LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTIONS

COMMITTEE DATE: 17/10/2007

APPLICATION No. 06/01101/E DATE RECEIVED: 15/05/2006

ED: MULTIPLE WARDS

APP: TYPE: Outline Planning Permission

APPLICANT: Western Power Distribution Investments Ltd LOCATION: Llanishen Reservoir, Lisvane Road, 147-151 Rhydypenau Road, Llanishen, Cyncoed, Lisvane, Cardiff PROPOSAL: RESIDENTIAL, SAILING LAKE AND CLUBHOUSE, WETLANDS HABITAT AND EDUCATION / COMMUNITY CENTRE, RE-PROFILING OF EXISTING RESERVOIR ALL WITH STRUCTURAL LANDSCAPING, ROADS, FOOTPATH, CYCLEWAYS AND ASSOCIATED HIGHWAYS WORKS ______

RECOMMENDATION 1: That the County Council is satisfied that the submitted Environmental Statement dated 12th May 2006, Addenda dated August 2006 and 13th October 2006, and Second Addendum dated 16th February 2007 contains sufficient information and the Council has taken account of the Environmental Statement and accompanying information in assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed development.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Had the Council been able to determine the application that planning permission would have been REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would cause serious harm to the quality, integrity and coherence of this part of the Nant Fawr open space corridor, contrary to Policy 7 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policies B4 and C8 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan and Policies 1.J and 2.49 of the deposited Cardiff Unitary Development Plan in so far that:

(i) the site is strategically important forming part of the Nant Fawr open space corridor, which is identified as an essential element of the City’s green spaces; (ii) the site has significant amenity importance for its users and those residing close by and overlooking it; and (iii) the site is important for its nature conservation value.

2. The existing water area provides a wide range of sailing and sail training facilities. The proposed water area, by reason of its modest dimensions, constrained nature, and the lack of a full alternative replacement facility, would result in a significant diminution in the long term opportunities for sailing activity available to the population of Cardiff compared to the existing opportunities, contrary to Policy 7 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan and Policies B4 and C8 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan.

3. The proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the Llanishen Reservoir Site of Importance for Nature Conservation which is not outweighed by the potential ecological benefits of the scheme, contrary to Policy C4 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan and Policy 2.47 of the Deposited Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

4. The application fails to provide sufficient information to adequately ensure the long-term management and maintenance of the non-residential parts of the site as stated in Appendix 4, to the detriment of nature conservation and ecology. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy 8 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policies C3, C4 and H6 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policies 1H, 2.46, 2.47 and 2.48 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan and the Cardiff Supplementary Planning Guidance on Biodiversity.

5. The application fails to adequately provide satisfactory linkages by foot, cycle and public transport to and from surrounding residential areas, schools, educational establishments and recreational routes as detailed in Appendix 4 and conflicts with Policies 14, 16, 17 and 18 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policies MV2, MV6, MV12 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policies 1C, 1F, 1J, 1K, 1L, and 2.7 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan.

6. The application fails to provide adequate Recreational Open Space and equipped children’s play areas as detailed in Appendix 4 and is contrary to Policy 31 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policy 1J, and 2.26 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan and the Open Space Supplementary Planning Guidance.

7. The application fails to adequately deliver affordable housing as detailed in Appendix 4 and is contrary to Policy 24 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policy H5 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy 2.23 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan.

8. The application fails to adequately provide for the necessary improvements to school facilities as detailed in Appendix 4 and conflicts with Policy 2.27 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION 3: That the applicant be advised that if an appropriately worded legal agreement to deal fully with all the outstanding issues in reasons 4 – 8 were to be formally submitted prior to the appeal being heard then those reasons would fall and would not be contested by the Council.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.1 Outline planning permission is sought for residential development, sailing lake, clubhouse, wetlands habitat and educational/community centre, re- profiling of existing reservoir all with structural landscaping, roads, footpaths, cycleways and associated highways works on land on and in the vicinity of Llanishen Reservoir, associated access from Lisvane Road, 147, 149 and 151 Rhyd-y-Penau Road and land south of Rhyd-y-Penau Wood, Cyncoed, Llanishen & Lisvane, Cardiff.

1.2 The agent has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against non- determination of this application within the statutory period and a public inquiry has been arranged to start on 28th May 2008. The Council’s outline Statement of Case must be submitted to the Inspectorate by the 23rd October 2007. This application is therefore being reported to Planning Committee to decide what their decision would have been were they in a position to determine this application.

1.3 Matters relating to siting, design, external appearance and landscaping are reserved. Means of access are not reserved and form part of the application. Access to the development, the proposed road, footpath and cycleway layouts, development plateaux, sailing lake, wetlands areas and retained and new habitat areas are all shown in appendix 1.

1.4 The changes from the appealed second application for the development of this land (ref: 03/2662/N) include the following:

(i) the retention of approximately 99.45% of the Llanishen and Lisvane Reservoir Embankment (Embankments) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The areas to be lost now only relate to the means of vehicular access to the area within the embankment; (ii) a reduction in the proposed wetland habitat area to 1.9 hectares; (iii) the incorporation of a ‘bus-gate’ such that only public transport could route through the site between the northern and southern access points; (iv) all residential development would be accessed from the south entrance; (v) a reduction in the proposed housing area from 10.1 hectares to 9.2 hectares; (vi) a reduction in the number of dwellings from 326 to 324; (vii) a relocation and reduction in the size of the sailing lake from 6.5 hectares to 5.9 hectares; (viii)co-location of the sailing centre and education/community centre.

1.5 The proposals do not involve any development at Lisvane Reservoir, which lies outside the application site boundary. Lisvane Reservoir would however form part of the proposed future wildlife management area and the impact of the proposals on Lisvane Reservoir has been fully assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment submitted with this application.

1.6 The agent has submitted the following information as part of the application:

“Llanishen Reservoir is no longer required for water provision...The ongoing liability of the reservoir has caused the future of the reservoir to be looked at in detail. There is an opportunity for the site to make a very positive contribution to the wildlife, environmental, recreational and educational life of Cardiff as well as provide for housing.

The applicant has recognised that the scheme must provide an appropriate balance of uses and has sought to take on board a number of interests. This balance has been further informed over the past year through the consultation process associated with the previous applications. The main considerations of this revised application have been:

(i) To maintain as much of the Embankments SSSI as possible and to minimise any impact from proposed neighbouring uses; (ii) To maintain Lisvane Reservoir SSSI as existing and to minimise any impact from proposed neighbouring uses; (iii) To arrest the decline in ecological quality of Llanishen Reservoir and increase biodiversity; (iv) To maintain a sufficient area of open water for sailing and improve facilities for sailing training; (v) To maintain existing woodland; (vi) To provide an educational/community facility on the site; (vii) To achieve a balance of cut and fill so that all earth movement taking place on site is retained on site and there is no need to import material for the re-profiling of the area; (viii) To provide a safe and appropriate means of access to the site by car and by other modes.

The aims and considerations set out above have competing land take requirements. In addition, there are commercial considerations in generating sufficient revenue to fund the development and its future maintenance…

The resultant balance of uses provides a sustainable scheme which addresses the principle areas of concern raised through the consultation process of the previous applications…In particular, the following are provided on site at no cost to the public purse:

(i) Public access to significant areas of recreational and educational open space and wetlands habitat, linking urban communities with the countryside beyond; (ii) The creation of new habitat areas; (iii) Management of the wider site in perpetuity; (iv) Provision of an education/community centre; (v) The maintaining of open water for sailing as well as a new sailing club; (vi) A mixture of housing types in a sustainable location; (vii) Improvements in water quality in the Nant Fawr (which ultimately feeds into Roath Park Lake); (viii) The opportunity to open up public transport links through the site as well as cycle and footpath links to and between surrounding communities.

Whilst the application is in outline, the applicants are prepared for any consent to be the subject of conditions limiting the development area to that indicated on the assessment plan [appendix 1] and to providing the critical masses of open water and wetland habitat, the improvements to the Nant Fawr corridor and road layout indicated. The numbers of residential units, other floorspace and storey heights of the buildings, the size and location of development areas and structural landscaping are able to be conditioned.

The proposals provide 324 residential units in a mixture of detached houses, linked town houses and apartments. The education/community centre will provide accommodation on two storeys. The proposal will incorporate office accommodation for the two dedicated wardens for the site (to be funded by the proposals) along with exhibition space, classrooms for use by local schools all to be shared with the local community. The sailing club is relocated adjacent to the education/community centre. The building would provide a substantial upgrade to the existing. These two buildings would be served by a car park of approximately 60 spaces.

Access to the development is via Cyncoed Road/Rhyd-y-Penau Road Roundabout and via Lisvane Road. Access forms part of the outline planning application and the junction improvements are shown on plan NE02103/24/6 [appendix 2]. The assessment plan shows access to the residential development via Cyncoed Road/Rhyd-y-Penau Road Roundabout. Access to the sailing and education/community centre would be provided via Lisvane Road. Only public transport would have access through the site.

There are however ‘through routes’ within the site for pedestrians and cyclists which extend the area open to the public and provide an important link between Cyncoed and Llanishen/Lisvane, not least to Llanishen Railway Station and its links to the City Centre.

The site is well provided for in terms of local amenities and facilities. Primary and secondary schools are provided in walking distance, as are local shops and facilities. The on site educational facility funded by the development will supplement the facilities of local and city wide schools and will provide an important resource. The improved resources at the Sailing Club will also be available.”

1.7 An Environmental Statement accompanies the application and the Non- Technical Summary is appended to this report (Appendix 3). In addition an Engineering Report regarding the reservoir structure has been submitted.

1.8 The agent has submitted a letter dated 4th September 2007 setting out a summary of the position in respect of planning obligations offered by their clients. The summary is attached in appendix 4 which applies the retail price index to July 2007.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The site extends to 34.6 hectares and includes the whole of Llanishen Reservoir, surrounding embankments and grassland, the existing car park and sailing club at the northern end of the reservoir, land to create an improved access road from Lisvane Road to the north, land sufficient to create new access across meadows to the southeast and 147, 149 and 151 Rhyd-y-Penau Road together with the highway at the junction with Cyncoed Road. To the north of the application site is Lisvane Reservoir, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), with a water level some 1.5 metres above the level of Llanishen Reservoir.

2.2 On 26th September 2005 the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) notified both the Llanishen and Lisvane reservoir embankments as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (appendix 5) for its one special feature, that of the exceptional variety of grassland fungi, including over 25 species of waxcap that are characteristics of grasslands that have not been artificially fertilised. This notification was confirmed by CCW and upheld when challenged at the Royal Courts of Justice in January 2007.

2.3 The site does not have any public rights of way across it and for some years it was only accessible by the public if an annual pass was acquired from the owners or by users of the sailing centre. In recent months the site has been closed to the general public and a palisade fence has been erected around the boundary of the reservoir.

2.4 The Council operates the Sailing Centre, which is based at the northern end of the reservoir. The facilities for sailing are provided under the terms of a lease between the Owner and the Council. The lease has expired but the Council has served a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 requesting renewal of the lease. The owner under section 30 of the Act has opposed the renewal notice and requires termination of the lease. The Council disputes any termination of the lease; court proceedings to determine the issues involved are ongoing.

2.5 The existing lane at the northern end of the site links to Lisvane Road and is owned by the Council. The southerly access road would also cross Council land (the Nant Fawr Meadows) and this grassland area is used as informal open space. The proposed southern access road would cross a footpath before connecting with the existing roundabout at the junction of Rhyd-y- Penau Road/Cyncoed Rd.

3. SITE HISTORY

3.1 06/0934/E: Outline planning permission sought for residential, sailing lake and clubhouse, wetlands habitat, and educational /community centre, re-profiling of existing reservoir all with structural landscaping, roads, footpaths, cycleways and associated highways works. Withdrawn prior to determination.

3.2 03/2662/N: Outline planning permission sought for residential, sailing lake and clubhouse, wetlands habitat and wildlife educational /community centre through re-profiling of existing reservoir and surrounding bund all with structural landscaping, roads, footpaths, cycleways and associated highways works. An appeal was made to the National Assembly for Wales due to non- determination by the Council. The appeal was subsequently dismissed in August 2007 by the Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing. Planning Committee resolved that they would have refused to grant planning permission if they were able to do so and the reasons that would have been used are listed in Appendix 6. A copy of the Inspector’s conclusions and the Minister’s decision are at Appendices 7 and 8 respectively.

3.3 02/2750/N: Outline planning permission sought for residential, sailing lake and clubhouse, wetlands habitat and wildlife educational /community centre through re-profiling of existing reservoir and surrounding bund all with structural landscaping, roads, footpaths, cycleways and associated highways works. An appeal was initially made to the National Assembly for Wales due to non-determination by the Council. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn. Planning Committee resolved that they would have refused to grant planning permission consent if they were able to do so and the reasons that would have been used are listed in Appendix 9.

4. POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.1 This policy framework is given in the light of the recent appeal decision relating to the second application (ref: 03/2662/N).

4.2 The following policies are considered to be relevant from the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991-2011 (April 1997):

EV1 Towards Sustainable Development EV2 Urban Regeneration MV1 Location of New Developments MV2 Commuted Payments MV6 Development of Public Transport MV12 Public Access MV13 Equality of Access H1 New Dwelling Requirement H4 Special Housing Provision H5 Affordable Housing H6 Community Facilities B2 Improvement of Environmental Quality B4 Greening of Urban Areas C3 Sites of Nature Conservation Value C4 Local Sites of Nature Conservation Value C7 Woodlands & Hedgerows C8 Protection of Water Resources T1 Tourism & Recreational Developments T3 Informal Leisure & Recreation CL2 Flooding Risk

4.3 The following policies from the City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996) are relevant:

7 Protection of Open Space 8 Sites of Nature Conservation or Geological Value 9 Development in Areas at Risk from Flooding 10 Contaminated or Unstable Land 11 Design & Aesthetic Quality 14 Facilities for Public Transport Services 16 Traffic Calming 17 Parking and Servicing Facilities 18 Provision for Cyclists 19 Provision for Pedestrians 20 Provision for Special Needs Groups 21 Land for Housing 24 Affordable and Special Needs Housing 31 Residential Open Space Requirement 45 Sport, Recreation & Leisure Facilities 53 Neighbourhood Facilities for Recycling Purposes

4.4 The City of Cardiff Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes (SPGs) on Open Space (June 2000), Access, Circulation & Parking Requirements (June 2006), Biodiversity (June 2006), Affordable Housing (March 2007), Community Facilities & Residential Developments (March 2007), Development Contributions for School Facilities (March 2007), and Trees & Development (March 2007) are relevant.

4.5 The following policies of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant:

1A General Principles for the Location of Development 1B Achieving Good Design 1C Planning Obligations 1D Homes & Community Facilities 1H Site of International or National Importance for Nature Conservation 1J Open Space 1K Movement & Transport Priorities 1L Public Transport Infrastructure & Services 1N Car Parking 2.7 Strategic Recreational Routes 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 2.27 Provision for Schools 2.43 General Landscape Protection 2.45 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows 2.46 Sites of International or National Importance for Nature Conservation 2.47 Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation 2.48 Biodiversity 2.49 Protection of Open Space 2.55 Public Realm Improvements 2.56 Public Art 2.57 Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements 2.58 Impact on Transport Networks 2.61Protection of Water Resources 2.62 Flood Risk 2.63 Contaminated and Unstable Land

4.6 Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Notes (TANs) 1 (Joint Housing Land Availability Studies), 2 (Planning and Affordable Housing), 5 (Nature Conservation and Planning), 15 (Development and Flood Risk), 16 (Sport and Recreation), 18 (Transport) and 21 (Waste) are also relevant to the development proposals.

5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES

5.1 The following comments have been received from the Strategic Planning Manager in respect of relevant planning policies, the impact of the proposals upon open space and nature conservation:

Relevant Planning Policies

5.2 The majority of the application site is identified on the Proposal Map of the City of Cardiff Local Plan as either existing open space - to which Policy 7 (Protection of Open Space) applies - or reservoir. It forms part of the valley of the Nant Fawr, which provides a green corridor from Roath through the city to the countryside beyond.

5.3 Local Plan Policy 7 seeks to safeguard areas of existing open space which contribute to the recreational, amenity or nature conservation resources of the city. It states: “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.”

5.4 Paragraph 3.3.4 of the Plan states that Policy 7 “applies to all existing areas of open space in or adjacent to the urban area, the most significant of which (generally those above 0.5 hectares in size) are identified on the Proposals Map”.

5.5 Large expanses of water, such as the reservoirs, are not identified as existing open space on the Proposals Map. However, paragraph 3.3.7 acknowledges that they have amenity value and states that “The potential loss of such areas will also be assessed in terms of their importance to the character of the local area and their significance to the city as a whole. For example, the valleys of the rivers Ely, Taff, Rhymney and Nant Fawr provide corridors of open space linking the urban area with the countryside”. The reservoirs, surrounded by open space, clearly form part of the Nant Fawr corridor.

5.6 The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Open Space also:

(i) acknowledges that ‘water bodies’ have amenity value (paragraph 2.3.6); (ii) includes such water bodies, including the reservoirs, within the open space resource (Map 1); and (iii) confirms the importance of strategic corridors such as the river valleys in providing continuous corridors of open space linking the urban area with the countryside (paragraph 2.3.10).

5.7 The following policies of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan are also relevant in terms of open space considerations:

(i) Policy B4 (Greening of Urban Areas) - which states that “The protection conservation and enhancement of open spaces which are important for amenity, recreation and or nature conservation within the built environment will be favoured. Development of such areas will not be permitted, except on those sites identified for development by other development plan policies. The creation of a coherent network of open spaces and corridors will be favoured with particular protection given to river corridors …”.

(ii) Policy C8 (Protection of Water Resources) - which states that “The protection and improvement of the water environment will be favoured. Development which is likely to … have an adverse effect on … nature conservation, landscape or recreation in river corridors … will not be permitted.”

5.8 The deposited Cardiff Unitary Development Plan also contains proposed policies to protect open space (Policy 1.J: Open Space and Policy 2.49: Protection of Open Space) and recognises the strategic importance of the river valleys in terms of recreation, amenity and wildlife (e.g. paragraph 2.J.8 and Policy 2.7: Strategic Recreational Routes).

5.9 Having regard to all these development plan policies, the key issue is whether the site has recreational, amenity or nature conservation value that merits its protection as open space.

Amenity and Recreational Open Space Considerations

5.10 The application would involve some limited loss of open space identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map to provide new access roads. However, the main loss would be a reduction in the area of Llanishen Reservoir to accommodate residential development, a children’s play area, Wildlife Centre and wetland habitats.

5.11 The site is in private ownership. Currently, there is no public access other than to the reservoir for sailing. Previously there had been restricted access for pedestrians with a permit; cycling and dog walking were not permitted. A 1.8 metre high palisade fence has been erected around Llanishen Reservoir, restricting access to, and views of, the water.

5.12 The proposal would impact on the amenity value of the open space corridor by introducing significant built development. It would also reduce the area of water available for recreational use. On the other hand, it would offer new recreational opportunities in the form of a new Wildlife Centre and wetland habitats as well as improved public access in the from of a network of pedestrian and cycle routes through the site linking to surrounding areas and including a recreational route adjacent to the Nant Fawr.

5.13 A previous similar application (03/2662/N) for the site was considered to be acceptable by officers because, on balance and having regard to all the above factors, it was considered to enhance the strategic recreational value of the Nant Fawr corridor and, thereby, to accord with relevant development plan policies.

5.14 However, in formally considering what its decision on that application would have been had not an appeal been lodged against non-determination, Planning Committee did not accept this conclusion and resolved to include among the reasons on which it would have refused planning permission: “The proposal would cause unacceptable harm to amenity and open space interests contrary to Policy 7 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan, and to the Nant Fawr Green Corridor linking this part of the city to the countryside beyond and thus conflict with policies C1 and B4 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan and with 1.J, 2.J.6, 2.J.7 and 2.J.8 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan”.

5.15 In considering the appeal, the Inspector stated “In my judgement the appeal site forms an important part of this [Nant Fawr] open space corridor. The open expanse of Llanishen Reservoir and its associated land combines with the other open space features around the site to form a visually significant feature of considerable amenity value” (10.36). Taking all relevant factors into account, he concluded in respect of amenity and recreational open space considerations, “that the proposed development would cause serious harm to the quality, integrity and coherence of this part of the Nant Fawr open space corridor. The harm to the site’s existing contribution to public amenity as open space arising from the housing development and associated access roads proposed within the open space corridor would not be offset by the various compensatory measures and the improvements to existing open space areas that are proposed” (paragraph 10.56).

5.16 Members should note that their views regarding impact upon open space when determining scheme 2 were supported by an experienced independent consultant who represented the Council, as well as an independent consultant acting for the local residents. The Minister agreed with the Inspector’s conclusions and accepted his recommendation. Nature Conservation Considerations

5.17 The application site contains, or is adjacent to, a range of sites designated or identified for their nature conservation value, including statutory Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and non-statutory Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) identified in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Biodiversity. A number of protected species are also known to visit the site.

5.18 Paragraph 5.1.2 of PPW details four Assembly Government objectives for the conservation and improvement of the natural heritage:

• Promote the conservation of landscape and biodiversity, in particular the conservation of native wildlife and habitats • Ensure that action in Wales contributes to meeting international responsibilities and obligations for the natural environment • Ensure that statutorily designated sites are properly protected and managed; and to • Safeguard protected species.

5.19 The Assembly, in 5.3.9 of PPW, declares its commitment to ensuring that international responsibilities and obligations for conservation are fully met, and that, consistent with the objectives of the designation, statutorily designated sites are protected from damage and deterioration, with their important features conserved by appropriate management.

5.20 In addition to the protection offered to open space with nature conservation value by the policies referred to above, there is a range of policies in both adopted and emerging development plans which seek to protect interests of nature conservation importance. These policies, based on legislation and Assembly guidance, include:

(i) Policy 8 (Sites of Nature Conservation or Geological Value) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan; (ii) Policies Policy C3 (Sites of Nature Conservation Value) and C4 (Local Sites of Nature Conservation Value) from the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan; (iii) Policies 1H (Sites of International or National Importance for Nature Conservation), 2.46 (Sites of International or National Importance for Nature Conservation), 2.47 (Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation), and 2.48 (Biodiversity) from the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

5.21 The application site includes part of the Llanishen/Lisvane Reservoir Embankments SSSI, the feature of interest of which is the assemblage of grassland fungi, in particular the total of over 25 species of waxcaps. The current application would result in the loss of 0.04 hectares of the SSSI (0.55% of the total area of the SSSI) and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) has confirmed that it is prepared to withdraw its objection regarding impacts on this SSSI provided that comprehensive, specific and enforceable conditions are included in any planning permission. Any potential impacts of the proposed development on this SSSI are, therefore, capable of being addressed by conditions and agreement.

5.22 The Lisvane Reservoir SSSI is adjacent to the application site and would form part of the proposed nature reserve. Its feature of interest is wintering wildfowl. Issues relating to access or disturbance could be addressed through the management of the nature reserve and a management plan, subject to the approval of the Council and CCW, would be required as part of a Section 106 agreement.

5.23 In respect of non-statutory designations, PPW (5.3.11) advises that these designations “…should be soundly based on a formal scientific assessment of nature conservation, landscape or geological value of the site and such designations should be applied where there is good reason to believe that normal planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection.” However, “…such designations should not unduly restrict acceptable development.”

5.24 Llanishen Reservoir qualifies as a SINC for perfoliate pondweed which is scarce in south Wales (8 known sites). The Environmental Statement with the application states that large numbers of toads breed in the reservoir. If this population was exceptionally large, it would also be a qualifying feature but, as no accurate count has been undertaken, it can only be regarded as a contributory feature. The reservoir also supports a stonewort which is dependant on good water quality and is also regarded as a contributory feature. The proposal would result in a permanent reduction in the size of the open water habitat of the SINC from 23.8 hectares to 5.9 hectares. Harm could also be caused by temporary draining of the reservoir and deterioration in water quality caused by surface run off from the new residential areas. It is unlikely that the remaining part of the water body would still qualify as a SINC.

5.25 Llanishen Reservoir Grassland and Scrub (to the south and west of the reservoir) qualifies as a SINC for grass snake and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) priority species glow worm. It is the only known site for the latter species in Cardiff. Construction activities and long-term management could impact on this SINC. These issues could be controlled, respectively, through conditions and an appropriate management plan as part of a planning agreement.

5.26 A very small part of the Coed-ty-Llwyd SINC lies within the boundary of the application, with the majority adjacent to it. The site is designated because it is identified as ancient woodland in the Glamorgan Inventory of Ancient Woodland (NCC 1986). The application will result in the loss of approximately 0.1 hectares out of an area of 3.1 hectares of the SINC to make space for the northern access road. The area lost is however dominated by species which are characteristic of disturbed ground rather than ancient woodland and is therefore of less ecological value than the rest of the woodland. The loss is therefore not considered to be significant. The woodland is also covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

5.27 The Nant Fawr Meadows is currently under consideration for designation as a SINC, including for the presence of harvest mouse and its value for local community benefit. The southern access road would destroy part of the site and divide the remainder into two parts.

5.28 Protected species are known to visit the site and include the following European protected species:

(i) Bats make occasional use of the houses which would be demolished to form the southern access road to the proposed development and a license from the Welsh Assembly Government is likely to be required for these works. It should be possible to avoid significant adverse impacts through the use of conditions. (ii) Otters are known to visit the site, at least occasionally. They are likely to travel along the Nant Fawr stream corridor. The potential increased risk of mortality due to traffic can be mitigated for by the detailed design of any bridges where roads cross the Nant Fawr. These details would be addressed through reserved matters.

5.29 The application includes a proposed nature reserve that would cover the Llanishen and Lisvane Reservoir Embankments SSSI, the Lisvane Reservoir SSSI, the Llanishen Reservoir Grassland and Scrub SINC and new wetland habitats in the north of Llanishen Reservoir. The area of the new wetland habitats is 1.9 hectares, a significant reduction from the previous appealed application, which means that it would not be suitable for lagoons for migrant birds. There is currently insufficient detail on the proposed habitats to make an accurate evaluation of the reserve. The design of the reserve would need to form part of a management plan through a planning agreement and therefore be subject to approval by the Council.

5.30 It is likely that the reserve would include several ponds in a mosaic of grassland, fen and scrub habitats. The site has the potential to support populations of amphibians, grass snakes, aquatic invertebrates and provide some nesting cover for birds. This would provide some compensation for the loss of toad breeding habitat in the Llanishen Reservoir SINC. It would be likely to increase the diversity of amphibian populations, making the site more attractive for frogs and newts. This would be likely to enhance the site’s suitability for grass snakes, a feature of the Llanishen Reservoir Grassland and Scrub SINC. It would also create nesting cover for wetland birds which is currently lacking on the site. The creation of ponds and possibly other habitats has the potential to contribute to target for habitat creation in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan.

5.31 Having regard to all the above circumstances, it is considered that the most significant harmful impact of the proposed development on the nature conservation interests of the site would be the loss of the Llanishen Reservoir Site.

5.32 Also, in commenting on ecology and nature conservation considerations in respect of the previous appeal, the Inspector opined: “The extent and disposition of this development would have the effect of fragmenting and seriously damaging the coherence and integrity of this part of the Nant Fawr open space corridor in terms of its intrinsic nature conservation qualities” (10.32). Notwithstanding the differences between the two schemes, they are sufficiently similar in scale and nature to make this assessment equally relevant to the current application and to support a refusal based on the policies contained with adopted and emerging development plans for the protection of open space.

Conclusions

5.33 The current application varies from the appealed application (03/2662/N) in a number of respects, notably by reconfiguring the proposed development to contain it (with the exception of the access roads) entirely within the area of Llanishen Reservoir. It thereby avoids significant harm to the embankments which are designated as a SSSI but reduces the area of remaining reservoir/lake and the compensatory wetland habitats. However, the scale and nature of the development proposed is broadly similar in other respects

5.34 In view of this, the Inspector’s conclusions and the Minister’s decision in respect of scheme 2, it is recommended that Committee resolves that it would have refused planning permission for application 06/1101/E for reasons 1 and 3 as set out in recommendation 2.

5.35 The application site is not allocated for housing in the Local Plan, nor proposed for such use in the deposited UDP, nor supported for such use in principle by relevant policies of these plans or the Structure Plan. There is currently an adequate supply of land with planning permission for housing within the city, mainly on previously developed land.

5.36 The Operational Manager, Environment and Public Protection advises, in the event of planning permission being granted, that conditions are required to address ground gas protection, imported materials and ground gas protection. He also advises the need for recommendations advising the developer of legislation in respect of construction site noise and radon gas protection.

5.37 The Chief Transport, Infrastructure and Waste Management Officer (Drainage Division) advises that the Council is the enforcement authority under the Reservoirs Act 1975. An Engineers report has been submitted and appears to address the feasibility concerns relating to the effects of undertaking the proposed development upon the existing reservoir structure. In particular, he is content with the engineer’s further advice that the drain down would not exceed a rate of 300mm per day for a reduction in level of 8.6 metres (i.e. from 45.6m AOD to 37m AOD) and this would occur over a period of at least 28 days in order to avoid de-stabilisation. Should de-stabilisation occur he is satisfied that, subject to conditions, the drain down can be satisfactorily controlled.

5.38 The Chief Transport, Infrastructure and Waste Management Officer (Waste Management) refers the developer to the Waste Management Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) as at this outline stage there is insufficient information to comment further.

5.39 The Chief Legal & Democratic Services Officer provides an update on the latest position in respect of the lease arrangements for the sailing centre and the management of the wildlife areas. The Council operates the Sailing Centre. The facilities for sailing are provided under the terms of a lease between the Owner and the Council. The lease has expired but the Council has served a notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 requesting renewal of the lease. The owner under section 30 of the Act has opposed the renewal notice and requires termination of the lease. The Council disputes any determination of the lease; court proceedings to determine the issues involved are ongoing.

5.40 In respect of the management of the wildlife areas, two main issues remain of concern regarding the current drafting of Clause 2.2 of Schedule 2 of the Unilateral Undertaking namely:

(i) The Clause does not oblige the developer to contract with a body (charitable or otherwise) with an appropriate wildlife background. The principle advanced in the application and in the case put forward at the Inquiry was that the landowning / management function for the areas would in each case rest with a body having a wildlife background. The current wording of the Clause could mean that the land is transferred to and owned by a body with very little practical “wildlife experience”.

(ii) The owning body may have limited assets. £3 million is payable on the transfer of the land. The draft transfer document annexed to the Unilateral Undertaking refers to the sum of £3 million, albeit that the Unilateral Undertaking is silent on this point. The £3 million will be payable to the owning body whose identity is currently unknown. This means that it / they are unable to confirm at this time that the sum of £3 million is sufficient for its ongoing ownership liabilities as stated in within the definition of “Management Contribution” in perpetuity.

Confirmation was sent to the applicants and copied to the Council and the Planning Inspectorate from the Wildlife Trust in February 2007 that it considered £3 million pounds sufficient for any owner’s purpose in funding “the ongoing performance of the contract”. The Council notes that the contract to which the Wildlife Trust refers is the Management Agreement;

If the Management Agreement is terminated at a later date or expires and is not renewed for whatever reason then the owning body may find that it has insufficient funds to fulfil the ongoing wildlife obligation contained in the Unilateral Undertaking;

The issue is therefore whether £3 million is sufficient for the term of the Management Agreement proposed or for the fulfilment of the wildlife obligation under the Unilateral Undertaking in perpetuity by the owning body.

He has sought clarification from the agents in this respect and a response is awaited.

(iii) He is concerned that the criteria laid out in the unilateral undertaking under which the proposed body is to be assessed is vague and open to interpretation.

The planning obligation to discharge the wildlife function rests within the terms of the unilateral undertaking. No reference to the Wildlife Trust as appropriate managers has been made. The focus has been the status of the body to whom the land will be transferred and with whom the wildlife function will rest and the issues which flow from the unknown status of that body;

Key to resolving this issue is the identity, status and responsibilities of the body which will own the land and the latest position with the Wildlife Trust and / or any other relevant party.

He understands that there is one registered charity that may well be interested in taking on the ownership role. He has sought clarification on how this option has progressed and whether there is any further information the Council should be aware of.

5.41 The Operational Manager, Neighbourhood Renewal (Affordable Housing) advises that the site is suitable for the provision of affordable housing and discussions regarding this have taken place with the agent. A minimum of 30% of the total number of dwellings built will be affordable, comprising 20% social rented, 3% supported housing (for people recognised and assessed by the Council as having a learning disability), and 7% low cost home ownership. The social rented and low cost home ownerships units will be clustered throughout the development with the mix of dwellings being representative of the development as a whole. Construction of the affordable housing will commence before 50% of the standard housing units are practically complete and will be completed before 80% of the standard housing units are practically complete. The details of provision will be secured through a Section 106 Agreement / Unilateral Undertaking.

5.42 The Chief Schools Officer, following discussions with the agent and the recent publication of the revised Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), agrees that it would be unreasonable to request a contribution towards the refurbishment of existing places but a contribution towards new build places would be required. Taking into account the provision of 10 no. ‘special needs’ affordable housing units, he considers that a figure of £644,208 would constitute a reasonable contribution, indexed linked for inflation.

5.43 The Chief Transport, Infrastructure and Waste Management Officer (Highways) has no objection in principle to this application. The transportation details submitted in the Second Addendum to the Environmental Statement dated February 2007 are generally satisfactory. There are a number of issues which need to be dealt with via a S106 agreement including provision of a bus service through the site. provision of a TIGER pedestrian /cycle crossing on Rhyd-y- Penau Road, provision of a 3 metre wide footway/cycleway linking the south of the site to Rhyd-y-Penau Road and provision of safe routes to local schools and the UWIC Campus on Cyncoed Road. In the absence of a signed S106 agreement he is content to support the following reason for refusal:

The application fails to adequately provide satisfactory linkages by foot, cycle and public transport to and from surrounding residential areas, schools, educational establishments and recreational routes as detailed in Appendix 4 and conflicts with Policies 14, 16, 17 and 18 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policies MV2, MV6, MV12 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policies 1C, 1F, 1J, 1K, 1L, and 2.7 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan.

5.44 He also advises that discharging all residential traffic through the southern entrance onto the Rhyd-Y-Penau Road/Cyncoed Road Roundabout will increase the traffic flow via this roundabout and hence on the surrounding highway network. The developer should be required to consider the impact on that network, particularly in a westerly direction towards the Fidlas Road/Rhyd-Y-Penau/Llandennis Road/Heathwood Road roundabout. This roundabout already suffers congestion and experiences queuing at peak times. It is suggested that an assessment of that roundabout is carried out with Arcady and that the model be calibrated and validated to reflect existing queues. The assessment should also consider whether the additional vehicles would actually wait in these queues or seek alternative routes. The impact of such additional traffic on the roundabout and on secondary routes should be considered together with mitigation for any detrimental impacts, particularly in respect of more vulnerable road users.

5.45 The proposed four arm roundabout at the Rhyd-Y-Penau Road / Cyncoed Road Junction is not conducive to ease of pedestrian and cycle movement. The developer must consider the provision of suitable cycle and pedestrian facilities within the roundabout or the installation of a signalised junction. The drawing shows pedestrian refuges but these should be upgraded to zebra crossings and the Arcady model amended accordingly. The proposed access arrangements at the northern and southern ends of the site should be subject to a Road Safety Audit and a Non-Motorised User Audit.

5.46 Consideration should be given to funding an extension of the cycle route to Roath Park in order to promote travel by other modes than the private car and further assist in improving the linkage between the development and local schools. Similarly it should be made clear what crossing facilities will be provided across Lisvane Road at the north end of the scheme.

5.47 The potential bus/cycle/pedestrian link through the site will provide substantial benefits for travel by modes other than the private car, however, further details of the developer’s commitment to enhancing public transport provision and providing a service through the development should be sought.

5.48 Reductions in trip generation by private car can be achieved by incorporating and providing safe routes to local schools within the transportation proposals and further details of such measures should be included in the assessment together with a commitment to bring such schemes forward with the development.

5.49 The Chief Culture, Leisure and Parks Services Officer confirms that the contributions agreed with the agent on previous applications still apply to this application. They comprise £40,000 for the enhancement/mitigation/drainage on the Nant Fawr Meadows, £121,475 for off-site formal recreation and £153,000 to upgrade surrounding pedestrian cycle routes.

5.50 Chief Marketing and Tourism Officer advises that the further reduction in the size of the retained sailing lake from scheme 2 (by approximately 10%) is a concern as it will make the holding of courses at the centre more difficult. The need to have generally steeply sloping banks would become more important to ensure that the useable water area for sailing activities could be maximised. He has no objection to the co-location of the sailing centre with the education/community facility although the management arrangements need to be clarified to ensure that any conflict with the use of shared facilities can be minimised. He also advises that possible sites for the relocation of sailing that may be moved from Llanishen Sailing Centre have not been explored in detail. Finally he re-iterates his comments relating to scheme 2 as follows:

(i) The significantly reduction in the water area will result in a reduction in the number and range of courses that can be accommodated on the water. Fewer courses will be able to use the facility simultaneously and it is unlikely that the facility will be suitable for the range of intermediate and advanced level training courses that are currently provided;

(ii) He understands that the Royal Yachting Association continues to object to the development unless the water area is significantly increased because of their concerns over the effect on sailing provision in the South East Wales region. The developers have indicated that they are unlikely to increase the water area that is available;

(ii) It will be important for the lake to have as steeply sloping banks as practical to maximize the use of the water area. These should preferably be faced to prevent erosion and maintain the slope. The depth of water should be 6 metres over as large an area as possible to enable its use for capsize drills etc.

(iii) The proposals were also likely to include some shallow shelved areas around some of the edges with planting near the Lisvane end of the lake in particular. This would reduce the deep water area and should be avoided if possible again to maximize the available water area for sailing;

(iv) In respect of the Sailing Centre the following requirements should be provided:

• 160 square metres building to accommodate toilets, changing rooms (M/F/Disabled), briefing rooms, small kitchen, offices etc. This could be at first floor level with disabled lift access and should have a balcony with uninterrupted view of the lake area. It should be fitted out for basic use • 160 square metres building to accommodate boat store, workshop, equipment store etc. This could be on the ground floor with secure roller shutter doors providing access via paved area suitable for boat and disabled access to the slipway • An enclosed hard-standing secure compound of 1,400 square metres • Slipway of minimum width 15 metres sloped at 1 in 6 to 1 in 8 gradient • Paved area between boat store, workshop and slipway • Pontoons in 2 locations near slipway with bridge connection to land for rigging vessels etc. One pontoon arrangement to include hydraulic lift to enable disabled access to boats • He understands that the developers are likely to accept these proposals although details of the actual buildings with room configurations and the layout of the compound and adjacent areas will need to be agreed

(v) The car parking provision seems adequate.

(vi) Llanishen Reservoir is essential to the development of water sports in Cardiff and the wider area particularly as it has good water quality. It will be essential that all house and highway drainage including all surface water is discharged away from the lake to maintain the water quality. (Roath Park Lake suffers from water quality problems as a result of surface water discharging into it from adjacent roads and properties).

(vii) The reduction in the size of the lake will make a fundamental difference to the courses that can be accommodated at Llanishen. Principally, beginner courses could be provided at this location. Intermediate and advanced tuition would have to be undertaken at an alternative venue. This will increase the level of supervision necessary on all courses at Llanishen and also introduce the need for staff to travel between sites to fulfil the full course programme that is available at present. The anticipated annual cost of additional staff, transportation of boats and equipment is estimated at £25,000 per year. In addition there will be a loss of revenue from courses that will not be able to be held at Llanishen during the construction period. (The lake will be drained for at least 18-24 months to enable the construction to proceed).

(viii)The estimated loss of income over this period is approximately £25,000 per year. This assumes that intermediate and advanced courses are provided at an alternative site and does not include any ongoing losses because of the “break” in the use of Llanishen Reservoir.

(ix) The agent has indicated they would make a sum of £100,000 available to increase sailing training at Llanishen. A contribution of £100,000 would cover the estimated additional costs for the two years that it is anticipated the lake will be unavailable for use. It is considered important that additional training over a prolonged period after the lake is available should be provided to enable the centre to become fully established and the longer term sustainable level of courses and uses to be put in place. The developers have indicated that they may increase this figure and a minimum sum of £250,000 should therefore be pursued.

(x) It has been indicated that the exclusive use of the Centre would be passed to the Council via a 25 year lease with peppercorn rent and that this would be extended on request. This should be clarified within the S106 agreement.

(xi) It is also indicated that responsibility for water quality, stability of the banks and general management of the water area will be the responsibility of the “Trust”. This should also be clarified within the S106 Agreement.

(xii) It is understood that there is an existing provision whereby water can be transferred from the sailing lake into the Lisvane reservoir and that this will potentially continue for some time. With the reduced size and overall depth of the lake this could have a detrimental impact on sailing use particularly during dry summer months when activity will be expected to be at a peak. It is therefore considered important that a detailed water management plan is prepared which outlines the circumstances under which water will be pumped and a minimum water level that would be retained within the sailing lake.

6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES

6.1 The Countryside Council for Wales make the following comments:

(i) Having considered the second addendum to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) they advise that, provided comprehensive, specific and enforceable planning conditions and / or agreements were attached to any planning permission they would be able to withdraw their objection to this application.

(ii) They also note from the second addendum to the EIA that it is proposed to increase the width of the access roads from 5.5 metres to 6.1 metres, resulting in a loss of SSSI area of 0.04 hectares or 0.55%. This slight increase in area does not alter their view; that provided comprehensive, specific and enforceable planning conditions were included as part of any planning permission to ensure works were carried out in accordance with the arrangement shown in revised figures they would be able to withdraw their objection with respect to this aspect of the development.

(iii) They understand that the working corridor within which all construction phase activities would occur would extend to 1 metre either side of the permanent road carriageway and associated footpaths / cycleways. Statement volume 2 for application 4, dated August 2006.

(iv) They welcome the additional text in paragraph S6.7.52 of the EIA Addendum clarifying the lowering of supply pipe from Lisvane Reservoir / Construction of the outlet structure through the southern bund of Llanishen Reservoir / construction of bridging structure. They note that the culverted section of the spillway would pass beneath the south east access road carriageway / footway / cycleway and should not therefore lead to additional loss of the Embankment SSSI, other than already lost to the access road itself.

(v) They note and welcome the additional text, in S6.7.22, with respect to the location of services. They note that electricity, gas and mains water would enter the former Llanishen Reservoir area beneath the footway / cycleway and sewers they would be located beneath the vehicular carriageway of the south eastern access road. They also note that the services would be installed in accordance with the previously submitted roadway method statement. We note that there is no specific reference to telephone and other services such as broadband / cable television.

(vi) They welcome the panel Engineer’s Report “Llanishen Water Engineering Report”, dated October 2006.

They note the reassurance from Hyder, backed by the Chief Transport, Infrastructure and Waste Officer (Drainage Division) that it should be possible to avoid instability of the banks by monitoring soil pore water pressure and adjusting the rate and timing of draw / down as appropriate and necessary.

(vii) The additional information provided within the revised Environmental Statement has addressed their concerns with respect to bats, otters and reptiles and therefore they do not object to the planning application in the context of those protected species.

6.2 The Environment Agency, having considered the addendums to the Environmental Statement (ES), advises:

(i) That the full retention without modification of the reservoir embankment ensures that the development is situated outside the 0.5% and 0.1% flood outlines therefore, from a flood risk perspective they have no adverse comments to make.

(ii) In respect of groundwater and contaminated land they note that in Sections 13.3.3 & 13.3.4 of the ES, it is the developer’s intention to undertake a water feature survey and a more detailed risk assessment on the effects of lowering of the reservoir on surrounding groundwater levels as part of future detailed design work. However, as the risk assessment and any subsequent mitigation measures are to be dealt with prior to the commencement of the development, they would recommend that the survey be undertaken and submitted as soon as possible.

(iii) Based on information provided in the addendum they would suggest that the water feature survey includes consideration of aspects relating to the proposed re-profiling of the Nant Fawr channel (6.7.23) and associated construction and excavation activities that may involve de-watering, and pumping of groundwater from the site of operations. As a minimum they would request conditions be attached to any planning permission granted.

(iv) They also request the conditions relating to unsuspected contamination, imported and excavated materials, surface water discharge and fuel storage be attached to any planning permission and the developer should again be advised that a discharge consent may be required.

(v) In respect of environmental management, they advise that at least two weeks prior to commencement of operations on site, the contractors should forward a detailed method statement, describing the work to be undertaken, to their Cardiff Environment Management team, to allow consideration and implementat6ion of pollution prevention measures and they also advise a condition regarding potential gas issues.

(vi) They note that the site is of high ecological value especially in this urban context. Every effort should be made to maintain and enhance its existing wildlife features (fungi, woodlands, ponds, stream, bird population) and to increase the biodiversity of the site. They welcome the mitigation measures outlined in the ES submitted and expect that these measures are included as planning conditions. However, permanent ecological mitigation and compensation for the scheme remains unclear. The mitigation and compensation proposed for each impact experienced on existing habitat needs to be quantified and tabulated in order to demonstrate clearly how the applicant has addressed the impacts. As the report stands, the full mitigation and compensation proposals are unclear and therefore it is also unclear if adequate mitigation and compensation has been proposed for impact on the existing habitat.

(vii) Land Drainage Consent may be required for any works affecting the Nant Fawr. They would encourage the removal of culverts and any works which would naturalise the channel and enhance the environment for biodiversity. A planted buffer zone of 7 metres should be established between the proposed cycle track and the Nant Fawr, to prevent disturbance to the river and associated fauna and flora and encourage the naturalisation of the riparian zone. Species of local provenance should be used in any planting scheme. Adequate measures should be taken to prevent over-enrichment, pollution and excessive sedimentation of the Nant Fawr and newly created wetland.

The widening of the bridge crossing of Nant Fawr (Lisvane Road access) will lead to additional direct loss of river corridor habitat, increased permanent shading on the watercourse and fragmentation of river corridor habitat. Mitigation and compensation has not been provided for this additional impact.

(viii) The river corridor currently provides good habitat for otters and the development could directly impact upon this habitat through its removal or indirectly from disturbance from subsequent use. It remains unclear whether any permanent otter mitigation or enhancement works are proposed for the site.

Patches of bramble can provide good cover for otters and are often used as resting places. Some bramble patches should be allowed to develop close to the stream corridor in areas of low disturbance. Bramble is also a valuable habitat and food resource for certain bird species and small mammals. Potential holts and resting places should be frequently monitored for use by otters during the development works. Otters and their resting sites are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations 1994 and a license will be required WAG, before work can proceed in an area used by otters for resting or breeding.

(ix) Further consideration still needs to be given to minimising disturbance to wildfowl during and, more importantly, post construction. Public footpaths and roads should be positioned away from newly created and existing habitats to minimise disturbance and limit access. A large buffer zone around the lake would reduce potential disturbance to waterfowl and a buffer zone should be created between the sailing lake and the proposed wetland to minimise disturbance to this habitat.

(x) It is recommended that during this redevelopment the developer should take into consideration the options available for improvement to the Nant Fawr, which runs to the west of the Llanishen reservoir.

This channel has been degraded by past development and river restoration within the site would bring great benefits to the local community and wildlife. Many river enhancements can be made without compromising the integrity of the Embankment SSSI and will enhance it. They would welcome the opportunity to discuss options for enhancement.

6.3 Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust concur with section 14 (Archaeology) of the Environmental Statement which notes that in the area of the former reservoir it is unlikely that any archaeological features survive due to the construction methods sued to construct the reservoir. However, they agree with the conclusion but note that it is possible that archaeological features may exist in those areas of the development that are not sited in the area of the reservoir. The ES suggests that a watching brief should be conducted during any developments in these areas and also suggests that a mitigation strategy should also be prepared in case unexpected archaeological finds are made. They concur with these suggestions and recommend that they are formalised by the attachment of an appropriate condition to any planning consent that is granted.

6.4 The objections raised by the Sports Council for Wales in relation to the previous applications have not been addressed by changes in this fourth application. They support the objections raised by the Welsh Yachting Association (WYA). Their concerns about the new sailing lake remain, i.e. the proposed facility will not be capable of providing the sail training and race training activities that are currently viable at the reservoir.

6.5 Welsh Water maintain their views in respect of the previous application (ref: 06/0934/E), considering that the proposed development would overload the existing public sewerage system and any development prior to October 2007 would be premature. They therefore object to the proposals unless appropriate conditions can be attached to prevent occupation prior to the completion of these essential works. They also confirm that no problems are envisaged with the Waste Water Treatment Works for the treatment of domestic discharges from this site and water supply, which the developers may be required to contribute towards.

7. REPRESENTATIONS

7.1 The application has been advertised in the press and on site, neighbours have been advised by letter, and Ward Members in Llanishen, Cyncoed and Lisvane were notified of the application and the additional information submitted in Addenda to the Environmental Statement. A copy of the application and Environmental Statement was placed in local libraries.

7.2 Jenny Randerson AM objects to the proposals as she considers it will have severe repercussions for both the natural and existing residential environments. In particular, she states:

(i) The embankment will still be breached at two points to provide road access to the proposed development.

(ii) The importance of retaining “Green Wedges” and river corridors through our urban environments cannot be emphasised enough and is referred to in numerous Council and Welsh Assembly Government policy documents. Nant Fawr green wedge that runs from Roath Park outwards to Caerphilly has the additional unique features of its two reservoirs which are so important in nature and historic conservation terms. The approval of this application would act as a green-light to other developers that none of our green wedges and river corridors are sacrosanct and impervious to their demands.

(iii) A serious adverse impact on both the SSSI on Lisvane reservoir for its over-wintering wildfowl and the newly designated SSSI status on the Llanishen reservoir embankments. Both are unlikely to thrive, or indeed survive, in an environment subjected to the extra human pressures exerted by 324 residential units and the planned road across part of the SSSI will clearly destroy waxcaps in the immediate vicinity.

(iv) Llanishen Reservoir is an oasis in an urban environment. It is a unique resource that does not exist elsewhere in the City, providing as it does unparalleled features that attract both wildlife and sporting activities in the form of angling and sailing.

(v) Angling is easily the nation’s favourite pastime – enjoyed last year by around 4 million people from all sectors of society. In the 2004 Olympics, 12 of Great Britain’s 30 medals were from water sports and the 2012 Olympics in London will raise the profile of water sports further and, with it, the expectation of access to water and appropriate facilities.

The popular and highly esteemed recreational activities of fishing and sailing on Llanishen Reservoir would be severely diminished by the proposed reduction of the reservoir to a quarter of its existing size and its seems ludicrous that such a reduction is even being considered at a time when we are constantly being told to expect water shortages with the increasing threat of global warming.

(vi) It has always been understood and accepted that the water quality of Cardiff Bay would be unlikely to reach human sport “immersion” standards. How can a reservoir, that was built to provide drinking water for its citizens, and now represents a great 19th Century monument to one of the great Victorian civil engineers, be compared with an impoundment of mechanically filtered water containing effluent from the Rivers Taff and Ely?

(vii) The extra traffic generated by this proposed development, which will all access from the Rhyd-y-Penau Road / Cyncoed Road roundabout, will have reverberations for the local highway network. There is already serious congestion at both roundabouts at the end of Rhyd-y-Penau Road and surrounding roads, such as the Oval and the Three Arches, at peak times and this proposal will further impact on traffic and congestion on the arterial routes in the City Centre.

7.3 Jonathan Morgan AM objects to the proposals for the following reasons:

(i) The proposal is against the well-established planning policies of the Council to protect and enhance the four wildlife, recreation and amenity corridors;

(ii) The proposal is against the green wedge and biodiversity policies of Planning Policy Wales;

(iii) If approved, developers would be encouraged to submit applications for similar housing developments in all the four wildlife, recreation and amenity corridors over the whole of Cardiff – a terrible city-wide threat; and

(iv) The destruction of Llanishen Reservoir, a great 19th Century monument and an incomparable stretch of water encircled by trees and Caerphilly Mountain would be the greatest act of natural vandalism since the Second World War.

7.4 The former AM Sue Essex states that the details incorporated in the Second Addendum to the Environmental Statement do nothing to alter her belief that no houses should be built on the site. The planning application would cause irreparable harm to the environment and open spaces that currently exist in the area. Further, she notes that the Wildlife Trust is no longer interested in assuming ownership of the two SSSIs and so it is unclear who would be managing the site. There is no guarantee that the new owner would have the interests of wildlife at heart.

7.5 Jenny Willott MP opposes the application. She understands the need for housing however the city has a large number of other sites that are crying out for prior re-development. The development plans recognise the need for extra housing and the sites that are mentioned are the ones that should be used. While these sites remain un-used developers should not be permitted to build on the city’s beautiful and useful green spaces. The city is extraordinarily fortunate in having ‘Green Corridors’ running along its rivers to the city centre. These corridors offer a facility for all residents to access open space and enjoy sports and exercise and wildlife. Council policy over the last 10 – 15 years has always promoted the protection and enhancement of these corridors and there is no compelling reason to overrule this policy in this application.

7.6 In addition, Planning Policy Wales promotes the protection of ‘Green Wedges’ of land in urban areas and biodiversity. The fact that the banks of the reservoir have now been recognised as an SSSI shows their value. If the banks are left as an oasis in the middle of a housing estate it is not likely that the protected species will survive for very long, with their natural protection stripped away.

7.7 The reservoirs are valuable in holding such a wide stretch of water which offers a wonderful leisure facility for watersports (especially sailing), while the greenery around about it houses a great range of wildlife.

7.8 Councillor K Lloyd objects to the proposals for the following reasons:

(i) It goes against the Council’s own strategic policy for the protection of the river valleys of Cardiff in general and in particular the wildlife, amenity and recreation of the Nant Fawr Valley;

(ii) The SSSI site cannot be enhanced by the proposed draining of the lake and any damage that would do to the embankment and the introduction of more family pets to roam the site cannot be beneficial to the flora of the area;

(iii) Whatever Highways say the residents of the area living daily with the current congestion are rightly concerned as yet more cars using local roads and from them the routes into the city centre; and

(iv) She has, on more than one occasion, been elected on a “ticket” of opposition to the development. The public have spoken; they are against the development, their opposition is resounding and should be taken into account.

7.9 Councillor J Burns objects to the proposals on the grounds that the proposal is against the well-established local planning policies to protect and enhance the four wildlife, recreation and amenity corridors and the green wedge and biodiversity policies of Planning Policy Wales. If the application is approved, he considers that developers would be encouraged to submit applications for similar housing developments in all the four wildlife, recreation and amenity corridors over the whole of Cardiff – a terrible city-wide threat. Finally he considers that the destruction of Llanishen Reservoir, a great 19th Century monument and an incomparable stretch of water encircled by trees and Caerphilly Mountain, would be the greatest act of natural vandalism since the Second World War.

7.10 Councillor D Walker re-iterates his previous objections to the proposals. He objects strongly to the development, regrets that the site was not acquired by the Council at an earlier date, a green wedge could be created around Lisvane offering some protection from the proposed 4,000 houses at northeast Cardiff, a country park on the site could be an attractive environment for local residents, harm to the sailing facility and its downgrading to a beginners lake, the facility cannot be replicated in the Bay where water quality is poor, impact on rare fungi and plants, impact of new residents pets on wildlife, the impact of several hundred cars on the roads at peak times.

7.11 Councillor A Gee strongly objects to the fourth application. First, the proposals include building a road through the embankments which have recently been designated a SSSI, causing serious disturbance to the adjoining areas. Car fumes, fertiliser and pesticide use could all have a detrimental impact. Second, the area is of strategic importance as a wildlife, recreation and amenity corridor and its development would conflict with policies from the deposit Unitary Development Plan and the loss of open space is in conflict with Local Plan Policy 7. It also is in conflict with ‘Green Wedge’ and biodiversity policies of Planning Policy Wales. Thirdly, the significant reduction in the size of the sailing lake would make the it only suitable for beginners and the development surrounding it would make it harder for learners (see comments of the WYA). Finally, all residential traffic would access/egress the site at the roundabout at Rhyd-y-Penau Road/Cyncoed Road which is already very busy.

7.12 Lisvane Community Association expresses their strong objections to the application. They consider that the changes to scheme four are minor and do not affect their objections, which are:

(i) The proposal would effect the environment and result in the destruction of a green area and established wildlife habitat. The proposal is in conflict with Cardiff County Council policies regarding wildlife and biodiversity, as the banks around the reservoir are home to many species of flora and fauna. The building work would adversely affect the wildlife on the adjoining Lisvane Reservoir which is an SSSI. The proximity of a large development of over 300 houses with the attendant people, cars and pets would have a long term negative effect on the wildlife which inhabit or visit the area around Lisvane Reservoir. Llanishen Reservoir is now also a SSSI and should be protected from unnecessary disruption.

Local voluntary groups have worked to ensure that the area is maintained and improved for the benefit of all residents. This commitment will be destroyed if the development goes ahead.

(ii) Loss of sporting facilities as the sailing centre would have to curtail its activities since the planned area and depth of water would be inadequate for the type of training which is currently undertaken. The proposed relocation of sailing lake and co-location of sailing centre and education centre do not alter their view. This application would mean the end to angling on the reservoir at a time when they should be working with the Council to improve local sporting facilities.

(iii) This area is not designated for housing on the existing local plan and the new Local Development Plan has still to be drafted. The application is therefore premature and inappropriate. The draft UDP which is being replaced by the local development plan indicates the intention of Cardiff City Council to protect and enhance the Nant Fawr Corridor.

(iv) There are plenty of other opportunities for housing development on brownfield sites as indicated by current building on the old MOD site on Caerphilly Road and the developments on Maes Y Coed Road. In fact these developments make it even more important to retain what attractive green space we have to satisfy the needs of the increased number of local residents.

(v) The development will inevitably pollute the environment and adversely affect the fungi.

(vi) It is important that this route does not become a rat run delivering large numbers of vehicles into Lisvane during peak times. Local residents have no confidence that the intention to incorporate a bus gate will be honoured. Roads through Lisvane are already overloaded.

(vii) The needs of the City would be better served by retaining this green space and developing it in a way which will provide the desired recreational, sporting and educational facilities whilst protecting the wildlife which has become established.

This application contravenes the guidelines which the City of Cardiff has set down for preserving and protecting its green spaces. There is massive public opposition to this proposal and City Planners should take heed of the voice of local communities and reject the application.

7.13 Lisvane Community Council strongly opposes the application and re- iterates their previous comments made in respect of earlier schemes as follows:

(i) It is heinous that during a period when some areas of the country are looking at drought orders and Scientists are predicting that the climate is warming, that consideration is being given to destroying a perfectly sound reservoir which could be brought back into service if required in the future. In the meantime the area is a vital green corridor for the local wild life, flora and fauna.

(ii) The existing Development Plan for this area does not provide for development of this land for housing.

(iii) The current infrastructure cannot support an additional 324 housing units in this area without major investments in Schools, Roads, Play Areas and the Sewerage Systems.

(iv) The housing density proposed far exceeds any of that in the local area and would question whether any wildlife that currently exists will remain after such a massive influx of residents and their domestic pets. The residents adjacent to the site will endure a considerable deterioration in their environment and Cardiff in general will lose an area of outstanding natural beauty.

(v) The proposed development would result in the destruction of the leading sailing school in Wales. The sailing centre currently provides the majority of competitive sailors in the Welsh sailing community. The sailing centre that is proposed by the developer is totally inadequate to the needs of novices and competitive sailors alike. The proposals to radically reduce the surface available will make activities like boat righting drills highly dangerous or impossible. Presently there is little “wind shadow” on the reservoir that makes sailing conditions safe and predictable. The water surface now proposed with adjacent housing will make conditions near difficult to impossible.

We would point out that the Sailing Centre offers a unique service in this area and that the existing facilities and amenity of the current water conditions should be preserved and enhanced.

The developers have proposed that Llanishen Water be used for “learner stages” of tuition before pupils are moved on to Cardiff Bay. Having consulted a number of experienced sailors they point to their grave concerns regarding the water quality of the Bay and its suitability for children’s dinghy sailing.

The existing sailing centre at Llanishen may currently “operate from inadequate and poorly maintained facilities”, but it has an excellent clean water area for sailing. This development may provide a modern clubhouse but the actual sailing facilities will be of such a poor standard that children will soon lose interest in sailing in the area and the school will close. There is no impediment known to the existing sailing centre facilities being upgraded and modernised.

(vi) There will be no fishing facilities allowed on the new development which is a loss to a major leisure pursuit in the area. This and the reduction in the sailing facilities is contrary to the requirement of the National Assembly’s policy “Well being in Wales” which is to encourage sporting activity as a means of better health.

(vii) The area is assessed as High Local to Regional importance with Lisvane Reservoir being of National Importance. The development of 324 dwellings will generate a minimum of 2000 2-way car trips per day can only have the most deleterious impact on the environment. This will inevitably affect the fungi, wintering birds and other flora and fauna. We would anticipate that with in a short time this would adversely affect the current status of it being an SSSI.

(viii) They are concerned as to the long term maintenance of this site in respect of ecology.

They are also concerned that the excellent work done since 1993 by the Friends of Nant Fawr, will be considerably compromised. They will find it difficult to continue to attract volunteers to protect what little will be left of the green wedge.

Although Lisvane Reservoir is not presently included in the planning application they consider that the proposed development can only have a devastating effect on the migratory use of this reservoir by wintering birds, ultimately threatening one of the key reasons that this area holds SSSI status.

(ix) The City Fathers concerned for sustainable development of this great City had the foresight to incorporate four major green corridors which stretch out from the city centre. The Roath Park / Nant Fawr Wedge have provided an open aspect in the North East of the City for well over 100 years, which should be retained and enhanced. Areas such as the Reservoirs and the Nant Fawr corridor must be retained to provide the conservation, biodiversity and recreation facilities required and to provide green transport links between the city, suburbs and the countryside.

Should this planning application be refused, an opportunity will arise to protect and develop this area as a sustainable leisure and nature park.

(x) A similar proposal for the incorporation of a bus gate thereby avoiding a “rat run” was given with regard to the Thornhill Development that Excalibur Drive would not be a major artery which would run through Lisvane. Such an assurance proved to be worthless and there is no doubt that this will also be the case with this proposal. They would question the statement that the applicant has “provided safe and appropriate means of access to the site by car as they remain concerned over visibility splays, the proposed roundabout at Rhyd-y-Penau Road / Cyncoed, stopping distances, traffic calming and trip generation.

7.14 The Cardiff Naturalists’ Society recognises that the status quo cannot be maintained indefinitely as Llanishen Reservoir is no longer used for the supply of domestic drinking water. However, its first priority is to ensure that any proposed development of the reservoir is sympathetic to nature conservation and it is also used as an opportunity to further public education in all aspects of wildlife.

7.15 This submission fails to address the question as to how the site is going to be managed in the longer term to ensure the long-term survival of the fungi given the close proximity of a major housing development. A very delicate ecology has to be maintained for the waxcaps and given free access by the public this is unlikely to be achieved unless special steps are taken. They fear that there will be a risk of permanent loss of some botanical species from the site despite the detailed ecology study and the proposal to appoint an Environmental Liaison Officer during the construction phase. They therefore continue to oppose the development until such time that there is a credible management plan to ensure the long-term ecology for the SSSI.

7.16 The Reservoir Action Group (RAG), representing over 2,000 members, objects to the development. A 20 page response has been received and is attached, in full, as appendix 10. In addition they make the following comments on the addendums to the Environmental Statement:

(i) They remain concerned at the impact of the northern access on the Nant Fawr stream and adjoining woodland, protected by a Tree Preservation Order and identified as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The construction of the northern access with its footways, cycleways and carriageway suitable for buses will require the removal of protected trees and the construction of a concrete cantilever structure over the Nant Fawr stream, which would have a seriously adverse effect on the wildlife corridor and visual amenity;

(ii) The latest proposals seek to reduce the harm to the Site of Special Scientific Interest. Yet it still fundamentally breaches the long-term, strategic environmental planning policy of the protection and enhancement of the four wildlife, amenity and recreation corridors of the valleys of the Rhymney, Nant Fawr, Taff and Ely. This policy has been developed over the years in strategies and supplementary planning guidance, defended by the Local Planning Authority and supported by the Welsh Government upon appeal.

(iii) The proposals would destroy the glorious, beautiful sixty acre stretch of water – the jewel of the Nant Fawr Corridor – and destroy with it a Centre of Excellence for Sailing which is of such great value in training young people from all parts of society in the demanding sport of sailing in clear pure water.

(iv) The development would place a housing estate of some twenty-five acres upon open land in the heart of this corridor and would introduce a network of urbanising roads both into and within the development. The gentle tranquillity of the Llanishen Reservoir would be lost for ever.

(v) There is no pressing need for the release of additional housing as there is already an identified supply well in excess of the five year requirement. The needs of the future will be addressed through the proposed Local Development Framework now in preparation. Indeed, the preparation of that Framework (which will, inter alia, deal with the major future development of North-East Cardiff) renders the fourth application premature pending that document being published; this provides yet another sound reason for rejecting the application on grounds of prematurity.

(vi) The recent disclosure that the Wildlife and Wetland Trust has decided not to take over the ownership of the wildlife features of the proposals (including the two Sites of Special Scientific Interest) strikes at the heart of the arguments for the alleged environmental benefits of the scheme. There are now no assurances that the wildlife interests of the site would be protected in perpetuity if their development were to go ahead; this itself is a further reason for the rejection of the application.

7.17 An objection has been received by the Welsh Yachting Association (WYA) who renew their objections to the proposals and confirm that their objections raised under the second and third applications (refs: 03/2662/N and 06/0934/E) still apply. They are very disappointed to find that their concerns regarding the wind shadow effect of lowering the water by 10 metres, and then surrounding the small area of usable water with more multi-storey apartments are being completely ignored in this application. This has the effect of making any sailing activity completely at the mercy of random swirls of wind as it tries to penetrate the gaps between buildings at a much lower level than before.

7.18 In re-iterating their previous comments, they consider the reduction in water area makes the proposed Sailing Centre unviable and unable to sustain activity on a multi-course basis.

7.19 Bureau, on behalf of the users of the Llanishen Sailing Centre, advises that they object to the application for the following reasons:

(i) This fourth application is similar to the third application in being the worst yet for sailing, by quite some margin. The problems caused by placing the ornamental pond in a hollow surrounded by three and four storey buildings would make the proposed sailing centre totally unusable due to wind shadow. This view is supported by Welsh Yachting Association and the Sports Council for Wales.

(ii) The County Council of the City and County of Cardiff are irrevocably conflicted in this matter and should not be allowed to make any decision with regard to this application. Case Law in Compulsory Purchase, most notably Stokes v Cambridge Corporation (1961) suggests that the Council would be a financial beneficiary from the application being successful to the tune of at least 30% of the resultant land value. Whilst this is not a matter of Compulsory Purchase Law, legal practice is meant to closely resemble market practice. The Council own or control all suitable access for development to the site and this is likely to have considerable financial worth. They believe that he influence this may have is contrary to the rules of Natural Justice.

(iii) The developer’s Environmental Impact Statement Volume Three is fatally flawed and misleading. Specifically a “Water Sports Centre” and a “Wildlife and Sailing Park” are not considered economically viable. The reasons for this include the noise generated by vehicles visiting such facilities. Fly fishing has declined due to the applicant allowing the reservoir fish stocks to reduce and barring the public from visiting the reservoir.

(iv) Part of the Officer’s Report on the second application was flawed factually and legally incorrect. They believe that in respect of references to quality of premises and the views of the Chief Marketing and Tourism Officer (who they believe had no recognised qualification in sailing or water sports).

(v) The planning application is premature.

(vi) The application is in contravention of the Council’s strategic policies for protecting and enhancing the four wildlife recreation and amenity open space river corridors of Cardiff. The proposal is against the well established planning policies of the Council to protect and enhance the Nant Fawr Wildlife Corridor.

(vii) To approve the application would contravene the Council’s legal duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

(viii) The proposal is against the Green Wedge and Bio-diversity policies of “Planning Policy Wales”.

(ix) CCW in notifying the embankments of the Llanishen and Lisvane Reservoirs as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, provides even stronger justification for refusing the application. It is impossible for the Council, to allow an application which fails to further the conservation and enhancement of the features for which the site is of special scientific interest.

(x) The planning application would effectively destroy Llanishen Sailing Centre. The applicants’ proposal to supply a fancy new building by an ornamental pond is not suitable and in no way replaces the current facilities.

Llanishen Sailing Centre is a Royal Yachting Association Volvo Champion Club. This is the “gold standard” for any establishment training young sailors in the UK and only one other centre in Wales enjoys a similar distinction – that is Plas Menai in North Wales. – physically remote from the area served by Llanishen Sailing Centre.

Apart from the obvious ability of the staff at the Centre, the main features it has are the large nuclear shaped area of clean deep water. It is the topography and geography of this 58 acre lake that makes the sailing centre thrive. The buildings which are currently poor quality have little or no effect on the quality of training as so much is water based. It is unusual to have such a facility so close to a large urban conurbation.

Every year at least 25% of the young sailors representing Wales are products of Llanishen Sailing Centre. In some years the figure has been much higher. Many of these young sailors move on to represent Wales and Great Britain at senior level.

Dinghy Sailing is an immersion sport. The various Royal Yachting Association syllabi for both adults and children make capsize and recovery of the vessel a mandatory part of training. In many of the syllabi it is necessary to capsize a boat through 180o (so the mast points towards the centre of the earth) and recover the boat from the position. Further it is necessary to recover sails, spinnakers and equipment from underwater and make good before righting the boat. In these cases it is completely unavoidable to avoid relatively long periods of immersion and intake of water. This can only be safely undertaken if the water is clean and deep. In learning to race dinghies, then much sailing will be on the margin of capsize and again it is likely that people will be immersed in water. None of these activities would be possible within the confines suggested by the planning application. There is anecdotal evidence that the developer and Council would like to move the activities of the Sailing Centre to Cardiff Bay. This would like to move the activities of the Sailing Centre to Cardiff Bay. This would not be possible. Water quality in Cardiff Bay is wholly unsuitable for the activities undertaken at Llanishen. This is not a subjective statement on our part, but rather, the formal position of the County Council of the City and County of Cardiff. The following quotation is taken from the Council’s website:

(www.cardiff.gov.uk/SPMR/neigh_rem/harbourauthority/notice_to_marine rs/water_notice.)

“The presence of algal scum in both the River Taff and River Ely has been identified.

It is possible that the scums may also form within the Cardiff Bay area. The scums will generally be of a dark colour and have the appearance similar to a vegetation matt.

The scums may or may not be toxic. It is therefore a sensible precaution to avoid contact with the scum and the water close it.”

They further understand that at times of high water flow it is likely that the pollutant load from the Taff and Ely will include raw sewage and other matters that could not be considered suitable for human digestion.

Llanishen Sailing Centre is one of the main centres in Wales for producing instructors (8 qualified in 2002) and senior instructors (4 qualified in 202). Since 1985 a total of 55 sailors who first trained at Llanishen have been members of the Welsh National Squad and a further 19 being in the full Great Britain Squad – an astonishing record standing in comparison with any other sailing facility in the UK. The planning application effectively ends such training. The knock-on effect of that will be felt, annually, in Cardiff, Wales and beyond. They also end the training for those who simply want to be safe and skilful on the water and those who want to pursue a green, healthy and environmentally friendly hobby.

The safety record of Llanishen Sailing Centre is second to none. The availability of a water area in excess of 55 acres and the water quality ensures a safe water sport base in South East Wales for the future. The importance of this cannot be overstated given increasingly aggressive legislation from the European Community on water quality. Such legislation may well lead to the closure of many existing UK based water sports facilities in the near future. This could well include any Cardiff based facility.

Llanishen Sailing Centre has an enviable record in the teaching of sailing to the handicapped and disabled. The Centre was selected for the 2001 Special Olympics.

As a result of the decreased water area there would be a massive decrease in the number of people who can be trained at the centre. This would end much of the production line of very good sailors (if 100 people learned to sail and only 10 wish to take it further forward you have a 10% success record. If only 10 people can learn to sail then only 1 person is likely to progress). The economic viability of running a Centre with such greatly reduced numbers must also be questioned.

It has been said, we are told that one of the “problems” with water at the reservoir so far as wildlife is concerned is that it is “eutrophic”. That is, it is too clean. The proposals for the nature facility would add contamination to the clean water. This seems bizarre and perverse to any reasonable person.

(xi) The urban fabric of the City of Cardiff would be depreciated should planning consent be granted.

(xii) Llanishen Reservoir represents one of the few remaining monuments to the Victorian grandeur and engineering within the City. Concerns about state of repair of the reservoir are ill-founded. The construction is essentially gravity based. Similarly construction methods were used for construction of the pyramids and the Great Wall of China. The applicant seems to suggest that such construction techniques do not stand the test of time. They do not agree.

(xiii) Other leisure activities would be lost should the planning application be granted. For many years fly fishing has been an important part of the reservoirs fabric. The applicant has stopped the stocking of fish at the reservoir in recent years and they have banned public access and placed a high picket fence around the reservoir. This is an important facility for fishing on a regional basis and could be easily improved to provide facilities for further anglers and the disabled. With an increasingly ageing population and changing in working practices, the availability of informal leisure becomes more and more important to our society.

The reservoirs in their current form without development provide an easy opportunity for walking, jogging and other water sports.

(xiv)The proposed housing development would not be in accord with UK National Assembly and Cardiff County Council’s policies for wildlife and bio-diversity.

(xv) The extra 1000 people with 500 plus cars inflicted on the area would have a profoundly detrimental effect on flora and fauna of an environmentally sensitive area with Lisvane Reservoir designated a SSSI for wintering wildflower.

(xvi)The developers’ proposal for marshy areas would attract mosquitoes, midges and other such insects. These could further provide a possibility for diseases such as non-tropical malaria.

(xvii)The applicant does not have control of access to the site. Even with such access the existing road and infrastructure system would appear to be incapable of coping with the number of traffic movements, especially at peak times.

(xviii)The local schools, already oversubscribed and under-funded could not cope with more pupils. This would result in further car journeys to schools further a field, again, out of accordance with council Policies.

(xvix)The illustrative layout submitted with the planning application is misleading. It shows the meadows, woodlands and allotments around the reservoir as a “green” part of the development but the applicant neither owns nor controls these lands. It is not beyond reasonable assumption to believe that these could come under further pressure from greedy developers and land owners.

(xx) The demolition of 147, 149 and 151 Rhyd-y-Penau Road would provide a loss of visual amenity for Cyncoed village.

7.20 The officers and members of Cardiff Reservoirs Fly Fishing Club object strongly to scheme 4. They view the destruction of this magnificent water and recreational facility in order to build another housing estate, in an area of inestimable value as a ‘Green Lung’ for the population of a vibrant city, as nothing short of vandalism. They express concerns that the inhabitants of the proposed 324 dwellings would result in a daily invasion of the interests of the SSSI and would also threaten the interests of the adjoining Lisvane Reservoir SSSI.

7.21 The Friends of Nant Fawr Community Woodland confirms their continuing concern over any proposal for development. They fully support RAG and urge rejection of this application as the proposals are against the established policies to protect and enhance the four unique wildlife, recreation and amenity corridors. They object to the planned eastern access route which cuts across meadowland important to their conservation objectives. They object to the concept of any development in and around the reservoirs that will irreversibly spoil the vision of a Country Park or Nant Fawr ‘Green Wedge.’ Finally, they maintain their objection to work that will impact adversely upon the ecology and biodiversity of areas within their care.

7.22 The Rambler’s Association (Penarth and District Group) express their deep concern and re-affirm their belief that such a development would be detrimental to the area, affecting the environment and wildlife.

7.23 The Rambler’s Association (Cardiff Group) has over 640 members and objects to the proposals for the following reasons:

(i) inappropriate development would detract from the enjoyment and benefits currently enjoyed by walking in this area; (ii) the proposals are contrary to well-established local and national planning policies to protect and enhance the Nant Fawr corridor; (iii) detrimental impact upon the nature conservation interests of both the SSSIs; (iv) the roads necessary for the development will create physical barriers across existing footpaths and rights of way; and (v) the applicants are manipulating the planning system.

7.24 Several hundred letters and emails have been received from local residents and others, objecting to the proposals on the following grounds:

• increased traffic; • reduction in world class sailing club facilities, remaining facilities would be insufficient; • proposals would cause unacceptable harm to open space ‘Green Wedge’ and the Nant Fawr Corridor, including the Nant Fawr Meadows; • conflict with local and national planning policies which seek to protect and enhance the four river corridors and open space; • desecration of SSSIs, damaging waxcap fungi and over-wintering wildfowl; • traffic pollution; • existing road infrastructure is inadequate; • premature proposals regarding housing need; • prime area should be retained for future generations; • reservoir may be required in near future due to global warming; • adverse impact upon flora and fauna, including protected species; • local schools are already over-subscribed; • the Wildlife Trust will not take responsibility for the ownership of the site and it is not clear who will take on the ownership; • loss of peace and tranquillity; • loss of areas for walking and relaxing; • the reservoir is in a good state of repair; • access has become increasingly limited and an unsightly fence has been built around the reservoir; • a formal request has been lodged to register the land known as ‘The Meadows’ as a ‘Green’ under the Commons Registration Act 1965; and • loss of fly fishing opportunities; • loss of quality of life; • precedent for other applications; • devaluation of property; • impact on the Community Woodlands which volunteer labour has improved and maintained; • the will of the people of Cardiff v. a large American Multinational Conglomerate; • the development is not sustainable; • the wetland could create problems of stagnant water, flies and mosquitoes; • the Council could stop the development by refusing to release land for the access roads • the changes to the scheme are minimal and do not address the local resident’s concerns.

7.25 A petition of more than fifty signatures has been submitted by RAG calling upon the local planning authority to reject the application as it is in conflict with adopted planning policies, and to protect the Nant Fawr corridor against further encroachment by formally defining it in the UDP proposals map and designating it a Country Park.

8. ANALYSIS

8.1 This application has to be assessed on its conformity, or otherwise, with the Development Plan and other material considerations, including the recently published Inspector’s conclusions and Minister’s decision following the Inquiry into Scheme 2 (see appendices 7 and 8).

8.2 A full Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application. This statement provides detailed analysis regarding the potential environmental impacts of the development. It is considered that the submitted Environmental Statement, including addenda, provide a satisfactory analysis of the impacts of the development. The non-technical summary is attached in appendix 3.

8.3 The Environmental Statement Non-technical summary concludes with the following:

(i) the net ecological effect will be minor and mainly temporary with losses to local biodiversity more than outweighed by the retention and secured management of the vast majority of habitats of value and the creation of new habitats; (ii) impacts on landscape character are recorded as neutral and impacts on visual amenity are recorded between neutral and slight adverse; (iii) accessibility will be improved considerably. The public will have access via a comprehensive footpath and cycle path network, providing for and enhancing the strategic recreational value of the Nant Fawr Corridor; (iv) an equipped children’s play area will be provided on-site as would a significant element of informal recreational open space; (v) the proposals are well served by non car transport infrastructure and initiatives and provides significant transport benefits for new residents and existing residents, directly in accord with transport policy; (vi) noise is not considered to be a determining factor; (vii) the construction works have the potential to create dust, therefore mitigation measures will be necessary. In respect of impact of road traffic, any increase in pollutant concentration will have a negligible impact on local pollutant concentrations; (viii) water level ranges can be kept to a manageable level. Neither the existing Lisvane or Llanishen reservoirs are at risk of significant flooding due to their small catchments and overflow arrangements. The diversion of the stream flows would result in a reduction of both suspended solids and organic debris downstream of the site; (ix) The development will have no impact on known archaeological sites.

Previously Developed Land

8.4 Careful consideration must be given to whether the site constitutes previously developed land (PDL). Section 2.7 and Figure 2.1 of PPW provides explicit guidance in this respect defining such land as follows:

Previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings) and associated fixed surface infrastructure...Excluded from the definition are:

(i) land and buildings currently in use for agricultural or forestry purposes; (ii) land in built-up areas which has not been developed previously, for example parks, recreation grounds and allotments, even though these areas may contain certain urban features such as paths, pavilions and other buildings; (iii) land where the remains of any structure or activity have blended into the landscape over time so that they can reasonably be considered part of the natural surroundings; (iv) previously developed land the nature conservation value of which could outweigh the re-use of the site; (v) previously developed land subsequently put to an amenity use.

8.5 A large area of the site is occupied by the reservoir structures, which date from the Victorian era and include large grassed embankments with stone pitching to contain the water. The site can therefore be described as being occupied by a permanent structure, however Members should note that the definition specifically excludes “land where the remains of any structure or activity has blended into the landscape over time so that they can reasonably be considered part of the natural surroundings.” It is considered that the large expanse of grassed embankments surrounding the reservoir together with the existing expanse of water within the embankments can, under this part of the definition, be considered to form part of the natural surroundings and therefore fall outside the definition of previously developed land. This same view was reached by the Inspector in his conclusions (10.19 – 10.23) and supported by the Minister in her decision regarding the appeal for scheme 2, even if the reservoir were to be drained down.

8.6 Land possessing nature conservation value which may outweigh the re-use of the site is another land category not considered to be PDL by PPW (iv). The Inspector also considered this aspect of the definition to be material in the case of scheme 2, and it remains so for scheme 4, given the status of the reservoir area within the grassed embankment top as a Site Important for Nature Conservation (SINC).

8.7 It could also be argued that this site sits within the category (v) excluded from the definition as it has subsequently been put to amenity use by reason of the recreational sailing, canoeing and fly fishing activities. However, it should be noted that the site is privately owned and the existing fencing currently restricts public access. Limited access has been possible until recently through access permits and the Inspector did not rely on this factor in concluding that the site constitutes PDL, as he considered that the activities were “fairly limited in scale and extent of activity” (10.22).

8.8 In conclusion, it is considered that the site is plainly not PDL as the reservoir structure has blended into the landscape over time to such an extent that it can reasonably be considered part of the natural surroundings and the site possesses nature conservation which outweighs its re-use (see analysis below).

Open Space

8.9 In assessing this aspect of the proposals, attention is drawn to the advice given by the Strategic Planning Manager (5.1 – 5.35), and also the Inspector’s conclusions and Minister’s decision relating to scheme 2 (appendices 7 and 8). PPW (11.1.10) advises that “Formal and informal open spaces, including parks, with significant recreational or amenity value should be protected from development, particularly in urban areas where they fulfil multiple purposes, not only enhancing the quality of life, but contributing to biodiversity, the conservation of nature and landscape , air quality and the protection of groundwater.”

8.10 In reporting scheme 2 to Planning Committee (ref: 03/2662/N) officers concluded, on balance, that the previous proposals represented a net benefit in terms of open space provision, when considered alongside other associated benefits. Committee, however, did not agree with these conclusions and resolved that it would have taken a different view, refusing the proposals on grounds of unacceptable harm to amenity and open space interests loss of open space (5.14).

8.11 Having regard to advice contained in PPW, the aforementioned development plan policies (4), namely Local Plan Policy 7 and Structure Plan Policies B4 and C8, the key issue is whether the site has recreational, amenity or nature conservation value that merits its protection as open space. This section considers the strategic importance and the amenity value of the open space, of which the water of Llanishen Reservoir forms a part (although shown as ‘white land’ on the proposals map the Inspector concluded that it “defies common sense…to disregard the area of open water…as somehow not an integral part of the open space feature concerned” (10.17)). Consideration of its recreational value and nature conservation value are considered in subsequent sections.

8.12 The recent appeal decision strongly affirms the views previously taken by Planning Committee. In respect of the strategic importance of the site, attention is drawn to Third Party evidence given at the recent inquiry to scheme 2 (8.3 – 8.4):

“The developer’s proposals contravene a well-established, city-wide, strategic policy of the local planning authority. This is the protection and enhancement of the valleys of the Rivers Ely, Taff, Rhymney and Nant Fawr, which represent strategically important wildlife, amenity and recreation corridors. They provide unbroken links of semi-natural habitat from the countryside right into the heart of the city. They are of city-wide importance by virtue of providing linkages between sites of nature conservation importance within corridors, forming semi-natural corridors for flora and fauna to colonise and move within, representing ‘green lungs’ passing through large built-up areas, and providing a large accessible semi-natural resource capable of appreciation and enjoyment by the general public.

The proposal would destroy a glorious 60 acre (24 hectares) stretch of water which is invaluable for high quality training in sailing and fly fishing. It would be replaced by a 15 acre (6 hectares) lake…The proposals would also result in the construction of well over 300 dwellings in the heart of the Nant Fawr Corridor. These two actions would do immeasurable harm to the integrity of the corridor and create an awful precedent.”

8.13 Although accepting that the application site is in private ownership and has limited public access, the Inspector concludes: “Nonetheless it is of considerable amenity importance, because of its pivotal role within the Nant Fawr open space corridor…” (10.66).

8.14 In respect of the importance of the site as an area of amenity open space, the conclusions of the Inspector, affirmed by the Minister’s decision, are again explicit. The Inspector (10.37) concludes that the proposed development “would have a very obvious effect on the open space corridor”. Despite the screening effects of vegetation he considers that “…the substantial elements of proposed housing would be a very evident feature to recreational users of the adjacent areas of Nant Fawr Community Meadows and Rhyd-y-Penau Park. They would also be plainly evident to persons with permitted access to Lisvane Reservoir…users of the proposed wetland facility, watersports centre and recreational opportunities associated with the new lake… the occupants of a large number of residential properties fringing the existing open space corridor, including properties at Black Oak Road, Rhyd-y-Penau Road, Towy Road and South Rise.”

8.15 In paragraph 10.89 the Inspector considers that the development “would seriously harm the character, appearance, and intrinsic quality of the open space corridor of which the site forms a part, both as perceived by users of the open space corridor and by those residing close by and overlooking the site.” The amount of open space lost through the development of the access roads would, in the context of the development be small in quantitative terms. However, the Inspector’s concerns focus on both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the open space, a view support by the Minister in her decision. The Inspector considers that a “considerable diminuation in the level of public amenity afforded by the Nant Fawr Meadows open space feature, for which the provisions of the Section 106 undertaking would not provide adequate compensation in qualitative terms” (10.39).

8.16 It is not considered that the potential benefits of the scheme, including the increased public access, removal of the palisade fencing, and provision of wildlife and recreation facilities would amount to sufficient compensation for the very serious harm that the proposed development would cause, particularly from the proposed housing development and the proposed access road across the Nant Fawr Meadow. The proposals are therefore considered to fundamentally conflict with the provisions of Local Plan Policy 7 and Policies B4 and C8 of the Replacement Structure Plan.

Nature Conservation

8.17 The site either contains, or is adjacent to both statutory (SSSIs) and non- statutory (SINCs) nature conservation designations. Statutory designations do not necessarily prohibit development although any development proposals must be carefully assessed for their effect (PPW, 5.5.5). Paragraph 5.5.8 of PPW “places a duty on all public bodies (including local planning authorities, to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the features by reason of which a SSSI is of special interest. SSSIs can be damaged by developments within or adjacent to their boundaries, and in some cases, by development some distance away. There is a presumption against development likely to damage a SSSI.” The relevant development plan policies are Local Plan Policy 8 and Replacement Structure Plan Policies C3 and C4. Development proposals are assessed against these policies by the degree to which they would cause “unacceptable harm” to such interests. The Strategic Planning Manager (5.17 – 5.35) and CCW (6.1) provide detailed comments in this regard.

8.18 An important feature of scheme 4 is the significant reduction in the loss of the embankments SSSI resulting from development. Approximately 0.55% would be lost through the construction of the two access roads, retaining approximately 99.45%. In their representations, CCW confirm that, subject to conditions that would ensure the protection of the nature conservation interests of the SSSI, they do not object to the proposals.

8.19 In respect of the Lisvane SSSI which adjoins the northern part of the site, the Strategic Planning Manager considers that the interests of this designation (wintering wildfowl) can also be adequately safeguarded from access or disturbance issues. The agreement of the long-term management of the reserve and a management plan, in consultation with the local planning authority and CCW would be required to ensure for this continued protection. This would be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.

8.20 The non-statutory SINC designations are Llanishen Reservoir, Llanishen Reservoir Grassland and Scrub, and Coed-ty-Llwyd to the north. Nant Fawr Meadow is currently under consideration as a possible SINC site. The Strategic Planning Manager recognises that the impact of the development must be balanced against the provision of the new wetland reserve and the creation and implementation of an agreed management plan. However, he is concerned that the remaining part of the water body would not qualify as a SINC were development to occur (5.24).

8.21 CCW and the Strategic Planning Manager also refer to protected species, including bats and otters, which are known to visit the site. Both bodies are satisfied that, subject to conditions, the safety and well-being of these species could be adequately safeguarded.

8.22 The proposed nature reserve would include the Llanishen and Lisvane Reservoir Embankments SSSI, the Lisvane Reservoir SSSI, the Llanishen Reservoir Grassland and Scrub SINC and new wetland habitats in the north of Llanishen Reservoir. The Strategic Planning Manager acknowledges that the reserve has potential to bring added benefits to the area and the design of the reserve would form part of the management plan required by the legal agreement and would therefore be subject to approval by the Council.

8.23 In determining applications, PPW advises local planning authorities to consider whether environmental issues can be adequately addressed by modifying the development proposal or by attaching appropriate planning conditions or obligations (5.5.3). It is considered, that were the local planning authority in a position to determine this application, that a refusal of planning permission could be sustained when assessed against planning policies. The proposals are considered to cause unacceptable harm to the Llanishen Reservoir SINC, which could not be adequately compensated for when balanced against the beneficial provisions, the management schemes, and conditions or agreements.

8.24 Finally, in his conclusions following the appeal the Inspector stated “The extent and disposition of this development would have the effect of fragmenting and seriously damaging the coherence and integrity of this part of the Nant Fawr open space corridor in terms of its intrinsic nature conservation qualities” (10.32). As advised in 5.32 the Strategic Planning Manager considers that the two schemes are sufficiently similar in scale and nature to make this assessment equally relevant to scheme 4, lending further support for a refusal based on the policies for the protection of open space, as assessed in the preceding section.

Recreation Facilities

8.25 A key aspect of the proposals in the context of provision for recreational facilities largely is the existing use of Llanishen Reservoir for sailing.

8.26 The retained lake, according to the representations received by the Sports Council, the Welsh Yachting Association, and Llanishen Sail Centre (6.4, 7.17 – 7.19) would not make adequate provision for the continuation of sailing and training facilities to the extent that operate from the site at present, which make significant contributions to the sport at national and international levels.

8.27 PPW states that the planning system should “…ensure that adequate land and water resources are allocated for formal and informal sport and recreation, taking full account of the need for recreational space and current levels of provision and deficiencies, and the impact on the location” (11.1.9). The Section 106 contributions (appendix 4) make provision for funding to ensure that the activities of the centre can continue in the long-term, albeit resulting in the need for certain activities to re-locate. Whether or not this provision is adequate is the key consideration.

8.28 Despite the clear benefit in providing improved clubhouse facilities within the development proposals, uncertainty remains regarding the adequacy of the retained water body for sailing and the suitability of alternative sites to provide both temporary facilities during development, and also permanent facilities. The Inspector considered that the longer term position that would result from the proposed arrangements under scheme 2 would be “…a significant diminishment in the opportunities for sailing activity available to the population of Cardiff.” (10.49), by reason of the reduced size in the sailing lake (it would decrease from 23 hectares to 6.5 hectares (scheme 2) and 5.9 hectares (scheme 4)) and the implications this would have for the range, scale and quality of sailing that would remain.

8.29 Cardiff Bay was put forward as a viable alternative site which could accommodate the sail activities from Llanishen Reservoir. Evidence submitted during the Inquiry for scheme 2 suggests that there is potential for the Bay to accommodate some activities, although its ability to provide a comparable facility is by no means certain. Mindful of this the Inspector considers that, despite the provision of a new water sports centre at the new lake the there would remain a “…significant risk to the well-being of the Sail Centre.” He considers that the proposals would “diminish significantly the range, scale, and quality of sailing opportunities conveniently located in relation to the City’s population, since the facilities lost would not be adequately compensated for.” (10.52). Other alternative sites put forward at the Inquiry were also deemed to be unsatisfactory due to the travelling distances involved

8.30 The latest position concerning the lease arrangements for sailing activities on Llanishen Reservoir are provided in 2.3. The matter has been referred to the courts to resolve whether the lease can lawfully be terminated. The issue remains unresolved. It remains that there is insufficient provision within the proposals to ensure for the longer term provision for the range and quality of sailing currently enjoyed at Llanishen reservoir.

Housing Need

8.31 It is considered that the site does not fall within the definition of previously developed land. PPW, as replaced by Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement (MIPPS) 01/2006 states that previously developed land will be used in preference to greenfield sites (9.1.1). The relevant local planning policies are Structure Plan Policy H1 and Local Plan Policy 21. Although the previous resolution by the Council did not specifically refer to non-compliance in terms of these policies, the Inspector considered that they do not support the proposals (10.73). Policy H1 sets out the new dwelling requirement for Cardiff for the period 1991-2011 and three criteria against which new housing sites will be assessed. The Inspector concluded that the site failed to meet any of these criteria (10.73). Policy 21 of the Local Plan does not allocate the site as a site for housing development.

8.32 The most recent Joint Housing Land Availability Study for Cardiff, published by the Welsh Assembly Government in July 2007, indicates that there was a five year land supply of 8,651 dwellings at 1 April 2006, equating to 19.8 years’ of supply. (MIPPS) 01/2006 requires local planning authorities to ensure that sufficient land is genuinely available or will become available to provide a 5 year supply of land for housing.

Flood Risk

8.33 The development advice maps contained in TAN 15 (Development and Flood Risk) shows significant areas of the site, including the reservoir, the embankment and the Nant Fawr corridor to the northwest, west and south of the reservoir, to be located within zone C2, that is, without significant flood defence infrastructure. Advice contained within TAN 15 strongly advises that highly vulnerable development (including residential) should not be favourably considered within such zones.

8.34 Notwithstanding this advice the Environment Agency, following discussions surrounding scheme 2 including re-modelling undertaken by the applicants, has accepted that the data contained in TAN 15 is inaccurate. The Environment Agency (6.2) has withdrawn their objection to the proposals in this respect, provided that suitable conditions are attached to any planning permission that may be granted.

8.35 The Inspector’s conclusions (10.57 – 10.63) address this issue, particularly paragraph 10.63 which states “in the specific circumstances of this case the identification of areas of the site on which highly vulnerable development is proposed within zone C2 on the TAN 15 Development Advice Map is outweighed by the more accurate information and modelling data provided by the appellant and scrutinised by EAW…flood risk considerations do not in this case constitute a reason why outline planning permission should be withheld.”

8.36 On this basis it is not considered that, were it able to determine this application, the local planning authority could justify refusal of planning permission for this reason.

Loss of Reservoir/Drain Down

8.37 Representations have been received concerning the wisdom of removing a reservoir which may have a potential use if global warming and reduced rainfall resulted in shortages of water. This is a matter for the water regulator and is not a planning consideration.

8.38 In respect of the potential for a draining down of the reservoir to occur should planning permission be refused, the Minister, in determining the appeal to scheme 2 (ref: 03/2662/N) “accepts that it is by no means certain that drain down would occur.”

8.39 While she accepted the conclusions of the Inspector that the site should not be regarded as previously developed land, even if the water were to be drained down, she did not consider, on balance, that there was sufficient information in her possession to enable her to reach a conclusion on the planning implications should drain down occur. Therefore she did not consider that the possibility of drain down of the reservoir could be viewed as a “compelling argument” (Appendix 8, 6) to support the case for planning permission.

8.40 The Environment Agency confirms that the draining down of the reservoir would not require their specific consent and they are willing to work closely with the applicants to agree on how this can be achieved in practice.

8.41 The local planning authority has not received any information relating to a change in circumstance since the Minister’s decision.

Transportation

8.42 PPW (8.7.1) requires local planning authorities to take into account a range of issues when determining planning applications, including:

• the impacts of the proposed development on travel demand; • the level and nature of public transport provision; • accessibility by a range of different transport modes; • the willingness of a developer to promote travel by public transport, walking or cycling, or to provide infrastructure or measures to manage traffic, to overcome transport objections to the proposed development (payment for such measures will not, however, justify granting planning permission to a development for which it would not otherwise be granted; • the environmental impact of both transport infrastructure and the traffic generated; and • the effects on the safety and convenience of other users of the transport network.

8.43 The advice received from the Chief Highways and Transportation Services Officer (5.39) confirms that the transportation details submitted in the Second Addendum to the Environmental Statement dated February 2007 are generally satisfactory. There are a number of issues which need to be dealt with via a S106 agreement including provision of a bus service through the site. provision of a TIGER pedestrian /cycle crossing on Rhyd-y- Penau Road, provision of a 3 metre wide footway/cycleway linking the south of the site to Rhyd-y-Penau Road and provision of safe routes to local schools and the UWIC Campus on Cyncoed Road..

Section 106 Undertaking

8.44 Correspondence from the agent (appendix 4) demonstrates that the potential contributions would result in a number of considerable benefits for the surrounding communities and wider city population.

8.45 The scheme would deliver improved public access, a substantial area of open space, a new community resource would be provided in the form of a wildlife centre and a much improved sailing centre clubhouse. There would also be various items of transport infrastructure, including the enhancement of the Nant Fawr corridor for pedestrians and cyclists. Improvements would be made to the Nant Fawr meadows to mitigate the impact of the road as well as the normal off-site public open space contribution. In addition, a contribution to fund education facilities in the locality has been offered. There is no guarantee that the same community benefits could be secured if another application is submitted in the future.

8.46 Notwithstanding the substantial benefits that would be provided were the Council in a position to determine this application, a significant concern remains regarding the delivery of the wildlife obligation as currently a lack of clarity surrounds the ownership and on going management of the nature conservation interests that would be provided through the proposals.

8.47 During the Inquiry into scheme 2 it emerged that the ownership of these undeveloped areas would not be transferred to the Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales (WTSWW) as was originally stated. The management framework proposed by the developer was that the undeveloped areas would now be transferred to an “owning body” that in turn would enter into a management arrangement with the WTSWW. The identity of the owning body was unknown. As a consequence the wildlife management and maintenance objectives were considered to be very uncertain. Representations were made to the Inspector that the Council had concerns as to whether the proposed arrangement would guarantee the wildlife obligation in perpetuity.

8.48 In his conclusions the Inspector states “…in the light of the concerns raised about the effectiveness of the undertaking provisions in ensuring that the long-term maintenance and management of the wildlife habitat parts of the site would be adequately secured, I recommend that this part of the undertaking be reviewed before any permission is granted…” (10.107).

8.49 Currently no further satisfactory information has been received which clarifies and / or addresses the concerns expressed. 8.50 Finally, a wide range of issues would need to be covered by conditions if the Planning Inspectorate is minded to grant consent. These would be explicitly covered in the Council’s evidence at the Inquiry.

Conclusions

8.51 The Inspector’s conclusions and the Minister’s recent decision regarding the second application (ref: 03/2662/N) are a material consideration of significant weight and should be carefully considered by Members.

8.52 Members should note that CCW no longer objects to the proposals, subject to satisfactory conditions, in view of the significant reduction in the proposed loss to the Embankments SSSI (6.1).

8.53 Despite the removal of this area of concern, and mindful of the benefits the resulting development would provide, it is considered that the proposals remain objectionable as they fundamentally conflict with open space policies in the adopted development plans, would result in a significant diminution in the long-term opportunities for sailing, would cause harm to nature conservation through loss of the Llanishen Reservoir SINC (which could not be outweighed by the potential benefits), and areas of significant concern remain, particularly surrounding the ongoing management and maintenance of the retained wildlife habitats.

8.54 It is therefore recommended that, were it in a position to determine this application, Committee resolves that planning permission would have been refused for these reasons. Appendices

1 Figure 1.1 of Environmental Statement

2 Plan of Highways junction improvements

3 ES Non-Technical Summary

4 S106 Contributions

5 Map of SSSI designation

6 03/2662/N Reasons for Refusal (had Planning Committee determined the application)

7 PINS conclusions to 03/2662/N

8 Minister’s decision to 03/2662/N

9 02/2750/N Reasons for Refusal (had Planning Committee determined the application)

10 RAG Objection

.