets for play and home zones in this quiet residential street area are welcomed should be investigated at reserve matters stage
8.5 Amenity of the future occupiers
Officers believe that flats could be bright and airy with a good circulation and useful amenity space that is safe secure and private so there is no reason to presume against their inclusion in the reserved matters application. Waste can be located in appropriate locations that residents can use.
8.6 Impact upon the protected tree
Officers note the trees and their proximity to dwellings as potential sources of conflict suggested by the indicative layout. Officers would expect all protected trees to be retained as part of a detailed layout, and clearance provided for both the Root Protection Areas and likely future crown spreads. Account also needs to be taken of the potential nuisance value of these large trees through shading and the fall of organic matter. Officers believe it will not be acceptable for gardens or houses to be completely dominated by these trees since this will lead to unsuitable pruning. Officers would expect a detailed ‘up front’ landscaping scheme to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application. Native species dominate the local treescape so would expect them to dominate the landscaping scheme. New trees should be planted in positions that maximise their future above and below ground growth potential, without causing undue conflict with houses or gardens.
8.7 Affordable housing As there is an extremely high housing need for affordable housing in this area of the city and the site is suitable for affordable housing, a 40% affordable housing contribution should be sought, which is in-line with the interim planning policy target in the Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (approved by full council at its October 2010 meeting). A condition should be imposed on the outline planning permission requiring at least 40% of the dwellings to be affordable and a legal agreement should be used to ensure that details of
309 the numbers, site mix and layout, and the timing and phasing of the provision as relating to open market housing provision are appropriate.
8.8 In accordance with the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Community Facilities and Residential Development (2007), a financial contribution for improvements to existing community facilities or the provision of additional community facilities should be sought on all significant developments (if no onsite provision is proposed) where it has been identified that investment in community facilities will be required to meet the needs of the new population. However, this relates only to residential developments containing 25 or more new dwellings. A formula is used to calculate the required amount with particular projects already in place but require funding
8.9 Other matters not covered above
Party Wall, loss of property value and loss of view are not material planning considerations
Sustainable buildings: the development has undertaken a sustainable assessment and meets national minimum standards of design. To ensure compliance conditions have been attached.
8.10 In conclusion, there are no policy objections to the principle of redeveloping this site for residential use. The existing access is capable of being upgraded to a suitable standard and, with careful design, any potential adverse impacts on the adjoining amenities of neighbouring residents can be avoided, and significant mature trees can be retained. Planning conditions can be imposed to ensure that important design principles are adhered to and, this being Council-owned land, the Chief Financial Services Officer can be requested to ensure that appropriate legal obligations are in place when the land is sold for development
8.11 The application is recommended for approval.
310 311 312 313 COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/198/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 09/02/2011
ED: LLANDAFF
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: The Cathedral School Llandaff LOCATION: THE LODGE, 63 CARDIFF ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, CF5 2DQ PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND REAR EXTENSION TO A LISTED BUILDING ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That subject to persons having relevant interest in this application site entering into the binding obligation in agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, encompassing the matters referred to in paragraph 8.11 of the Chief Strategic Planning and Enforcement 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 AL(9)001 Rev A attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the letters from the agent dated 10th April and 18th May 2011. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
4. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA), in accordance with the current British Standard for trees in relation to construction:
(i) An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), setting out the methodology that will be used to prevent loss of or damage to retained trees. It shall include details of on-site monitoring of tree protection and tree condition that shall be carried out throughout the development and for at least two years after its completion. (ii) A Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in the form of a scale drawing showing the finalised layout and the tree and landscaping protection methods detailed in the AMS that can be shown graphically. Unless written consent is obtained from the LPA, the development shall be carried out in full conformity with the approved AMS and TPP.
314 Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess: the effects of the proposals on existing trees and landscape; the measures for their protection; to monitor compliance and to make good losses.
5. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro
6. C4R Landscaping Implementation
7. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents, or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource.
8. C7S Details of Refuse Storage
9. 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 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.
10. No development shall take place until a scheme for lighting the footpath adjacent to the east boundary has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. the lighting shall be provided in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.
11. The first floor windows on the side (southwest) elevations 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.
12. C3E Turning Space Within Site
13. C3F Details of Emergency Access Road Junction
14. C3S Cycle Parking
15. Prior to commencement of each phase of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of how the existing school will continue to operate whilst the construction is taking place, together with construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access, parking of contractors vehicles and wheel washing facilities. The
315 development construction of the relevant phase shall be managed strictly in accordance with the scheme so approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety, public amenity and to avoid any conflict situations with pupils and/or staff attending/working on this site.
16. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure
17. E1B Samples of Materials
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: This development falls within an area which has a geological predisposition to radon and will require basicradon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations 2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division
RECOMMENDATION 4 : 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) 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 5: That the developer be advised to liaise with the Operational Manager, Highway Operations, in order to obtain the necessary licence required to implement the access works.
RECOMMENDATION 6: That the developer be advised to liaise with the Public Rights of Way Officer to agree those works associated with the new
316 pedestrian access to the Lodge.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Permission is sought for alterations and rear extensions to the listed building known as ‘The Lodge’, 63 Cardiff Road, Llandaff.
1.2 The proposed part single, part two-storey extension provides a new level entrance via the adjacent footpath and provides new teaching facilities and circulation areas with outlook over the rear garden, which would be re- landscaped. The new opening coincides with an area of infill which was formerly a gateway, although it would be widened to approximately 6 metres. The stone would be reused on site for repair and infill. An existing doorway opening in the wall would be filled in as part of the development.
1.3 The existing rear extensions would be removed and the new extension would be set behind the listed boundary wall.
1.4 At first floor level a roof terrace is proposed to improve connectivity with the main school campus to the east.
1.5 The extension would be finished in hardwood timber cladding, Welsh slate, lime render with metal windows, and a mixture of zinc and sedum roofing.
1.6 The agent has submitted an amended landscape plan following discussions with officers. The protected yew at the rear would be retained and would form the focal point of a re-landscaped rear play area, which would be overlooked by the new extension. The protected lime adjacent to the boundary with 61 Cardiff Road would also be retained. The amended plan has deleted the rubber safety play area to the front of the building and replaced it with a formal arrangement of paved terracing, planting and the retention of the lawn.
1.7 The proposals include the removal of laurel shrubs, a sycamore, and yew trees to the front boundary at the site entrance. The proposals include the widening of the access and repairs to the stone wall and gate posts. The access would be widened from approximately 3.1 metres to 6 metres.
1.8 The agent has submitted the following supporting documents with the application:
(i) Needs Justification Statement; (ii) Transport Assessment; (iii) Design and Access Statement; (iv) Conservation Report; (v) Schedules of repair to boundary walls; (vi) Arboricultural Implications Assessment.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The Lodge dates from the 19th Century and is a Grade II listed building
317 located within the Llandaff conservation area. The east boundary wall of the site also possesses a Grade II listing.
2.2 The site frontage has a 1.8 metre (approximately) retaining stone wall which is partly damaged at the site entrance. The site frontage has a group of ash, walnut and yew trees which are protected by preservation order. The submitted arboricultural assessment rates all of these trees with a ‘C’ category (Low Quality), except the single yew, which has a ‘B’ category (Moderate Quality). Preservation orders also cover a yew to the rear and a lime to the side adjacent to the boundary with 61 Cardiff Road.
2.3 Vehicular access to the site is via Cardiff Road. The Lodge is set approximately 2 metres above the highway.
2.4 A public footpath adjoins the east boundary of the site.
2.5 The existing building is mainly used by the school as teaching space and has been previously extended. A footbridge at first floor level over the adjacent footpath connects the building to the main school campus.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 04/02118/W: Listed building consent granted in November 2004 for modifications to staircase.
3.2 03/00380/W: Listed building consent granted in June 2003 for proposed demolition of garage.
3.3 02/01626/W: Listed building consent granted in October 2002 for re-roofing part of the Lodge roof.
3.4 02/01232/W: Listed building consent granted in August 2002 for re-roofing part of the Lodge roof.
3.5 02/00093/W: Permission refused in May 2002 for proposed classroom and store at rear of existing Lodge building.
3.6 00/01969/W: Permission granted in November 2002 for replacement of rear window by a door.
3.7 81/00137/W: Listed building consent for extension and alteration of building to provide additional boarding and staff residential accommodation.
3.8 81/00136/W: Extension and alteration of building to provide additional boarding and staff residential accommodation.
3.9 79/00440/W: Listed building consent for re-opening access from public footpath between Llandaff Green & Cardiff Road to rear of premises.
318 3.10 78/00976/W: Adaptation to provide boarding accommodation for The Cathedral School Llandaff.
3.11 33268: Adaptation to provide boarding accommodation for The Cathedral School Llandaff.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Planning Policy Wales, 4th Edition (February 2011).
4.2 Relevant policies of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996):
3 Development in Conservation Areas 11 Design and Aesthetic Quality 17 Parking and Servicing Facilities 18 Provision for Cyclists 20 Provision for Special Needs Groups
4.3 Relevant policies of the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003):
2.20 Good Design 2.24 Residential Amenity 2.45 Trees, Woodlands, and Hedgerows 2.51 Statutory Listed Buildings 2.53 Conservation Areas 2.57 Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements
4.4 Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Trees and Development (March 2008) Access, Circulation and Parking Standards (January 2010)
4.5 The Llandaff Conservation Area Appraisal (2006) is also relevant.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation has no objection subject to conditions and additional recommendations to cover turning space for emergency vehicles, details of emergency access junction, cycle parking, and a Construction Management Plan. He also requests that the applicant enters into a Section 106 Agreement to secure the approval of a Travel Plan.
5.2 The Operational Manager, Waste Management, advises that an extension in floor space may lead to an increase in the volume of waste produced, which should be reflected in an increase in refuse storage capacity or an increase in the frequency of refuse collections.
5.3 The Chief Infrastructure Officer notes that there is no intention to divert, stop up or alter the current alignment of the public footpath adjacent to the Lodge although there is an intention to improve access into the school via this
319 footpath. He has no objection to the improved access arrangements and welcomes the proposal to improve lighting to the lane. However, he does advise that any planning permission does not give the right to interfere or obstruct a right of way during the course of the development.
5.4 The Operational Manager, Drainage Division, has no objection in principle to the application however no ground permeability tests appear to have been undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised. He recommends a standard condition.
5.5 The Operational Manager, Environment (Noise and Air) has no objection to the proposals. He recommends an advisory note relating to Construction Site Noise.
5.6 The Operational Manager, Environment (Contaminated Land) has no objection but recommends advisory notes relating to radon gas protection and construction and unstable land.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust advises that the proposals will require archaeological mitigation.
The application area is situated within the area of medieval settlement to the south of Llandaff Cathedral and the Bishops Castle; settlement grew around the Cathedral from the 6th century AD onwards. The site lies between the main road to Cardiff and the Medieval Bishops’ Palace; it is part of an important group of buildings of post-medieval date in the area and is a listed building Cadw ref: 26736. Archaeological work in the vicinity has shown that remains dating from the medieval period survive and information about the early sequence of building and land use in Llandaff has been acquired from such work. Recently, further archaeological work has shown the line of a potential medieval boundary wall north east of the site, as the supporting information shows that archaeological features have been identified and recorded, including medieval finds and features, therefore it is possible that archaeological material could be discovered during any ground disturbing operations. Whilst the site has been partly disturbed, it is primarily garden and it may be that medieval remains will have been preserved as a result of this lack of intensive development in parts of the area during the post medieval period.
The proposed development could reveal unrecorded archaeological features; however as the site appears to have undergone some disturbance they recommend that a condition requiring the applicant to submit a detailed programme of investigation for the archaeological resource should be attached to any consent granted in order to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. They envisage that this programme of work would take the form of an intensive watching brief during the groundworks for the development, with detailed contingency arrangements including the provision of sufficient time and resources to ensure that any archaeological features
320 that are located are properly excavated and analysed and a report containing the results of the work produced.
6.2 Welsh Water has been consulted. Any comments will be reported to Committee.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Local Members have been consulted and any comments will be reported to Committee.
7.2 The application was advertised in the press and by site notice under Section 73 of The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The consultation period expired on 17 March 2011.
7.3 Two objections have been received from the occupiers of Whitegate Lodge, Bridge Road and 61 Cardiff Road, raising the following objections:
(i) significant alterations to the listed building, damage to its visibility; (ii) scale of extension and alterations would overwhelm the listed building; (iii) widened access would create a major gash in the boundary wall, an important feature noted in the Council’s 2006 conservation area report; (iv) loss of trees and vegetation; (v) proposed play area to the front is poorly designed; (vi) safety of school children at front in close proximity to busy highway; (vii) harmful impact upon conservation area, particularly through loss of trees; (viii)substantial increase in number of pupils and staff using The Lodge and parents and staff visiting the premises; (ix) increase in noise disturbance; (x) means of enclosure to boundary with 61 would reduce outlook; and (xi) increased security concerns.
7.4 The Llandaff Conservation Group are very concerned about the loss of trees to the frontage. They consider that the case for removing the trees has not been made and that the trees form part of the street scene. Further details are required regarding the appearance of the front of the property following tree removal, the appearance of the play area to the front, and the proposed driveway. Regarding the extension, they consider that the materials do not compliment the listed building (particularly the horizontal wood cladding). They also object to the loss of a portion of the listed stone wall and the widening of the vehicular entrance on Cardiff Road. They support the development in principle but urge that the group be provided with further information.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The key issues for consideration of this application are design and appearance, impact upon the conservation area and listed building, trees and landscaping, access and parking arrangements, and residential amenity.
321 8.2 The proposed extension has a modern appearance of timber cladding, Welsh Slate and zinc and sedum roofing, which would ensure a clear difference between the new extension and the existing listed building. It is considered that the transition between ‘new’ and ‘old’ is sensitive and well-designed. It is noted that the extension would be set behind the existing listed wall to the footpath. This is considered to be an improvement upon the existing situation where the extension is built onto the listed wall. Subject to relevant conditions, the proposed design and appearance of the extension is considered to be acceptable.
8.3 The boundary wall to the lane is listed separately from the building. The removal of a length of approximately 6 metres is off-set by the closure of an existing doorway opening. The proposed opening would improve connectivity with Llandaff village and, due to its location at the corner of the footpath would also provide visibility and enhanced surveillance along approximately 120 metres of the footpath (60 metres in each direction). It should also be noted that the wall has been subject to infill changes and alterations in the past.
8.4 The removal of the all weather play area to the front garden is considered to be an important amendment to the proposals which safeguards the setting of the listed building. The amended landscape scheme showing the provision of hard paving and planting with the retention of the majority of the existing lawn. This is considered to be a positive improvement.
8.5 In respect of trees of amenity value, the main impact is through the loss of the frontage yews, sycamore and cherry laurel. These trees present a large mass of foliage, well seen in wider views. The yews are implicated in damage to the front boundary wall and are heavily offset over Cardiff Road. The sycamore attains only ‘C’ (low quality) categorisation and is drawn up as a consequence of competition for light with a yew and cherry laurel. It is unlikely to sit comfortably in the long-term as an exposed, site frontage tree, and will likely require remedial pruning to reduce the risks of branch failure. The cherry laurel is not a tree, but has a large crown. It will not sit comfortably in a developed context without requiring substantial and repeated reduction, which will erode its amenity value. Removal of these trees will enable the planting of two new frontage trees that will sit well with the developed context and offer significant long-term amenity benefits to the Conservation Area without requiring significant pruning. Dawn redwood, the species proposed, is a deciduous conifer which has a columnar form and attractive, fresh green foliage that turns golden in autumn. It is not native, but the Llandaff area is characterised by exotic trees so they are not considered to be out of place in the Conservation Area.
8.6 The loss of the ‘B’ category yew tree to the site frontage is regrettable as it does make a positive contribution to the street scene and the conservation area. However, when balanced against the positive gains of removing the play space, opening up the site frontage to enhance the setting of the building in the street scene, and replacement planting its loss is accepted.
322 8.7 Widening the access could impact detrimentally on a retained lime adjacent to the boundary with 61 Cardiff Road. However, permeable paving and a ‘hand- dig’ construction is proposed. Rooting conditions for the tree will therefore potentially be improved, subject to submission of satisfactory details in the Arboricultural Method Statement required by condition.
8.8 An old yew at the rear of the site will experience changes in its rooting area that could be detrimental to its health if works are not undertaken in accordance with an agreed method statement. Relevant conditions are attached.
8.9 On balance, it is considered that the proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area.
8.10 Conditions are recommended regarding boundary enclosures, replacement planting and landscaping to ensure that the setting of the listed building is protected.
8.11 It is noted that the Operational Manager, Transportation (paragraph 5.1) has no objection to the application, subject to relevant conditions and the completion of a legal agreement to secure the provision of a Travel Plan.
8.12 In respect of the outstanding objections from neighbouring occupiers in paragraph 7.2:
(i) the development will receive replacement planting and new boundary enclosures which will safeguard any children near the site frontage (see condition 16);
(ii) the existing use of the premises is a place of education therefore no significant increase in noise disturbance is anticipated. Also, Member should note in paragraph 5.5 that the Operational Manager, Environment (Noise & Air) has no objection; and
(iii) the security concerns of the neighbouring occupier are noted.
8.13 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to relevant conditions and the completion of a Legal Agreement as detailed in paragraph 8.11.
323 C Nugent Vallis Brierley LTD. Registered in the UK No. 2471929 Responsibility will not be accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing; all construction information should be taken from figured dimensions North only.
012.5 25 50 75 125m 1:1250
P
u b l i c
R
i g h t
o f
W
a y
Rev BIssued for Planning 31/01/11 EH Revision The Lodge Planning Extension Site Location Plan
For The Cathedral School 20/04/2010 1:1250 @ A1 RP/JMc Llandaff AL(0)001 A 4946
324 Nugent Vallis Brierley Ltd. Rook Lane Chapel, Bath Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DN. T: 01373 468030 F: 01373 468031, [email protected] C Nugent Vallis Brierley LTD. 25.43 Registered in the UK No. 2471929 Stone paving slabs Mushroom stools Responsibility will not be accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing; all construction information should be taken from figured dimensions North only. Concrete paving New bench setts
02 4 8 12 20m 1:200 Permeable rubber Lighting bollard safety mulch
Grass 23.000 New level
Planting 23.16 Existing level
26.06 Rubber safety New tree surface for Hedge y classrooms at nd 25.99 e ground level /w ed h e Shade sails and S s ou posts h 25.89 Board Walk Remove leylandii hedge Climbing wall and replaced with 25.79 retaining wall, 1.8m high timber fence & espalier fruit trees
24.900 New building
Sand pit 25.37 25.700 25.43 25.81 25.65 25.650
25.46 25.78
25.68 25.82 26.07
26.02 24.800 24.750 25.320 25.13 25.15
1.8 m high timber 25.96 25.154 25.17 fence 25.16 25.90025.90
25.58 24.750
Yew tree crown 24.84 25.23 25.73 25.61 24.89 reduced in 25.52 25.33 24.80 accordance with 25.330 T.8 Yew arboicultural report 24.41 24.16 24.24 24.450
24.05 24.28 24.645 23.99
24.03
24.13 Workshop/storage 24.000 24.10 building
24.16
23.900
23.93 24.02
23.89
23.97 23.81
23.73
23.86
23.74 23.82 23.58 1.8 m high timber fence 23.70 23.60 The Lodge 23.73 23.40 23.95
23.93 23.96
23.55
23.91 23.97 23.900 23.20
23.29 23.56 23.46
23.97 23.54 1 23.55 23.97 23.96 : 23.41 2 22.85 23.96 1 r 22.99 23.16 a T.10 Lime23.33 m 23.31 22.92 23.02 23.04 p 22.75 Rubber safety
23.10 22.78 22.65 23.14 surface for
22.88 classrooms at
22.78 ground level 22.68 22.49 23.500
23.000
22.78 p 22.52 ram 22.35 1:21 22.31
22.18 Driveway widened22.86 22.13 22.14 to minimu 4m (to 22.48 22.06 accomodate fire 22.72 22.21 access) New metal gates 22.04
22.04 Existing levels of 22.47 21.97 22.57 lawn to remain 22.04 21.70 unchanged 22.48 22.27 22.23 21.97
21.59 21.70 22.07 T.1 Beech 21.99 21.43 21.96 21.80 21.98 22.42
22.69 22.16 21.28 21.16 22.81 21.20 21.98 Turning circle for 21.09 fire services 22.48 22.25 22.12 22.53 21.19 20.91 20.97 22.16 22.22 20.89 22.09 22.41 20.86 22.29 20.67 20.73 20.61 21.98 20.84 20.84 New 1.5m high 22.01
metal railing 20.55 Allow for tree removal and 20.53 tree surgery in accordance with arboricultural report
Rebuilding of gate posts to increase width of entrance (to accomodate fire services)
Revision The Lodge Planning Extension Proposed Landscape Plan
For The Cathedral School 31/01/11 1:200 @ A1 RP/JMG Llandaff AL(9)001 ~ 4946
325 Nugent Vallis Brierley Ltd. Rook Lane Chapel, Bath Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DN. T: 01373 468030 F: 01373 468031, [email protected] C Nugent Vallis Brierley LTD. Registered in the UK No. 2471929 Responsibility will not be accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing; all construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.
01 2 4 6 10m 1:100
Existing Building Sedum Roof PPC Metal Frame Zinc Roof Horizontal Timber PPC Metal Frame Slate Wall Zinc Roof Existing Building Door Cladding Window
South Elevation West Elevation
Slate Wall Zinc Roof PPC Metal Frame Sedum Roof Horizontal Timber Listed Wall Existing Building Metal Railings PPC Metal Sliding Timber Slate Wall Horizontal Timber Zinc Roof Sedum Roof Window Cladding Frame Door Shutter Cladding
North Elevation East Elevation (footpath) Rev DIssued for Planning 31/01/11 EH Rev CUpdated to reflect survey levels 14/10/10 SW Rev BElevations revised 29.09.10 SW Rev ATop Floor removed and minor alterations to 24.06.10 elevation Revision The Lodge Planning Proposed Elevations
For The Cathedral School 21/04/10 1:100 @ A1 JMc/RP Llandaff AL(0)130 D 4946
326 Nugent Vallis Brierley Ltd. Rook Lane Chapel, Bath Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DN. T: 01373 468030 F: 01373 468031, [email protected] C Nugent Vallis Brierley LTD. Registered in the UK No. 2471929 Responsibility will not be accepted for errors made by Removal of trees others in scaling from this drawing; all construction information should be taken from figured dimensions North only.
02 4 8 12 20m 1:200
Group 5 Leylandii Hedge
Tree no. 7 Holly
Group 3 Laurel Shrubs
Tree no. 2 Group 13 Sycamore English Yew
Tree no. 1 English Yew
Revision The Lodge Planning Proposed Tree Removal
For The Cathedral School 31/01/11 1:200 @ A1 RP/JMG Llandaff AL(9)003 ~ 4946
327 Nugent Vallis Brierley Ltd. Rook Lane Chapel, Bath Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DN. T: 01373 468030 F: 01373 468031, [email protected] COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. 11/199/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 09/02/2011
ED: LLANDAFF
APP: TYPE: Listed Building Consent
APPLICANT: The Cathedral School Llandaff LOCATION: THE LODGE, 63 CARDIFF ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, CF5 2DQ PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS AND REAR EXTENSION TO A LISTED BUILDING ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to CADW, listed building consent be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C02 Statutory Time Limit - Listed Building
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered AL(9)001 Rev A attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application
3. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the letters from the agent dated 10th April and 18th May 2011. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
4. E1B Samples of Materials
5. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource.
6. Prior to the commencement of development a photographic record of the building shall be submitted to the local planning authority and shall be deposited in the National Monuments Record of Wales Reason: To ensure that the historic record survives.
7. Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed boundary walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
328 Reason: To safeguard the character and visual appearance of the area, in protecting the setting of the historic listed building.
8. No development shall take place until full details of the mortar finish and imported stone to the listed wall have been 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 a satisfactory finished appearance to the development and to safeguard the character and visual appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.
9. No development shall take place until full details of the repair and re- instatement of the curtilage front wall and retaining wall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory finished appearance to the development and to safeguard the character and visual appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building
10. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure
11. No development shall take place until full details of the paved terrace to the front of the listed building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include proposed materials and details of existing and proposed levels. The development shall take place in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory finished appearance to the development and to safeguard the character and visual appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.
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: This development falls within an area which has a geological predisposition to radon and will require basic radon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations 2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division
RECOMMENDATION 4 : 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
329 that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) 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 5 : That the developer be advised to liaise with the Operational Manager, Highway Operation in order to obtain the necessary licence required to implement the access works.
RECOMMENDATION 6: That the developer be advised to liaise with the Public Rights of Way Officer to agree those works associated with the new pedestrian access to the Lodge.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Listed building consent is sought for alterations and rear extensions to the listed building known as ‘The Lodge’, 63 Cardiff Road, Llandaff.
1.2 The proposed part single, part two-storey extension provides a new level entrance via the adjacent footpath and provides new teaching facilities and circulation areas with outlook over the rear garden, which would be re- landscaped. The new opening coincides with an area of infill which was formerly a gateway, although it would be widened to approximately 6 metres. The stone would be reused on site for repair and infill. An existing doorway opening in the wall would be filled in as part of the development.
1.3 The existing rear extensions would be removed and the new extension would be set behind the listed boundary wall.
1.4 At first floor level a roof terrace is proposed to improve connectivity with the main school campus to the east.
1.5 The extension would be finished in hardwood timber cladding, Welsh slate, lime render with metal windows, and a mixture of zinc and sedum roofing.
1.6 The agent has submitted an amended landscape plan following discussions with officers. The protected yew at the rear would be retained and would form the focal point of a re-landscaped rear play area, which would be overlooked by the new extension. The protected lime adjacent to the boundary with 61 Cardiff Road would also be retained. The amended plan has deleted the
330 rubber safety play area to the front of the building and replaced it with a formal arrangement of paved terracing, planting and the retention of the lawn.
1.7 The proposals include the removal of laurel shrubs, a sycamore, and yew trees to the front boundary at the site entrance. The proposals include the widening of the access and repairs to the stone wall and gate posts. The access would be widened from approximately 3.1 metres to 6 metres.
1.8 The agent has submitted the following supporting documents with the application:
(i) Needs Justification Statement; (ii) Transport Assessment; (iii) Design and Access Statement; (iv) Conservation Report; (v) Schedules of repair to boundary walls; (vi) Arboricultural Implications Assessment.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The Lodge dates from the 19th Century and is a Grade II listed building located within the Llandaff conservation area. The east boundary wall of the site is also possesses a Grade II listing.
2.2 The site frontage has a 1.8 metre (approximately) retaining stone wall which is damaged at the site entrance. The site frontage has a group of ash, walnut and yew trees which are protected by preservation order. The submitted arboricultural assessment rates all of these trees with a ‘C’ category (Low Quality), except the single yew, which has a ‘B’ category (Moderate Quality). Preservation orders also cover a yew to the rear and a lime to the side adjacent to the boundary with 61 Cardiff Road.
2.3 Vehicular access to the site is via Cardiff Road. The Lodge is set approximately 2 metres above the highway.
2.4 A public footpath adjoins the east boundary of the site.
2.5 The existing building is mainly used by the school as teaching space and has been previously extended. A footbridge at first floor level over the adjacent footpath connects The Lodge to the main school campus.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 04/02118/W: Listed building consent granted in November 2004 for modifications to staircase.
3.2 03/00380/W: Listed building consent granted in June 2003 for proposed demolition of garage.
331 3.3 02/01626/W: Listed building consent granted in October 2002 for re-roofing part of the Lodge roof.
3.4 02/01232/W: Listed building consent granted in August 2002 for re-roofing part of the Lodge roof.
3.5 02/00093/W: Permission refused in May 2002 for proposed classroom and store at rear of existing Lodge building.
3.6 00/01969/W: Permission granted in November 2002 for replacement of rear window by a door.
3.7 81/00137/W: Listed building consent for extension and alteration of building to provide additional boarding and staff residential accommodation.
3.8 81/00136/W: Extension and alteration of building to provide additional boarding and staff residential accommodation.
3.9 79/00440/W: Listed building consent for re-opening access from public footpath between Llandaff Green & Cardiff Road to rear of premises.
3.10 78/00976/W: Adaptation to provide boarding accommodation for The Cathedral School Llandaff.
3.11 33268: Adaptation to provide boarding accommodation for The Cathedral School Llandaff.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Planning Policy Wales, 4th Edition (February 2011).
4.2 Welsh Office Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas.
4.3 Relevant Policies of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991-2011:
H7 Enhancement and Conversion B1 Conservation of the Built Environment
4.4 Relevant policies of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996):
3 Development in Conservation Areas 11 Design and Aesthetic Quality
4.5 Relevant policies of the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003):
2.20 Good Design 2.45 Trees, Woodlands, and Hedgerows 2.51 Statutory Listed Buildings
332 2.53 Conservation Areas
4.6 The Llandaff Conservation Area Appraisal (2006) is also relevant.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 No relevant consultations.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 The Ancient Monuments Society defers to the local planning authority on the detailing of the application. They do find merit in the contemporary design approach to the school extension and architectural quality in the juxtaposition of old and new.
6.2 The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales has no observations on the application, but suggests that, if consent is granted, a condition be attached to require a photographic record of the Lodge prior to its alteration. The photographs should be deposited in the National Monuments Record of Wales.
6.3 The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings advises that the site is outside their remit and they defer to any comments from the Victorian Society.
6.4 Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust advises that the proposals will require archaeological mitigation.
6.5 The application area is situated within the area of medieval settlement to the south of Llandaff Cathedral and the Bishops Castle; settlement grew around the Cathedral from the 6th century AD onwards. The site lies between the main road to Cardiff and the Medieval Bishops’ Palace; it is part of an important group of buildings of post-medieval date in the area and is a listed building Cadw ref: 26736. Archaeological work in the vicinity has shown that remains dating from the medieval period survive and information about the early sequence of building and land use in Llandaff has been acquired from such work. Recently, further archaeological work has shown the line of a potential medieval boundary wall north east of the site, as the supporting information shows that archaeological features have been identified and recorded, including medieval finds and features, therefore it is possible that archaeological material could be discovered during any ground disturbing operations. Whilst the site has been partly disturbed, it is primarily garden and it may be that medieval remains will have been preserved as a result of this lack of intensive development in parts of the area during the post medieval period.
6.6 The proposed development will require could reveal unrecorded archaeological features; however as the site appears to have undergone some disturbance they recommend that a condition requiring the applicant to submit a detailed programme of investigation for the archaeological resource
333 should be attached to any consent granted by your Members in order to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. They envisage that this programme of work would take the form of an intensive watching brief during the groundworks for the development, with detailed contingency arrangements including the provision of sufficient time and resources to ensure that any archaeological features that are located are properly excavated and analysed and a report containing the results of the work produced.
6.7 The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales has no observations on the application, but suggests that, if consent is granted, a condition be attached to require a photographic record of the Lodge prior to its alteration. The photographs should be deposited in the National Monuments Record of Wales.
6.8 The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings advises that the site is outside their remit and they defer to any comments from the Victorian Society.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application was advertised in the press and by site notice under Section 73 of The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The consultation period expired on 17 March 2011.
7.2 Two objections have been received from the occupiers of Whitegate Lodge, Bridge Road and 61 Cardiff Road, raising the following objections:
(i) significant alterations to the listed building, damage to its visibility; (ii) scale of extension and alterations would overwhelm the listed building; (iii) widened access would create a major gash in the boundary wall, an important feature noted in the Council’s 2006 conservation area report; (iv) loss of trees and vegetation; (v) proposed play area to the front is poorly designed; (vi) harmful impact upon conservation area, particularly through loss of trees; and (vii) means of enclosure to boundary with 61 would reduce outlook.
7.3 The Llandaff Conservation Group are very concerned about the loss of trees to the frontage. They consider that the case for removing the trees has not been made and that the trees form part of the street scene. Further details are required regarding the appearance of the front of the property following tree removal, the appearance of the play area to the front, and the proposed driveway. Regarding the extension, they consider that the materials do not compliment the listed building (particularly the horizontal wood cladding). They also object to the loss of a portion of the listed stone wall and the widening of the vehicular entrance on Cardiff Road. They support the development in principle but urge that the group be provided with further information.
334 8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The impact upon the setting and character of the listed building and the adjoining listed wall are the key issues for determination of this application.
8.2 The proposed extension has a modern appearance of timber cladding, Welsh Slate and zinc and sedum roofing, which would ensure a clear difference between the new extension and the existing listed building. It is considered that the transition between ‘new’ and ‘old’ is sensitive and well-designed. It is noted that the extension would be set behind the existing listed wall to the footpath. This is considered to be an improvement upon the existing situation where the extension is built onto the listed wall. Subject to relevant conditions, the proposed design and appearance of the extension is considered to be acceptable.
8.3 The boundary wall to the lane is listed separately from to the building. The removal of a length of approximately 6 metres is off-set by the closure of an existing doorway opening. The proposed opening would improve connectivity with Llandaff village and, due to its location at the corner of the footpath would also provide visibility and enhanced surveillance along approximately 120 metres of the footpath (60 metres in each direction). It should also be noted that the wall has been subject to infill changes and alterations in the past. Conditions are attached to agree full details of the works to the wall prior to the commencement of development.
8.4 The removal of the all weather play area is considered to be an important amendment to the proposals which safeguards the setting of the listed building. The amended landscape scheme showing the provision of hard paving and planting with the retention of the majority of the existing lawn. This is considered to be a positive improvement that safeguards the setting of the building.
8.5 In respect of trees of amenity value, the main impact is through the loss of the frontage yews, sycamore and cherry laurel. These trees present a large mass of foliage, well seen in wider views. The yews are implicated in damage to the front boundary wall and are heavily offset over Cardiff Road. The sycamore attains only ‘C’ (low quality) categorisation and is drawn up as a consequence of competition for light with a yew and cherry laurel. It is unlikely to sit comfortably in the long-term as an exposed, site frontage tree, and will likely require remedial pruning to reduce the risks of branch failure. The cherry laurel is not a tree, but has a large crown. It will not sit comfortably in a developed context without requiring substantial and repeated reduction, which will erode its amenity value. Removal of these trees will enable the planting of two new frontage trees that will sit well with the developed context and offer significant long-term amenity benefits to the Conservation Area without requiring significant pruning. Dawn redwood, the species proposed, is a deciduous conifer which has a columnar form and attractive, fresh green foliage that turns golden in autumn. It is not native, but the Llandaff area is characterised by exotic trees so they are not considered to be out of place in
335 the Conservation Area. On balance, the removal of the trees is considered to be acceptable when compared with the positive aspects of the development
8.6 The loss of the ‘B’ category yew tree to the site frontage is regrettable as it does make a positive contribution to the street scene and the conservation area. However, when balanced against the positive gains of removing the play space, opening up the site frontage to enhance the setting of the building in the street scene, and replacement planting its loss is accepted.
8.7 On balance, it is considered that the proposals would not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area or the character and setting of the listed building.
8.8 It is recommended that, subject to CADW, listed building consent be granted, subject to relevant conditions.
336 C Nugent Vallis Brierley LTD. Registered in the UK No. 2471929 Responsibility will not be accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing; all construction information should be taken from figured dimensions North only.
012.5 25 50 75 125m 1:1250
P
u b l i c
R
i g h t
o f
W
a y
Rev BIssued for Planning 31/01/11 EH Revision The Lodge Planning Extension Site Location Plan
For The Cathedral School 20/04/2010 1:1250 @ A1 RP/JMc Llandaff AL(0)001 A 4946
337 Nugent Vallis Brierley Ltd. Rook Lane Chapel, Bath Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DN. T: 01373 468030 F: 01373 468031, [email protected] C Nugent Vallis Brierley LTD. 25.43 Registered in the UK No. 2471929 Stone paving slabs Mushroom stools Responsibility will not be accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing; all construction information should be taken from figured dimensions North only. Concrete paving New bench setts
02 4 8 12 20m 1:200 Permeable rubber Lighting bollard safety mulch
Grass 23.000 New level
Planting 23.16 Existing level
26.06 Rubber safety New tree surface for Hedge y classrooms at nd 25.99 e ground level /w ed h e Shade sails and S s ou posts h 25.89 Board Walk Remove leylandii hedge Climbing wall and replaced with 25.79 retaining wall, 1.8m high timber fence & espalier fruit trees
24.900 New building
Sand pit 25.37 25.700 25.43 25.81 25.65 25.650
25.46 25.78
25.68 25.82 26.07
26.02 24.800 24.750 25.320 25.13 25.15
1.8 m high timber 25.96 25.154 25.17 fence 25.16 25.90025.90
25.58 24.750
Yew tree crown 24.84 25.23 25.73 25.61 24.89 reduced in 25.52 25.33 24.80 accordance with 25.330 T.8 Yew arboicultural report 24.41 24.16 24.24 24.450
24.05 24.28 24.645 23.99
24.03
24.13 Workshop/storage 24.000 24.10 building
24.16
23.900
23.93 24.02
23.89
23.97 23.81
23.73
23.86
23.74 23.82 23.58 1.8 m high timber fence 23.70 23.60 The Lodge 23.73 23.40 23.95
23.93 23.96
23.55
23.91 23.97 23.900 23.20
23.29 23.56 23.46
23.97 23.54 1 23.55 23.97 23.96 : 23.41 2 22.85 23.96 1 r 22.99 23.16 a T.10 Lime23.33 m 23.31 22.92 23.02 23.04 p 22.75 Rubber safety
23.10 22.78 22.65 23.14 surface for
22.88 classrooms at
22.78 ground level 22.68 22.49 23.500
23.000
22.78 p 22.52 ram 22.35 1:21 22.31
22.18 Driveway widened22.86 22.13 22.14 to minimu 4m (to 22.48 22.06 accomodate fire 22.72 22.21 access) New metal gates 22.04
22.04 Existing levels of 22.47 21.97 22.57 lawn to remain 22.04 21.70 unchanged 22.48 22.27 22.23 21.97
21.59 21.70 22.07 T.1 Beech 21.99 21.43 21.96 21.80 21.98 22.42
22.69 22.16 21.28 21.16 22.81 21.20 21.98 Turning circle for 21.09 fire services 22.48 22.25 22.12 22.53 21.19 20.91 20.97 22.16 22.22 20.89 22.09 22.41 20.86 22.29 20.67 20.73 20.61 21.98 20.84 20.84 New 1.5m high 22.01
metal railing 20.55 Allow for tree removal and 20.53 tree surgery in accordance with arboricultural report
Rebuilding of gate posts to increase width of entrance (to accomodate fire services)
Revision The Lodge Planning Extension Proposed Landscape Plan
For The Cathedral School 31/01/11 1:200 @ A1 RP/JMG Llandaff AL(9)001 ~ 4946
338 Nugent Vallis Brierley Ltd. Rook Lane Chapel, Bath Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DN. T: 01373 468030 F: 01373 468031, [email protected] C Nugent Vallis Brierley LTD. Registered in the UK No. 2471929 Responsibility will not be accepted for errors made by others in scaling from this drawing; all construction information should be taken from figured dimensions only.
01 2 4 6 10m 1:100
Existing Building Sedum Roof PPC Metal Frame Zinc Roof Horizontal Timber PPC Metal Frame Slate Wall Zinc Roof Existing Building Door Cladding Window
South Elevation West Elevation
Slate Wall Zinc Roof PPC Metal Frame Sedum Roof Horizontal Timber Listed Wall Existing Building Metal Railings PPC Metal Sliding Timber Slate Wall Horizontal Timber Zinc Roof Sedum Roof Window Cladding Frame Door Shutter Cladding
North Elevation East Elevation (footpath) Rev DIssued for Planning 31/01/11 EH Rev CUpdated to reflect survey levels 14/10/10 SW Rev BElevations revised 29.09.10 SW Rev ATop Floor removed and minor alterations to 24.06.10 elevation Revision The Lodge Planning Proposed Elevations
For The Cathedral School 21/04/10 1:100 @ A1 JMc/RP Llandaff AL(0)130 D 4946
339 Nugent Vallis Brierley Ltd. Rook Lane Chapel, Bath Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DN. T: 01373 468030 F: 01373 468031, [email protected] C Nugent Vallis Brierley LTD. Registered in the UK No. 2471929 Responsibility will not be accepted for errors made by Removal of trees others in scaling from this drawing; all construction information should be taken from figured dimensions North only.
02 4 8 12 20m 1:200
Group 5 Leylandii Hedge
Tree no. 7 Holly
Group 3 Laurel Shrubs
Tree no. 2 Group 13 Sycamore English Yew
Tree no. 1 English Yew
Revision The Lodge Planning Proposed Tree Removal
For The Cathedral School 31/01/11 1:200 @ A1 RP/JMG Llandaff AL(9)003 ~ 4946
340 Nugent Vallis Brierley Ltd. Rook Lane Chapel, Bath Street, Frome, Somerset, BA11 1DN. T: 01373 468030 F: 01373 468031, [email protected] LOCAL MEMBER COMMENT
COMMITTEE DATE: 08/06/2011
APPLICATION No. A11/39/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 18/03/2011
ED: WHITCHURCH/TONGWYNLAIS
APP: TYPE: Advertisement
APPLICANT: Mr T Goodson LOCATION: THE NATURAL HEALTH AND FERTILITY CLINIC, 10 PENLLINE ROAD, WHITCHURCH, CARDIFF, CF14 2AD PROPOSAL: POST AND PANEL TOTEM SIGN
______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C03 Statutory Time Limit - Advertisements
RECOMMENDATION 2: That the Chief Legal Services Officer be authorised to pursue legal action to secure the removal of the unauthorised advertisement structure.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Advertisement consent is sought for a post and panel totem sign on the forecourt of 10 Penlline Road, Whitchurch.
1.2 An unauthorised 4 metre high totem sign exists on site at present. An application for advertisement consent for this sign was withdrawn prior to determination (see paragraph 3.1). Following discussions with the Planning Enforcement section, this application seeks consent to retain the sign with a reduced height of 2 metres and removing the bottom 0.7 metres of the totem sign to create a post and panel sign.
1.3 The sign is sited approximately 0.4 metres from the adopted highway.
1.4 The sign would not be illuminated.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site comprises a semi-detached property being used as a health clinic.
2.2 The character of the area is predominantly residential although some commercial uses occupy nearby premises (e.g. day nursery).
2.3 Small post and panel signs advertising commercial properties are located in
341 the vicinity to the north.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 A/11/00038/DCO: Advertisement consent refused in May 2011 for a 3 metre high post and panel totem sign for the following reason:
The proposed sign, by reason of its height, size and siting, is an incongruous feature that results in serious harm to the visual amenities of the street scene, contrary to the provisions of Technical Advice Note 7 (Outdoor Advertisement Control), Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996), Policy 2.20 (Good Design) of the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
3.2 A/10/00195/DCO: Advertisement consent sought in November 2010 for free- standing monolith. Withdrawn prior to determination in January 2011.
3.3 06/01451/W: Permission granted in August 2006 for change of use to D1 and proposed two-storey rear extension.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Technical Advice Note 7: Outdoor Advertisement Control
4.2 Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996) is relevant.
4.3 Policy 2.20 (Good Design) of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) is relevant.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation has no objection.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 No relevant consultations.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Councillor T Davies has requested that this application be reported to Planning Committee for determination.
7.2 Two letters of objection received from the occupiers of 43 and 45 Penlline Road who object for the following reasons:
(i) Notes the reduction in height and removal of bottom panel however the sign remains larger than any on the road; (ii) out of scale and character with street; (iii) detrimental impact upon visual amenity;
342 (iv) queries need for sign of this size; and (v) business would not attract passing trade and therefore sign is not appropriate.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The key issues for consideration of this application for advertisement consent are matters relating to highway safety and visual amenity.
8.2 It is noted that the Operational Manager, Transportation, has no objection to the proposals.
8.3 This application has been submitted following the withdrawal of application no. A/10/0194/DCO, which sought consent for a 4m high totem sign on the site.
8.4 It is noted that the proposed sign would be reduced in height by 50% from the existing unauthorised sign and the lower panel would be removed to create a post and panel sign. It is also noted that other commercial signs in the vicinity are at least 2m above ground level.
8.5 It is considered that the size and scale of the revised proposals are more acceptable for the amenities of the area than the existing sign. It is not considered that the revised proposals would have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenities of the streetscene.
8.6 It is therefore recommended that the proposed sign be approved, subject to a relevant condition. It is also recommended that the Chief Legal Services Officer be authorised to undertake legal action to secure the removal of the unauthorised advertisement structure.
343 344 345 346