MERTHYR TYDFIL CYNGOR BWRDEISTREF SIROL COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL MERTHYR TUDFUL
FULL COUNCIL MEETING
12 th December 2006
Dear Sir/Madam
You are hereby summoned to attend a Meeting of the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council to be held at the COUNCIL CHAMBER on Tuesday, 19th December, 2006 at 5.00 pm being a Meeting for the following purposes.
1. Apologies
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Planning Application 060218 – Proposed Mixed Use Development Comprising Retail Units With Cinema Above - Land at Junction of Castle Street/Avenue De Clichy, Central Area - Diageo Pension Trust Ltd c/o Savills Commercial To consider a further report from the Deputy Chief (Pages 1 - Executive and Director of Customer Corporate 92) Services.
4. To deal with any other urgent business or correspondence
5. To receive communications from His Worship the Mayor By order of the Mayor ALISTAIR NEILL CHIEF EXECUTIVE
1 - 1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3
MERTHYR TYDFIL COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL
DATE WRITTEN 13 th December 2006
REPORT AUTHOR A N Davies/E Foley/G Morgan
HEADS OF SERVICE A N Davies and E Foley
COMMITTEE Special Council
COMMITTEE DATE 19 th December 2006
TO: Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen
PLANNING APPLICATION 060218 – PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING RETAIL UNITS WITH CINEMA ABOVE. LAND AT JUNCTION OF CASTLE STREET/AVENUE DE CLICHY, CENTRAL AREA DIAGEO PENSION TRUST LTD C/O SAVILLS COMMERCIAL
PURPOSE OF REPORT: This supplementary report has been prepared for Council to further consider Application No. 060218 and seeks to address the issues raised at Special Council on 1 st November 2006 with regard to car parking usage, potential highway safety issues and additional on street parking in and around the town centre generated by the proposed development, the subject of Application No. 060218.
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 On 27 th September 2006, a report was presented to the Council’s Planning & Regulatory Committee with regard to Application No. 060218 ( Appendix 1 refers).
The report recommended conditional approval, subject to the proviso that a decision letter would not be issued until or unless the positive written comments of the Environment Agency Planning Liaison were received.
This recommendation was not accepted. Committee instead resolved to defer determination to a meeting of Full Council.
1.2 At Full Council on 18 th October 2006, Councillors were presented with a minor supplementary report ( Appendix 2 ). Councillors were advised that, in a letter dated 17 th October, confirmation had been received from the Environment Agency that the revised Flooding Consequences Assessment submitted by the applicants was acceptable. The Agency suggested the addition of a further six planning conditions to be appended to any decision letter, in the event that planning consent was granted.
Council resolved to defer the matter to a Special Council. On 19 th October, for Council’s further information, copies of the Environment Agency’s letter dated 17 th October, with suggested conditions, was circulated to all Councillors.
Page 1
1.3 At Special Council on 1 st November a minor supplementary report was submitted advising Councillors of additional planning conditions (Nos. 17-21) suggested by the Environment Agency, and a further condition (No. 22) recommended by the Head of Planning. The recommendation to Special Council was to grant consent, subject to the additional conditions specified, together with those originally suggested to Committee on 27 th September. ( Appendix 3 ).
This recommendation was not accepted by Special Council. Instead it was resolved:
In view of the serious discrepancies that Councillors have identified in the Head of Planning’s report to the Council, particularly within the section dealing with Car Parking Usage, that further consideration of the said Planning Application be deferred until such time that a more comprehensive report has been prepared for consideration by elected Councillors.
In view of the serious concerns expressed by Councillors over the failure of officers to consider and advise elected Councillors of any potential highway safety issues associated with members of the public walking to the proposed cinema from the appropriate public car parks (and vice-versa) that a comprehensive report be prepared that gives due consideration to possible highway safety implications associated with the proposed cinema.
In view of the serious concerns expressed by Councillors that the proposed cinema could generate additional on-street parking in and around the town centre that a comprehensive report be prepared to address this issue.
Accordingly, Council required the preparation of a further report for consideration, which is now set out below.
2.0 CURRENT POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 On 7 th November 2006 the applicants submitted an Appeal against the failure of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council as Local Planning Authority to determine Planning Application No. 060218 within the appropriate (8 week) period. The Appeal is due to be considered by means of a Local Hearing at the Civic Centre on Tuesday 27 th February 2007. In view of this, should the Council wish to appear at the Hearing then it is required to submit a statement indicating its desire to do so setting out its case by the 21 st December 2006.
2.2 On 13 th November 2006, the applicants submitted a fresh planning application which was identical to that considered by Planning & Regulatory Committee and the subsequent Council meetings cited above.
In a letter which accompanied this latest planning application, the applicants’ agents stated that the purpose of the fresh planning application submission was: “… In order to keep negotiations with your Council open and to ensure that your Council retains the opportunity to determine the planning application.”
The fresh planning application (No.060606) was accompanied by the same supporting documents as those which accompanied App. No. 060218, (as amended
Page 2
between April and July 2006). In addition the application is accompanied by a document entitled “Supplementary Statement on Car Parking and Traffic” , which the agents state is designed “… to address the issues raised at the 1 st November Full Council meeting.”
In view of the fact that the Supplementary Statement attempts to address those concerns expressed by Council in relation to App. No. 060218, this report is considered material to the consideration of that application. It is therefore appended for Council’s consideration, along with the original Car Parking Assessment submitted by Arup in April 2006 ( Appendices 4 and 5) .
3.0 PARKING AND TRAFFIC – REVISED ASSESSMENT IN LIGHT OF CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY COUNCIL ON 1 ST NOVEMBER 2006 WITH REGARD TO SECTION 8.7 OF THE REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING
This section now supplements and re-evaluates Section 8.7 of the original report and reflects the professional views of the Head of Engineering.
3.1.1 Revised Car Parking Demand Assessment
The original evaluation of the Car Parking Assessment submitted by the applicant, and which formed the basis of comments in the report to Council on November 1st was carried out using a series of on site surveys undertaken “in house” by Engineering staff in the Castle Car Park and College Car Parks complex. The latter term includes College (East), College (South) and College Extension.
For avoidance of doubt and clarity the Head of Engineering would point out that the Car Parking Assessment submitted by the applicant was based on a single “snapshot” walkover survey of capacity in the main car parks between 11am and 12.30pm on Friday, March 31 st supplemented by a more detailed monitored survey in the College (East) Car Park on April 4 th . The latter survey extended over the period 4pm – 10pm. Details of these surveys may be seen in Section 3.2 of the Assessment ( at Appendix 5 ).
The original “in house” surveys carried out by Engineering staff were used extensively in the evaluation and they may be found at Appendix 6 , setting out available spaces/capacity at the times listed.
These surveys extended over approximately six months and were undertaken on a variety of days with particular emphasis on Tuesdays, identified as the weekday of peak demand. In terms of daily timing, surveys commenced at approximately 10am and concluded at approximately 4pm. These times represented the commencement of ‘demand’ for parking generated by the proposed development as established from the Parking Assessment, along with the time (4pm) at which the Assessment suggested that vacancies across the car parks were growing due to the departure of other users. The table in Appendix 6 lists available vacant spaces in the various car parks at the recorded times. This table of results was used to evaluate the survey undertaken by Messrs Arup & Partners on behalf of the applicants on Friday,
Page 3
March 31 st . A physical series of on site observations was chosen as the best true measure of available capacity thus eliminating considerations of theoretical capacities and estimates of percentage occupancy.
At this point Councillors may care to note that due to the potential for inaccuracy in any theoretical analysis of ticket data as part of the earlier (pre November 1 st ) evaluation of the Car Parking Assessment, no measurable weight was given to the use of ticket data in the Assessment submitted by the applicant. The data was supplied at the applicants’ request but given such factors as fee avoidance, transferability of tickets between car parks and other variables, the vacancy surveys were seen to be the most reliable true indicator of capacity.
As a result of observations and comments made at the meeting on November 1 st , a fresh series of surveys was commissioned in mid November, targeted at (1) the commencement of demand (2), the release of spaces in late afternoon and (3)a specific series of observations centred on the 12.00 noon to 1.00pm lunchtime peak period.
The most recent surveys (attached at Appendix 7 ) demonstrated a lack of capacity during the newly surveyed lunchtime period and a noticeable increase in demand during the mid morning. On two occasions capacity was exhausted (for all practical purposes) by the time the first survey of the day was undertaken. This may be seen from an examination of the tables from which it is evident the car parks were filling faster than during the first surveys which terminated some six weeks or so earlier. There is no obvious single ‘driver’ of this increase, but seasonality may be an important factor during the Christmas period (from mid November onward). In order to highlight the days on which parking availability fell below the nominal demand created by the potential development, a shading has been applied to the table. The shading identifies the periods during which available capacity fell below the 137 spaces required to meet the peak (12.00 – 13.00) period demand calculated via Table 4 of the Parking Assessment. Examination of Appendix 7 will reveal that this lack of capacity occurred on eleven of the twelve days surveyed and the Head of Engineering is of the opinion that in the light of the general trend of the results, had surveys been undertaken on Thursday November 30 th and Friday December 1 st , it is likely that a similar lack of capacity would have been detected on those days. Unfortunately, staff resources prevented surveys being undertaken on those days. The Head of Engineering also comments that on Friday November 17 th , the 12.00 to 13.00 survey demonstrates a small surplus of 156 available spaces but this would for all practical purposes be eliminated by the predicted lunchtime demand of 137 spaces arising from the development.
Councillors will therefore see that there is already evidence of an excess of demand over capacity at times and it is reasonable to presume that even in current circumstances there is a flow of vehicles from the College Car Park complex seeking alternative parking elsewhere. This point is considered below when dealing with the matter of traffic flows on the local network.
There is little doubt that additional unmet demand, including that from the development if approved, will manifest itself as an increased decantation from the
Page 4
car parks (as envisaged by Councillors in Resolution 1 of the meeting on November 1st, as drivers look for space elsewhere. This will compound the potential problem created by some drivers who will ignore available car park spaces, choosing instead to park at no cost, accepting a slightly longer walk to their destination.
Before proceeding further, Councillors may also wish to note that the Car Parking Assessment submitted by the developer contained factual errors in the statement of available car parking spaces within the town centre. This is evident from Table 1 of the Assessment (which can be seen at Appendix 5 ) and is carried forward in the newer supplementary assessment ( Appendix 4 ). Whilst the initial error was entirely that of the applicant, the errors in the revised document were partially the result of erroneous data supplied by the Car Parking Section. Whilst the Head of Engineering offers the applicant and Council an unreserved apology for the inaccuracy of the data supplied, he considers that it has no practical impact on the conclusions reached. Councillors may also wish to note that the Head of Engineering has established the error occurred as a result of initiative shown by a temporary member of staff which would, in other circumstances, be worthy of praise. As a result of the confusion which may have arisen, he has set out below a table, indicating the nominal capacities of the publicly available spaces within the main town centre car parks. Councillors may wish to compare this with the Applicant’s Table 1, to be seen in Appendices 4 and 5 .
Car Park Name Number of spaces (incl. disabled) Abermorlais 42 (Saturdays/Sundays only) Castle 286 Castle (South) 13 College (East) 336 College (South) 46 College (Extension) 294 Gilar Street 81 Swan Street (disabled only) 23 Tramroad 27 Total 1106 (Mon – Fri) 1148 (Sat)
The original errors appear to reflect a lack of research or appreciation that in some car parks, certain spaces are not available for use by the general public, notably Gilar Street and Tramroadside.
3.1.2 Traffic Flow Arising from Proposed Development and Car Parking Demands
Page 5
Traffic flow generated by the proposed development has not been subjected to a full traffic impact assessment due to the fact that a similar land use to that proposed by the applicant was factored into the wider traffic model commissioned by the Council last year as part of the evaluation of the impact of the Merthyr Village development and other major projects. The result of that modelling exercise (confirmed by a second model commissioned via different consultants appointed by Merthyr Village Ltd) showed the relevant town centre junctions as being within design capacity until 2013 and beyond in some cases.
This computer modelling exercise however could not and did not consider the effects of secondary traffic flows in specific locations generated by unusual circumstances. Similar secondary effects can be generated by ad-hoc events such as temporary obstructions demanding traffic diversions etc. Additional flows onto local portions of the road network therefore demand individual consideration taking into account relevant local circumstances and there is an inevitability that such flows will affect the Georgetown area.
Councillors will recall that in the Head of Engineering’s comments on capacity and demand set out above, he referred to the decantation of vehicles unable to find space in the car parks. Clearly this would result in vehicles unable to obtain a parking space in the “College” complex leaving the car parks by exiting left towards Georgetown. It is recognised that some drivers may choose to make an unlawful right turn but this is an enforcement matter for the Police. After turning left, those drivers wishing to return to the town centre to seek spaces elsewhere have a choice of available routes and manoeuvres. The least appropriate of these is to make a 180 o turn at the first available road junction (the rear entrance to the Fire Station) but it is known from anecdotal evidence and personal observations that such manoeuvres are being made in preference to the safer but longer alternative of travelling via the Georgetown roundabout or Nantygwenith Street/Joseph Parry Way. There are no formal records held by the Department of accidents caused by such manoeuvres at the Fire Station junction but as the records held are derived from the Police database (which records only personal injury accidents), minor damage only accidents or “near misses” are not recorded. All that can be said with certainty is that this unwise “U” turn manoeuvre does take place and will probably increase if drivers, frustrated at finding no space in the car parks west of the river, attempt to return to the town centre.
3.2.1 Pedestrian Route – College Car Park Complex to Application Site
There are two main routes by which pedestrian access may be gained from the College Car Park complex to the application site (1) via the Penry Street vehicle bridge and (2) via the existing shopping centre footbridge. The choice of route will be largely personal but also dependent upon the availability of the footbridge which normally closes at 6.15pm on weekdays. In distance terms there is little to choose between the routes; measured from the lower (most distant) row of the College Extension Car Park, the pedestrian route is some 675 metres via the Penry Street bridge and 622 metres via the shopping centre footbridge. Clearly for those parking in the main College (East) Car Park the distances would be much less and arguably more dependent upon personal choice rather than distance. The acceptability of all
Page 6
pedestrian travel distances is also clearly a matter for commercial judgement by the applicant.
For those choosing to travel by the shopping centre footbridge their onward route will be well known to Councillors and requires no further comment here. For those choosing to travel via the Penry Street bridge, they have a further choice to make; walk via the vehicular entrance to the car park or walk via the riverside path (which also forms part of the Taff Trail at this point). At Penry Street, they would then join the footpath over the bridge before crossing Avenue de Clichy at the signal controlled crossing facilities. Councillors may recall that during the construction of the Western Relief Road (Avenue de Clichy) the then Council requested the provision of signal controlled junctions in preference to roundabout controls in order to provide safe passage for pedestrians.
Councillors will be aware that, although the route described is already paved and illuminated throughout, offering a segregated pedestrian route over much of its length, a further upgrade is planned, utilising funds available from the river corridor enhancement strategy. This project will include new pedestrian fencing with additional street furniture (benches, trees etc) alongside the College (East) Car Park. Details are available from the Regeneration Department, which has been liaising with the Engineering Department on technical specifications.
At this point Councillors may care to note that the Car Parking Assessment prepared on behalf of the applicant is not definitive in setting out their perceived limit of acceptability in terms of walking distance from the parking facility to the development and this is ultimately a matter of commercial judgement by the applicant. Some guidance as to their criteria may be found however at various locations within the Assessment (Appendix 5). In Section 3.1 there is reference to parking spaces ‘within 10 minutes walk’ of the development and in Section 3.3 the railway station is identified as being ‘400 metres or approximately 5 minutes’ walk’ away from the site. In Section 4.2 there is reference to the College Extension Car Park as being ‘within an acceptable walking distance (500 metres) of the development’. In relation to the latter statement, Councillors will appreciate from the data set out three paragraphs above that not all of the College Extension Car Park lies within the 500 metres travel distance. In terms of walking time however, it would all fall within the broader ten minute time (or approximately 800 metres using the Applicant’s calculations) envelope referred to in Section 3.1 of the Assessment.
For completeness, the Head of Engineering would also advise Councillors that although the applicant’s Car Parking Assessment made little comment on the possible use of the Castle Car Park (presumably because it offered no available capacity until late afternoon on any day), the latter is closer to the application site than College (South) and College (Extension) Car Parks and indeed is closer than some of the main College (East) Car Park. The distance from the northern end of the Castle Car Park to the application site is some 385 metres via Glebeland Place, adjacent to the Law Courts.
Page 7
3.2.2 Antisocial Behaviour – College Car Parks Complex
At the meeting on November 1 st , Councillors queried the occurrence of antisocial behaviour at the College Car Park complex. Councillors will be aware that from its initial opening several years ago, the “Extension” car park has been locked shut in the early evening to prevent access by drivers seeking to use it for antisocial purposes.
The College East Car Park is well used in the evening by college students and others but reports of groups of drivers congregating in the car park and performing such manoeuvres as handbrake turns have been received and shared with the Police, who have taken action on several occasions. The College Car Parks are illuminated and under CCTV surveillance. Physical measures to deter manoeuvres such as handbrake turns are available and would typically consist of constructing kerbed splitter islands to force vehicles into serpentine manoeuvres. These measures would be costly to install, an unwelcome hindrance to legitimate users and importantly, would reduce capacity.
3.3 Drop off and collection arrangements – Castle Street
Several enquiries have been made by Councillors regarding the provision of visitor drop off/collection facilities on Castle Street adjacent to the proposed development and the likely implications for traffic safety. There is no express reference in the Car Parking Assessment to such a facility. There is however a reference in Section 4.2 of the Assessment to the main ‘users’ of the cinema during daytime on Saturdays being parents with children, the conclusion being that the predominant demand for space in the car parks at this time would be for drop off and pick up purposes with no consequential accumulation of demand. This may have caused some confusion and generated the enquiries.
Any request for specific drop off and pick up provision on Castle Street between the Bus Station and the Avenue de Clichy junction would not be acceptable on road safety/traffic management grounds. In this context Councillors will recall that in the original report to Council on November 1 st , specific mention was made of the developers’ readiness to fund the early widening of the Castle Street limb of the junction with Avenue de Clichy to improve flow well in advance of any reworking funded by the approved Section 106 Agreement (subject to planning permission being granted by the Planning Inspectorate) with Merthyr Village Ltd. Such a widening would be rendered ineffective by traffic engaged in drop off/ pick up activity and is thus deemed inappropriate.
3.4 Summary of parking, traffic management and road safety considerations
(1) The Car Parking Assessment submitted by the developers is based on very limited on site surveys and a theoretical analysis of ticket data influenced by a large number of variable factors rendering it unreliable as a true guide. It also contains several basic inaccuracies e.g. actual spaces available for public use in car parks.
Page 8
(2) Much of the Head of Engineering’s evaluation of the Assessment has been based on a range of (in-house) site surveys supplemental to the limited work carried out by the developer and/or its professional advisers.
(3) There is a clear lack of present unmet demand in the College Car Park complex and therefore an incapability to absorb the additional demand generated by the proposed development during the mid-day period ‘peak’ as predicted by the developers own Parking Assessment. Departmental surveys undertaken on a series of days shown in Appendix 7 demonstrate this to be the case at least on a seasonal basis.
(4) There is evidence demonstrating that, in general, demand has risen since earlier surveys (March to September) which may be an indication of seasonality but which could be indicative of a sustained and growing increase in demand.
(5) Spare capacity usually exists outside the peak demand period and throughout the day on Saturday (when commuter occupation is low and additional car parking space is available e.g. at Abermorlais).
(6) The pedestrian route(s) from the College Car Park complex are considered safe for purpose and are also scheduled for enhancement as part of the river corridor improvement strategy.
(7) Primary traffic flows based on a similar proposed development have been factored into the town centre traffic model and found acceptable.
(8) Secondary flows created by specific unplanned events such as a failure to obtain a parking space in the College Car Park complex and subsequent desire to return to the town centre have not been factored into the computer model for roads in the Georgetown area.
(9) Anecdotal and observational evidence suggests that some traffic generated in (8) above will attempt unwise and potentially hazardous manoeuvres in or near the rear entrance to the Fire Station and Three Horseshoes Junction in an attempt to return to the town centre. Some frustrated drivers may attempt a right turn from the College Access Road into Penry Street in defiance of the traffic signals.
(10) Decanting traffic from the College Car Park complex may create annoyance and inconvenience to local residents as journeys are made in search of alternative parking facilities.
The factors set out in (1) to (8) above clearly need careful consideration and a weighted evaluation in the final decision. There are obvious constraints in unmet
Page 9
demand and the potential for unwise and inappropriate driver manoeuvres to create unnecessary hazards to other road users. There is also the potential for customer dissatisfaction to deter visitors unsuccessful in finding a parking space from returning to the town in future. Against these considerations are ranged the commercial benefits offered by the proposed development and the effects on regeneration of the town centre and related factors which Council will no doubt wish to consider in relation to the vision for the future of the County Borough. These lie beyond the scope of Engineering and the weighting of the contending factors is a matter for Councillors to consider in wider context.
4.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As the application has been appealed for Non Determination and referred to the Planning Inspectorate, the Council is now open to a cost application being made against it by the applicant. Costs may be awarded by the Inspector appointed to hear the appeal if he/she considers that the statutory requirements have been met.
Further if Council indicates that would have been minded to have refused the application for the reason set out below (together with any other reason if appropriate) then consideration will need to be given to appointing an independent Engineer to present the Council’s case. I would suggest that these costs be met from the Planning Division budget.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Council will note that the power to determine App. No. 060218 is no longer within Council’s gift, in view of the Non Determination Planning Appeal referred to at Section 2.1 above. However to ensure that the Planning Inspector is advised of the Council’s position in this application had it been able to determine it, the following two mutually exclusive resolutions are offered for Council to consider. Each resolution has differing consequences which are also set out.
5.1 Resolution 1
a) That Council resolve it would have been minded to approve App. No. 060218 had the application not been subject of the Non Determination Appeal. Any such decision letter would be issued with the 22 conditions as set out in the report to Special Council on 1 st November 2006.
b) In so doing, Council may wish to require the developer to make a contribution towards the provision of (non operational) parking outside the curtilage of the development, if it is deemed appropriate. Provision for such measures is made in Structure Plan Policy T.14.
Consequence : If Council expresses support for the proposal, having considered the additional information presented today, it would inform Council’s position with
Page 10
regard to the recently submitted application (No. 060606) and may obviate the need for Appeal proceedings.
5.2 Resolution 2
That Council resolve it would have been minded to refuse App. No. 060218 had the application not been the subject of a Non Determination Appeal, for the reason set out below.
The proposal, if allowed, would result in an additional unmet demand for town centre parking, with a consequential impact on the local road network at Georgetown and environs.
Consequence : If this resolution is taken, in the light of the additional information presented today, it would inform Council’s position both with regard to App. No. 060606 and the forthcoming Appeal Hearing regarding App. No. 060218. In so doing, Council would also need to take the following decisions:
5.2.1 Whether Council wishes to engage an independent Engineer to present its case; and
5.2.2 Whether any Councillor/s wish/es to appear to give evidence at the Hearing. If so, Council will need to submit its statement to the Planning Inspectorate by 21 st December 2006.
GARETH CHAPMAN DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER CORPORATE SERVICES
INTERNAL REPORT CONSULTATION:
The following officers have been consulted in respect of the proposals and recommendations set out in this report.
Chief Executive Director of Director of Director of Director of Chief Officer, Integrated Integrated Adult Customer Corporate Finance, Audit Children’s Services Community Centre and Risk Services Services Management
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Title of Document(s) Document(s) Date Document Location
Car Parking Assessment April 2006 Ty Keir Hardie (Appendix 5)
Supplementary Car Parking November 2006 Ty Keir Hardie (Appendix 4)
Page 11
Assessment
Page 12 Appendix 1 Application No. Date Determining Authority P/06/0218 28th April 2006 MTCBC Proposed Development Location Name & Address of Applicant/Agent Mixed use development Land At Junction At Mr Neil Rowley comprising retail units with Castle Street/Avenue De Savills Commerical cinema above Clichy Limited Merthyr Tydfil 20 Grosvenor Hill London W1K 3HQ 1.0 APPLICATION SITE The application site assumes a roughly rectangular shape, extending over a surface area of 0.45 hectare (4,500 sq. m)/1.11 acres. It occupies a prominent position within the Central Area, at the junction of Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy (A4054), alongside the Central Bus Station. The application site represents a major gateway and signpost to the town centre and is in close proximity to two large public realm buildings (Civic Centre and Law Courts) to the north. Whilst the majority of the application site is unbuilt and has a grassed surface, it is a “brownfield” site, standing upon the demolished remains of commercial and residential properties, as well as Ynysgau Chapel. These buildings were demolished as part of the comprehensive Central Area Redevelopment during the 1960’s. Ynysgau Chapel stood at the north western sector of the application site at the junction of Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy, the burial ground of which lies under Avenue de Clichy. It is understood the known graves were exhumed prior to demolition and transferred to plots at Cefn Coed Cemetery. The northern boundary of the application site is contiguous with the back edge of Castle Street, the western boundary is contiguous with the back edge of Avenue de Clichy and its eastern boundary is contiguous to the Central Bus Station. The southern boundary of the application site runs in an east west direction on a line coincident with the northern entrance gate to the St Tydfil’s Shopping Precinct, which in turn is a continuation of the southern kerbline of Victoria Street. It therefore includes a larger part of the former Tesco store, vacated in November 2003. The southern part of that building is now occupied by two retail units (“Poundland” and “Savers”); the vacant part of the former Tesco store to the north occupies some 591 sq. m/6360 sq. ft.).
Page 13 The application site falls gently from north to south, with a more pronounced fall from west to east. At its south west sector, alongside the vacant section of the former Tesco store, an engineered bench which was formed to accommodate the service road and delivery areas for that store which runs parallel to the Avenue de Clichy stands some 2.5 metres lower than the eastern site boundary abutting the Central Bus Station. The service road connects with Swan Street to the south. It serves the former Tesco units, in addition to other units at the St Tydfil’s Shopping Precinct. There is little formal landscaping on site. At the south west boundary with the Avenue de Clichy stands a hedgerow and four Birch and one Elder. They are not considered specimen trees. At the south east sector, alongside the vacant element of the former Tesco store stand two large Purple Leaved Sycamores. These trees were subject of Tree Preservation Order 2003 (No. 13 Order). This Order was confirmed on 26 th November 2003. Running diagonally through the grassed part of the application site to the pinchpoint between the former Tesco Store and Central Bus Station a “desire line” runs in a northwest southeast direction. It connects pedestrians with Castle Street and New Market Walk/Victoria Street. It is not a designated not acclaimed right of way. Nonetheless the application site accommodates a significant north south pedestrian link between the Civic Centre to the north, the Central Bus Station and the St Tydfil Shopping Precinct to the south. 2.0 PLANNING HISTORY OF APPLICATION SITE Set out below is a record of the significant planning applications relating to the application site in chronological order over the past 12 years. As stated above, the application site was part of the Comprehensive Central Area Redevelopment scheme undertaken from the mid sixties. The construction of the shopping centre now known as St Tydfil’s Square formed an integral part of the reconstruction of the town centre, as did the Central Bus Station between 1969 and 1970. (Consent No. 14334 issued 20 th September 1965 refers). The planning applications below refer mainly to conversion and extension to the former Tesco Store and to various proposals to develop the Greenfield site to the north, some of which included redevelopment of the Central Bus Station. Application No. 52940305 – Retail Development (Outline); Greenfield site, north of Tesco Approved subject to conditions 2 nd December 1994.
Page 14 Application No. 52940307 Retail Development, Relocation and Refurbishment of Bus Station, Landscaping, Service Roads, Access and Parking (Outline) Approved subject to conditions 2 nd December 1994. Application No. 960433 – Application to relax Conditions 6 and 8 of Consent 52940305 relating to provision of Service Yard and exclusion of development adjacent to the junction of Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy. Approved 3 rd July 1997. Application No. 970379 – Erection of new retail kiosk, relocation of telephone box and improvement to streetscape and lighting. Application withdrawn 26 th July 1998. Application No. 970479 – Variation of Condition consent No. 52940305 to allow further time for submission of “Reserved Matters” Approved 12 th February 1998 Application No. 970480 – Variation of Condition of Consent No. 52940307 to allow further time for submission of “Reserved Matters” Approved 12 th February 1998 Application No. 030289 – Creation of 4 No. individual shop units (by sub division), installation of shop front and extension Application Refused 3 rd December 2003 for the following REASON: “The proposal, as submitted and if implemented, would directly lead to the loss of two preserved trees of high amenity value, which are included within the provisions of TPO 2003 (No. 13). Such a loss would be detrimental to the environment of this part of the town centre.” Application No. 040105 – Provision of 4 No. smaller retail units within single recently vacated (Tesco) unit Application approved subject to conditions 16 th April 2004. N.B. This decision was based upon the detailed report of the Head of Planning with the following conclusion, which was accepted by the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 14 th April 2004. “… Therefore it is a matter of balanced judgement between their [the protected trees] retention and a successful outcome for the redevelopment and vitality of this part of the town centre. In my opinion there are now only two choices: (i) to allow the development to proceed as submitted which will involve the removal of the trees in question; or
Page 15 (ii) refuse the application which will involve retaining the trees in question. In the light of all the circumstances pertaining now I do not consider that there is a compromise scheme which could be successfully implemented. Therefore, on balance I consider that the retention of the trees should not be allowed to prejudice the successful regeneration of this part of the town centre.” The first phase of this new development took place with the occupation of two of the retail units on the southern side by “Savers” and “Poundland”. The consent was therefore implemented even though, as stated above, the remaining part of the former Tesco Store remains vacant. 3.0 PLANNING APPLICATION DETAILS This is a “Full” planning application, submitted by Savills Commercial Ltd (Chartered Surveyors) on behalf of Diageo Pension Trust Ltd, owners of the application site and the adjoining St Tydfil’s Shopping Precinct. The planning application relates to proposals for a mixed use development comprising retail units with cinemas above, giving a total floor space of 8724 sq. m/93,957 sq. ft, of which 2249 sq. m/24,222 sq. ft will be retail floor space. In pre application discussions with the applicants’ agents my Head of Planning informed the applicants in writing of the following: a) Whilst the proposal may be appropriate for the purposes of Schedule 2 Category 10(b) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, as its surface area falls below the 0.5 hectare threshold, the proposal, as submitted, would not require formal Environmental Impact Assessment. b) A Flood Risk Assessment would be required, as addressed by the Head of Engineering. c) An assessment would be required to determine the capacity of and demand for town centre parking, as advised by the Head of Engineering. The head also took the view that, whilst such a study would include an estimate of vehicle trips generated by the proposed development, a full Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) would not be necessary in the circumstances.
Page 16 Subsequently it was also indicated that a Bat and Nesting Bird Survey would need to be undertaken of the site. Therefore, in addition to the details normally required for a full planning application of this kind (site plan, floor plans, sections and elevations), the following supporting documents were also submitted with the application on 28 th April 2006: • Planning Assessment (by Savills); • Flood Study (by Ove Arup & Partners, Consulting Engineers) (March 2006); • Flood Consequences Assessment (by Ove Arup & Partners) (April 2006) (Issue 1); • Town Centre Parking Provision Assessment (Ove Arup & Partners) (April 2006). This report provides a review of existing car parking provision in the vicinity of the application site and an estimate of the number of vehicle trips likely to be generated by the proposed development. It is considered at Section 8; and • Design Statement (by Holder Mathias Architects) (April 2006) During the planning application process between April and September 2006 the following revisions/updates/amendments were submitted to the Planning Division: • an amended set of ground floor and site plans submitted 2 nd June 2006; • an amended ground floor and site plan, undercroft, first floor, second floor and roof plan, sections and elevations were submitted on 21 st July 2006; • Design Statement revised 15 th August 2006; • Updated Bat and Nesting Bird Assessment 14 th August 2006; and • Flooding Consequences Assessment (Issue 2) (August 2006). 4.0 PUBLICITY AND THIRD PARTY RESPONSES 4.1 Statutory Publicity The following means of publicising this planning application were employed, which accord with the requirements of Article 8(4) of the 1995 Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order:
Page 17 a) Site Notice. Ten separate site notices were posted on or near the application site on 11 th May 2006. It will be noted that the above Order requires a site notice to be displayed “in at least one place” , whereas ten were posted; and b) Local Press Advertisement. A statutory press notice appeared in the locally circulating newspaper on 18 th May 2006. The above process was repeated on 28 th July (Site Notice) and on 10 th August 2006 (Local press advertisement) in order to publicise the various amendments to the scheme which are referred to at Section 3 above. 4.2 Third Party Responses At the time of writing this report (mid September 2006) six letters have been received in the Planning Division, all of which are IN SUPPORT of the proposal. The comments are quoted verbatim below. Letter 1 (received 31 st August 2006 from a resident of Dowlais) “I am writing in support of the above development as I think it is in the public interest to carry out this project. You have given planning permission for a cinema at Rhydycar, but I think we need a cinema in the town. Parents would be more willing to let their children go to the cinema with their friends in the town centre rather than let them go down to Rhydycar. I would for one. Also you seem to be taking it for granted that everyone has a car, well I know plenty of people who do not, especially the elderly, in my opinion you are not giving much consideration to this section of the public when everything is going out of town. I am sure that this development would be a great asset to the town centre and bring in shoppers from elsewhere. I would be very pleased to see this project going ahead, later you should then concentrate on the upper part of the High Street as that is a complete eyesore.” Letter 2 (received 29 th August 2006 from a resident of Plymouth Street) “I am writing in support of the above scheme, for the following reasons.
Page 18 1. The proximity of the proposed scheme to Merthyr Bus Station and the Railway Station is a bonus for people coming in without transport. 2. There is a need for a cinema facility in the town centre. 3. The convenience of the restaurant and retail facilities alongside the cinema. 4. The benefit of the attraction to the Merthyr Town Centre which will benefit town centre trade and therefore rejuvenate Merthyr Town. I hope these views will be duly noted.” Letter 3 (received 4 th September 2006 form a resident of The Quar) “I am writing to let you know that I fully support the scheme to develop the land adjacent to the St Tydfil’s Shopping Centre. Merthyr Tydfil is in desperate need of new leisure facilities particularly a cinema which would be popular with all age groups. At the moment the nearest decent cinema is at Nantgarw. It would be fantastic to have one on our doorstep. I also don’t think there will be a problem with parking. The venture will bring much needed jobs to the town centre and no doubt revenue …” Letter 4 (received 5 th September from a resident of Twyncarmel) “I am writing to you to register my support for the above proposed development. Having seen the artist’s impression for the proposal I find it unthinkable that the Planning Committee would even consider turning down the scheme. This area for the proposed development has been wasted for as long as I can remember and I believe it is about time that it is put to good use. It has been a pleasure over the years to see the development around the town i.e. the retail park on the old Texas site and the major development taking place at the moment adjacent to Gellideg Estate. I believe that these development have given Merthyr Tydfil a higher profile and have consequently boosted the trade and wealth of the area. However, I fell that it is important not to neglect the town itself and as can be seen from the artist’s impression it will give that location a much needed facelift as well as capitalising on the extra trade that the town now seems to be benefiting from. Merthyr Tydfil is now seen as the capital town of the valleys with residents from all the local areas coming to us for their trade as we seem to have all they want. But with the retail and leisure
Page 19 developments they will have much more and I am sure that it will attract even more people to come to Merthyr Tydfil. Please consider these points when deciding and hopefully Merthyr Tydfil will continue to grow and prosper.” Letter 5 (received 7 th September from a resident of Gurnos) “I am writing to outline my support for the above mentioned scheme. My family and I have lived in Merthyr all our lives and have witnessed many changes to the town over the years. However the one area in which the town has lagged behind the times is in its provision of leisure facilities for the local populace. I therefore feel it is essential that this proposed scheme be given the go ahead as I am confident it will lead to a boost for the town centre and provide excellent social outlets for the people of Merthyr and surrounding districts. For my part, I can assure you that my family and I would make good use of the complex.” Letter 6 (received 8 th September from a resident of Twynyrodyn) “I am writing to show my support for the Diageo cinema proposals. Myself, my family, friends and workmates also support it. Here’s hoping the Planning Committee will say yes to this much needed development.” 4.3 Other Publicity 4.3.1 Committee will be aware of the extensive coverage of this project in the local and regional press. 4.3.2 Furthermore, Committee will be aware that the applicants engaged PPS (Local and Regional), an independent communications consultancy, specialising in planning and development sectors, undertook a public consultation programme in May 2006 “… in order to gain an insight into public opinion of the proposal.” The detailed report produced by PPS in June 2006 contained the following executive summary, which is repeated verbatim below for Committee’s background information only: 1. “Two days of public exhibitions as well as a Councillor and Stakeholder Preview were held in May 2006 which displayed information and artist’s impressions of the scheme. Approximately some 750 people attended the public exhibitions and over 200 people returned questionnaires.
Page 20 • There was a good mix of respondents, with appropriately equal numbers of men and women completing the questionnaire as well as a good range of age groups. • The current entertainment facilities provided in Merthyr Tydfil are viewed as poor and the results illustrate dissatisfaction with the facilities provided in the town. • The results show the respondents of the questionnaire rarely use entertainment facilities provided in Merthyr Tydfil. • Nearly all of those questioned like the mix of uses proposed by Diageo. 88% of those who completed the questionnaire think the mix of uses are good or very good. • The overwhelming majority of the respondents like the design of the scheme and believe it fits in well in Merthyr with 92% agreeing that the design is good. • Almost all of the people who took the time to fill in the questionnaires believe that the proposed location of the cinema is good in terms of accessibility with 90% of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing that the proposed location would be good. • The main concern raised is whether there is sufficient parking to cope with the increase in usage that the proposed development would bring, mainly in the day time. The developer has responded by stating that a survey has been carried out by transport consultants which identifies capacity to cope with any increase.” Committee will note that the above information submitted by PPS has been included for the sake of completeness and does not purport to being any part of the statutory publicity process. 5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposal relates to the erection of a distinctive, contemporary landmark building at a strategic gateway junction to the town centre. The building will comprise retail units at the ground floor fronting the Bus Station and Avenue de Clichy, with a cinema and (as yet unspecified D2) leisure use above. Four of the retail units (Units 1, 3, 4 and 5) will front and overlook the Central Bus Station and will be set around a pedestrianised arcade which will form a physical continuation of Newmarket Walk. The fifth retail unit (2) will overlook Avenue de Clichy.
Page 21 The breakdown of the retail units by floor size and proposed uses is set out below: Unit 1 (A3) 419 sq. metres. Unit 3 (A3) 184 sq. metres Unit 4 (A1 and A3) 334 sq. metres Unit 5 (A1) – 556 sq. metres Unit 2 (A3) – 693 sq. metres (A1 Uses refer to shops for the retail sale of goods; A3 Uses refer to the sale of food and/or drink for consumption on the premises or of hot food for consumption off the premises). At first floor the cinema section will be the dominant use comprising an 8 screen cinema ((1140 seats). Also at first floor level it is proposed to provide an additional leisure facility (D2) at Unit 6. At the time of writing, no specific indication has been given as to the precise use or user for Unit 6. Unit 6 will be accessed from the ground floor via a separate access at the southern end of the proposed building. Retail units 1, 3, 4 and 5 will be accessed at adjoining pavement level via the arcade alongside the Bus Station. Unit 2, which overlooks Avenue de Clichy and the river beyond, will be accessed via the foyer entrance at the northeast corner of the building which will also provide access to the cinema. At this point there will be access to the first floor cinema both by escalator and by lift. The proposed building will occupy the greater part of the greenfield site described at Section 1 above, with the building line tight to the back edge of highways at Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy. The building will be splayed by means of a gentle curve at the junction of Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy. To accommodate the building the remaining vacant portion of the former Tesco unit will be demolished, leaving a 4 metre wide gap between the southern end of the proposed building and the northern end of the remaining existing unit (“Poundland”). The gap will be maintained to accommodate a possible future footbridge is designed to span Avenue de Clichy and River Taff and will connect the College car park with Newmarket Walk. Committee will note the footbridge does not form part of the current planning application proposals. The footprint of the proposed building is designed to provide the opportunity to widen the southern radius and verge of Castle Street at its junction with Avenue de Clichy, in order to allow for two full width
Page 22 lanes in place of the 1.5 lane widths currently in situ. This will facilitate traffic flows considerably. The applicants’ agents, in a letter accompanying the planning application, stated: “… that, subject to a satisfactory consent being granted, Diageo Pension Trust will donate land and fund the reasonable costs of widening Castle Street to two lanes…” This would also afford the opportunity for revising the traffic lights and pedestrian crossing at the lower end of Castle Street and of upgrading the footway fronting the application site at Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy to a uniform width of 2 metres. The development will be accessed for service delivery and operational parking via the existing service road running parallel to Avenue de Clichy, the access point of which is at Swan Street. The overall height of the building and the impression of its mass and scale will vary as viewed from adjoining pavement level. This is partly due to the stepped parapet rooflines, the need to provide a level internal floor for the retail units and the need to take account of the varying existing site profile. Thus, for example, at the northeast side of the building alongside the Central Bus Station footway, the average height of the building will measure 16 metres, whereas from the south, as measured alongside the gap to accommodate the future footbridge, it is approaching 17.5 metres, whilst at the junction of the Avenue de Clichy and Castle Street it measures 18 metres. Internally, the finished floor levels to the four retail units alongside the Central Bus Station (1, 3, 4 and 5) will rise by approximately 0.5 metres from south to north. Therefore at its most accentuated, the difference in level between the internal floor level of the building and the nearest unit (2), as measured from the adjacent footway at the junction of Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy will be approximately 1.7 metres. As stated at Section 3 above the applicants’ architects have produced a Design Statement in addition to other architectural details. This Statement, along with other elements of the scheme were evolved and revised since initial submission of the planning application and discussions with the Design Commission and Council officers. The stated “Vision” of the Design Statement is as follows: “The design vision is for the creation of a distinctive new building which signals one of the major arrival points into the town of Merthyr Tydfil. The building is seeking to acknowledge the important role the building will play in linking together the existing Civic Centre with the town and anticipates the future development of the Bus Station. The form of the building will be undeniably contemporary, however with careful selection of materials and massing is intended to enhance the existing context.
Page 23 One of the key aims of the proposed development is to extend the trading day of Merthyr Tydfil town centre. Currently the centre begins to empty around 3 p.m. because there is little in the way of entertainment or evening economy to encourage customers to stay longer. The proposed cinema and retail units will complement the town centre with a wider range of uses that will be active throughout the day and evening. By introducing a vibrant mix of A3 leisure and retail uses in a purpose designed development it is intended that the attractiveness of Merthyr as a destination will be enhanced.” The architects state the following key site influences have informed the design solution now before Committee: recognition of the site and its prominent gateway location; relationship to the existing Civic Centre and Law Courts; potential for addressing the southern/river elevation; proposed future development of the Bus Station and retention of key views to the Civic offices from Avenue de Clichy. The proposed building is intended to function as a stand alone development for the short term, whilst ultimately fronting onto the new pedestrian area which will run between the proposed building and the Central Bus Station, as revamped. Access to the first floor cinema will be via a two storey entrance atrium accessed from a key position adjacent to Castle Street. This atrium will form a dynamic arrival space to the building and will act as a draw for the public past both new and existing commercial frontages. The distinctive external design is a product of various elements, the following two in particular: • The large curved screen walls, interspersed with brick piers and lightweight filling panels running the length of the western and eastern first floor walls overlooking the Avenue de Clichy and the Central Bus Station; • The distinctive lozenge shaped glazed entrance atrium at the north east and south east elevations, with cantilevered canopies connecting with the arcade on the eastern elevation alongside the Central Bus Station. It is also considered that the choice of materials has been judicious in providing light and interest to the majority of the external walls of the building. They include: face brickwork; cladding and glazing; flat and curved metal cladding; curtain walling; brise solei (an arrangement of horizontal or vertical fins in window openings); glazed shop fronts; folding glass screen; glazed balustrade to terrace to Unit 2, overlooking river; metal grillage and mesh open or as cladding; translucent cladding and glazed canopy. 6.0 CONSULTATIONS AND RESPONSES
Page 24 The following were consulted in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 of the above Procedure Order and Annexe B of Circular 29/95. Each consultee was re consulted with regard to the amended plans indicated at Section 3 above. 6.1 Internal Consultees 6.1.1 Head of Engineering – no objection, but advised on the imposition of specific planning conditions. (The Head of Engineering’s comments, particularly with regard to consideration of the capacity of and demand for town centre car parking as expressed in the applicants’ “Town Centre Parking Provision Assessment” are further referred to at Section 8 below). 6.1.2 Head of Environmental Health – advised on the imposition of conditions to adequately address potentially contaminated land within the application site in accordance with the Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy. 6.1.3 Head of Estates – This officer’s comments are quoted verbatim below. “I welcome a proposal to bring forward this vacant site, but am disappointed that this is not a retail use as was originally envisaged in discussion with the applicants’ agents when consideration was being given to the Masterplan for this locality. As you will be aware consent for a number of similar aspects of the proposal, in particular the multi screen cinema, has already been granted consent at Rhydycar. This site has been specifically allocated in the existing Development Plan and represents a significant part of the Council’s Strategic Plan for delivery of its vision. In this context Rhydycar is aimed at creating a destination location with Community and Commercial Leisure, sitting together to provide a critical mass which in my view has added benefits to these uses being dispersed throughout the County Borough. The commercial reality is that there is likely to be only enough demand for one cinema operator within the County Borough and should this not be Rhydycar, then it is likely that the Commercial Leisure development will fail and the Community Leisure will become more difficult to deliver. In these circumstances, because of the conflict with the Council’s strategic aims and objectives, I object to the proposals put forward by Diageo on the above site.” 6.1.4 Planning Division Group Leader and Planning Officer (Policy & Implementation). This officer assessed the application proposals against the Planning Policies and Guidance Notes set out at Section 7.
Page 25 His overall assessment of the respective elements of the submitted proposals accords with those of the case officer, my Head of Planning. 6.1.5 Planning Division Design Officer. This officer along with the Head of Planning has been actively engaged in negotiations with the developers and their architects since submission of the application and receipt of the comments of the Design Commission for Wales. The design changes and ultimate scheme now before Committee are considered at Section 8 below. 6.1.6 Planning Division Landscape Officer. The Landscape Officer has put forward several suggestions and recommendations which should be included in any landscaping scheme submitted as a result of a planning condition if consent is granted. They involve both hard and soft landscaping options. 6.1.7 Planning Division Countryside Officer. The Countryside Officer has considered and accepted the findings of the “Updated Bat and Nesting Birds Assessment” referred to at Section 3 above and has made specific recommendations also in relation to landscaping requirements, in conjunction with the Planning Division Landscape Officer. 6.1.8 Regeneration Manager. The Regeneration Manager offered specific and detailed comments based upon national and local planning policies. In his conclusion the Regeneration Manager stated: “… it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to Policy R4 of the adopted Merthyr Tydfil Local Plan. It is also contrary to national planning policy, in that it fails to address the particular requirement in the context of the current proposals for the development of Rhydycar Leisure Centre, or the need for the proposed development. In addition, the development of a cinema complex as a key component in the development of the Glebeland site represents a significant material planning consideration in the determination of this planning application. It is considered that this aspect of the development will seriously undermine the development of a major leisure/tourism facility at Rhydycar to serve the needs of the County Borough and the wider region. As such, this will impact directly on the Council’s ability to deliver its overall vision, as set out in its Improvement Plan and the key aims and objectives contained within the Wales Spatial Plan and the Heads of the Valleys Strategy for the regeneration of the Heads of the Valleys region. On the basis of the above considerations, I would therefore object to the current planning application, as proposed.” In a subsequent response on 23 rd June the Regeneration Manager offered the following further comments:
Page 26 “I refer to my memo to you on 20 th June last in which I forwarded the observations of the Regeneration Team in relation to the above proposed development. I would be grateful if you could note the following addition to the earlier comments made, in order to clarify the planning status of the Rhydycar Leisure Centre. It is now understood that the recent submission of an outline planning application at Rhydycar Leisure Centre (Application 060242) is a revision to that previously approved. Accordingly I would be grateful if you could insert the following amended text to the fourth and fifth sentences in paragraph 5, Section 4 Planning Assessment: “The Council has recently selected a preferred developer for the project for which there is an extant outline planning permission for the proposed development. Of particular relevance to the approved application is the proposal to include a cinema within the Council’s proposals for the Rhydycar Leisure Centre.” As stated at Section 6.0. all parties were re consulted with regard to the amended proposals as described at Sec. 3.0. On 4 th September 2006 the Regeneration Manager reiterated his objections, for the reasons offered above. Furthermore, on 7 th September the Council’s Economic Development & European Affairs Officer relayed the concerns expressed by Powell Dobson (Architects), the company engaged to prepare the Bus Station Masterplan (Sec. 7.0 refers). In essence, Powell Dobson consider “… the site will be seriously compromised by” [this planning application]. “The opportunity for a strong pedestrian link across to the Civic Square will be lost as their building extends much further up Castle Street. The Quarter we suggest will also be lost as their יpotential for the Caf scheme fronts right up to the existing Bus shelters. This will limit the opportunities for a new Bus Terminal Facilities Building.” These comments are addressed at Sections 8 and 9. 6.2 External Consultees 6.2.1 Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments) – Cadw is the Assembly’s Executive Agency with regard to Welsh historic monuments and has responsibility for protecting, conserving and promoting an appreciation of the historic environment of Wales. For this reason, the following comments were offered without prejudice to the Welsh Assembly Government’s consideration of the matter should it come before it formally for determination.
Page 27 Cadw noted that the proposal lies within an area included in the Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales. However, Cadw also noted that as the development affects an area to the west of the High Street which has already been subject to redevelopment, the underlying historic pattern of land use has already been lost. Further, development in this area will therefore be limited in the extent of its impact on the historic character of the town and for that reason a full ASIDOHL Assessment would not be needed. However Cadw suggested that in determining this application, its potential indirect impact, by virtue of its size, scale and detail on the adjacent historic core of the town should be taken into account. 6.2.2 Design Commission for Wales Government Guidance encourages the submission of schemes to the Design Commission for the consideration of the Design Review Panel. Accordingly the developers placed the scheme before the Panel for consideration on 3 rd May 2006. The Panel welcomed the opportunity to comment upon the proposals, noted the absence of representation by the Local Authority, and encouraged the Local Authority to commit itself to carry through public realm improvements in and around the bus station. Therefore: “… Within these constraints, we consider the proposal to be an acceptable response to the site and the brief but we feel substantial revisions are necessary …” Committee will note that, during the planning application process the points raised by the Panel were substantially addressed and are considered at Section 8 below. 6.2.3 Environment Agency The Environment Agency was consulted with regard to the Flood Study and the Flooding Consequences Assessment (Issue 1) referred to at Section 3 above. The Agency requested further technical information. This resulted in a revised Flooding Consequences Assessment (Issue 2) which combines the information of both the previous documents referred to at Section 3 above and the additional technical information required by the Environment Agency in its letter dated 25 th April 2006. It also gave consideration to potential flooding of the application site from the Nant Morlais watercourse which is largely culverted over its length and discharges to the River Taff north of the application site. The revised Flooding Consequences Assessment concludes (at Section 7) as follows:
Page 28 “This Flooding Consequences Assessment has identified possible flooding sources, routes, consequences and mitigation, which are considered relevant to the current proposals. Under extreme flooding, only the basement servicing area is potentially affected. With the provision of adequate flood warning procedures, flood risk can be effectively managed. The proposed development complies with criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the justification for the locations of the development as set out in Section 6 of TAN 15”. [Section 7.3.4 refers]. “The proposed development also complies with criteria for assessing flooding consequences a set out in Appendix 1 of TAN 15. The Flooding Consequences Assessment concludes that, with an adequate flood warning procedure in place, the risks of flooding from an extreme event are effectively managed. The provision of a small flood barrier would provide protection not only to this proposed development, but also the existing servicing areas of the adjacent retail development, which benefits this area of Merthyr Town Centre. Any loss of flood storage would be small, given the primary overland flow route identified [in the FCA] flows. Flows would be directed to the channel downstream of the weir, where channel capacities are much greater. There is no significant increase risk of flooding elsewhere.” It is understood that the Environment Agency would concur with the conclusions of the Assessment. However, at the time of writing this report, the official response of the Environment Agency’s Planning Liaison Officer will not be forthcoming for several days. This position is acknowledged and taken into account in the recommendation set out at Section 9. 6.2.4 Fire Service – offered no objection but offered comments which should be brought to the attention of the Committee/applicant with regard to the provision of adequate water supplies on the site for fire fighting purposes and access for emergency fire fighting appliances. 6.2.5 Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd (GGAT) is one of four Welsh Archaeological Trusts charged with maintaining records of sites and monuments and with mitigating adverse development impacts on archaeological remains as well as providing archaeological advice to local planning authorities. GGAT concluded that it is unlikely there are any archaeological features located inside the current application site. It concluded the proposed development would appear to be consistent with the historic character of the area as defined by the Historic Landscape Characterisation Study (Character Area 001) (HLCA). 6.2.6 Merthyr Tydfil Chamber of Trade – the Secretary, in a letter dated 13 th June 2006 stated: “Overall, the Chamber of Trade would fully support
Page 29 the development as outlined. However, there are the following concerns. i) Parking congestion especially at key retail peak times, particularly weekends, Bank holidays and school holidays. ii) We question the validity and independence of the parking survey as mentioned in the planning application. We understand the current proposal for such a facility at Rhydycar includes a duplex [sic] cinema. The Chamber’s support for the Diageo application would be seriously undermined if the Rhydycar proposal was amended in any way.” 6.2.7 Merthyr Tydfil Town Centre Partnership. The Chair of the Partnership, in a letter dated 21 st July 2006, commented “…In the light of the further information submitted by the applicant in support of the planning application the Partnership is of the view that, whilst it is supportive of the development of this site, it nonetheless raises serious concerns regarding the proposed cinema use, in view of the Council’s current proposals for a cinema complex as part of its proposals for the development of a major leisure facility at Rhydycar Leisure Centre.” Commenting upon the amended plans referred to at Section 3.0, the Chair of the Partnership expressed the following concerns, in writing, on 5 th September: 1. The relatively small retail element contained within the scheme compared with the overall floorspace; 2. The undefined nature of the D2 use at Unit 6; 3. Concern that the cinema/s, if approved, would not revert to an alternative non retail use in future. These issued are considered at Section 8. 6.2.8 South Wales Police The Police Licensing Officer offered the following comments: “…having looked at the above application in company with [the Crime Reduction Officer] we are both impressed with the proposed plans and think the development is going to enhance the town. We do, however, have a few concerns in relation to Unit 6 as this appears to be unspecified. As such this could well be used as a nightclub type venue, so I would need clarification on its use. Other concerns would be in relation to the use of safety glass on the lower floor and illumination on or around the premises. I would also like to think that the premises will be fitted with a quality CCTV system and that the use of the store net radio link is also installed.”
Page 30 6.2.9 Wales & West Utilities – offered no objection to the proposals, but advised of the position of apparatus within or close to the application site and the requirements to protect the same. 6.2.10 Welsh Water – offered no objection but requested that, if the Council is minded to grant planning consent, specific conditions and advisory notes are included within any decision letter. 7.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND PLANNING GUIDANCE 7.1 The Adopted Development Plans The Council’s adopted development plans are intended to provide a firm basis for rational, consistent decisions in planning applications and planning appeals. Section 54A of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that where, in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard must be paid to the development plan and the determination shall be in accordance with that plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Conversely, applications which are not in accordance with relevant policies of the plan should not be allowed unless material planning considerations justify the grant of planning permission. For the purposes of Section 54A, there are two relevant adopted development plans against which to consider and assess the suitability or otherwise of the current planning application. 7.1.1 The Mid Glamorgan (Merthyr Tydfil County Borough) Replacement Structure Plan1991 2006 (adopted 10 th August 1996). Despite the date contained within its title, this document will retain its development plan status until superseded by Council’s Local Development Plan as and when that Plan is adopted. The adopted Structure Plan sets out the strategic context for retail (and other) policies, a prime aim of which is to retain and enhance the vitality and viability of major town centres, such as Merthyr Tydfil and to ensure it is not undermined by new retail development in inappropriate locations. The following Structure Plan policies are relevant. Retailing Policies Policy R.1 This policy acknowledges Merthyr Tydfil as a major sub regional retailing centre and a location where appropriate retail development should be preferred and encouraged.
Page 31 The retail proposals subject of this planning application are considered to accord with this overall policy. Policy R.2 This policy states: “Proposals for the development of all new retail floorspace in the Centre [indicated in R.1] will be permitted subject to the following: 1. The proposal by virtue of its scale is unlikely to undermine the vitality and viability of nearby shopping centres as a whole (including proposals for new floorspace within or adjacent to them which are essential to this); 2. The proposal is compatible with the existing physical character of the centre; 3. The proposal is compatible with transportation considerations, including parking, traffic generation and access.” Leisure Policies Policy L.1 This policy states: “Development proposals for the provision of leisure based facilities or accommodation … will be permitted subject to the following criteria: (relevant criteria only cited below) • Damage or disturbance to the environment can be reduced to acceptable levels; • The proposal does not conflict with transportation considerations, including parking, traffic generation and access; • Accessibility to public transport is considered appropriate for the nature of the proposal.” Policy L.3 This policy states: “Leisure based developments within settlement areas, or adjacent to them where no suitable alternative sites are available within the built up areas will be favoured.” Policy L.4 This policy states: “Development which satisfies the needs for local leisure facilities for all sections of the community will be favoured. Priority for the provision of major local leisure facilities will take into consideration the level of unsatisfied demand for those facilities.” Transportation Policies Policy T.9 This policy states: “Development will be favoured which can be demonstrated to reduce … or increase the range of opportunities for the use of public transport, where this is compatible with the conservation of the environment.” 7.1.2 The Merthyr Tydfil Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2006 (adopted May 1999)
Page 32 As with the adopted Structure Plan, notwithstanding the relevant date indicated in the plan title above, this development plan will remain extant until/unless Council’s Local Development Plan has been adopted. Committee will note the application site lies within both the settlement limits and the town centre boundary, as defined on the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map. Retail and Commercial Policies The site carries a specific allocation for retail development which is supported by Para 14.29 of the Local Plan which states: “St Tydfil’s [site R2]. An extension of the existing St Tydfil’s Precinct is physically possible to the north of the existing precinct. Optional planning consents have already been granted …” (Section 2 above refers to these planning applications, one of which included redevelopment of the Central Bus Station). The stated objectives of the “Retailing Chapter” in the Local Plan are: • “To ensure that the vitality and viability of Merthyr Tydfil Town Centre is not undermined by new retail development in other locations; • to take a positive sequential approach to retail development in accord with Planning Guidance (Wales); • to ensure that the existing support for the improvement of the environment of retail and commercial areas is continued; • to aim to retain retail spending power in the Borough and avoid permeation to other centres, principally Cardiff; • to aim to arrive at a sustainable retail hierarchy.” The following Local Plan Policies apply. Policy RC1 . Policy RC1 states the criteria against which proposals for new retail floorspace in the town centre will be judged. They include: “1. The proposals have regard to the sequential approach to retail development referred to in Planning Guidance Wales; 2. The proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of Merthyr Town Centre and nearby town centres, taking into account the cumulative effect of other retail developments; 3. The development would not utilise industrial nor business sites from the identified industrial land bank as outlined in Policies EB1 and EB2 ; 4. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the immediate neighbourhood;
Page 33 5. The proposal would not conflict with transportation considerations including parking, traffic generation, access and accessibility to public transport; 6. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the character, amenity and landscape quality of the area including the need to retain features of water, wildlife, nature conservation interests and historical interests identified during the assessment and design of the scheme; 7. The proposal does not have an unacceptable impact on the rights of way network and other forms of public access to the countryside; 8. The proposal has regard to the provisions of Policy NH7 regarding the water environment.” Policy RC4 . This policy refers to development proposals which are already allocated for town centre and edge of centre retail sites and floorspace at various locations within the town, including St Tydfil’s Square, the Station Yard site (now Tesco) and College Car Park. This policy states: “Detailed development proposals for the above [site R.4] and any additional new retail floor space in the town centre will be permitted subject to consideration against the following criteria: 1. The proposal does not have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the centre and its immediate environs. 2. The proposal would not conflict with transportation considerations including parking, traffic generation, access and accessibility to public transport. 3. The proposal has regard to the provisions of Policy NH7 regarding the water environment. 4. The proposals for edge of town centre locations will need to demonstrate that sites are not available or suitable in the town centre and will be subject to the above criteria for permission to be granted.” Para 14.23 of the “Retailing” Chapter of the Local Plan advises as follows: “The current government policy is referred to above in the policy context. In addition, an attempt has to be made to co ordinate land use and transport planning in ways which meet the United Kingdom’s sustainable development strategy as set out below. • Local planning authorities should adopt co ordinated policies to shape the precise location of development in order to minimise the need for motorised travel. It advises that shops, offices and entertainment facilities should be located so that one journey can serve several purposes. • Local planning authorities should seek to revitalise traditional urban centres improving their attractiveness as places to live,
Page 34 work, shop and be entertained as a means of maintaining their vitality and viability.” At Para 14.2.4 it states: “In overall terms the government is now questioning not only the appropriateness of allowing out of town developments but also using the sustainability argument to reinforce the point that developing town centres is the best means of meeting the aims of a sustainable future. In practice it means leaving bulk non food retailers as out of town locations, whilst developing the full potential of the town centre for a traditional range of shopping, cultural and entertainment facilities …” Policy RC5 . This policy states the criteria against which the following uses will be judged: 1. Leisure and entertainment uses which are normally associated with retail and commercial activities in the town centre; 2. Cinema, theatre, assembly hall complexes and ten pin bowling hall; 3. Food and drink facilities. The policy states the above facilities will be permitted subject to consideration against the following criteria: “1. The proposal is located within settlement boundaries as delineated on the Local Plan Proposals Map; 2. Where feasible the proposal should use or re use redundant land or suitable vacant buildings in the own centre as defined on the Local Plan proposals Map or in edge of centre locations; 3. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the immediate neighbourhood; 4. The proposal does not have an unacceptable impact on the character, amenity and landscape quality of the area; 5. The siting of the development is acceptable having regard to dust, odour and noise emissions; 6. The proposal would not conflict with transportation considerations including parking, traffic generation, access and accessibility to public transport; 7. The proposal has regard to the provision of Policy NH7 regarding the water environment.” Para 14.38 of the Local Plan “Retailing” Chapter expands as follows:
Page 35 “Although this is a general policy relating to guidance on the above uses it is likely that such uses will be predominantly located within the main settlement of Merthyr Tydfil and, more particularly, within or on the edge of the Merthyr Tydfil Town Centre. The Town Centre is Merthyr Tydfil’s principal leisure and entertainment asset. The Council is strongly committed to the strengthening of the town centre’s role in the sub region. At present the town centre leisure and entertainment facilities are used by primarily younger age groups from the Heads of the Valleys sub region. There is scope to reinforce the town centre’s role by developing an evening cultural and entertainment economy, together with a full mixture of activities and services within a quality setting. The Town Centre has the opportunity to expand and create additional leisure and entertainment employment. An expansionist role is in accord with the latest government guidelines on town centres, sustainability and a new approach to transportation matters.” Natural Heritage Policies Policy NH6 . This policy states “Development proposals affecting areas of tree preservation and ancient and environmentally important woodlands will only be permitted where: 1. The merits of the development clearly outweigh the value of protecting the trees from new developments; 2. The proposal does not have an unacceptable impact on the character, amenity and landscape quality of the area; 3. If proposals for the future maintenance and management of trees are involved, the submission should include a comprehensive report by persons suitably qualified.” Policy NH7 . This policy sets out a series of criteria against which to assess applications in terms of their effect on the water environment. It states “Development proposals which affect the water environment will be permitted where: 1. It can be clearly demonstrated that adequate water, sewerage treatment and land drainage services are available or can readily and economically be provided to serve the development without detriment of the environment. 2. The development will not have an adverse impact upon the quality and quantity of ground water resources, surface waters, other water bodies or the flora and fauna dependent upon such water features. 3. The development will not result in an increased risk of flooding due to additional surface water run off.
Page 36 4. If the development involves areas of land liable to fluvial flood risk, adequate mitigation works can be undertaken to reduce the risk of flooding both of the proposed site and elsewhere, prior to any development proceeding.”
7.2 National Planning Policy 7.2.1 National Planning Policy as set out by the Welsh Assembly Government is embodied in the document “Planning Policy Wales” (March 2002). The purpose of Planning Policy Wales is to set the context for sustainable land use planning policy within which local planning authorities prepare their development plans and take decisions on individual planning applications. It sets out the land use planning policies of the Welsh Assembly Government. The policies, as set out in Planning Policy Wales, are supplemented by a series of Technical Advice Notes (TANs) some of which are referred to below. The relevant policies of PPW are as follows. Section 2.7.2 indicates a preference for the re-use of land . It states: “Previously developed (or brownfield land) should, wherever possible, be used in preference to greenfield sites …”. Planning Policy Wales advocates the promotion of sustainability through good design . “Good design can protect the environment and enhance its quality, help attract business and investment, promote social inclusion and improve the quality of life. Good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere. This applies to all development proposals, at all scales, from the construction or alteration of individual buildings to larger development proposals.” (Para 2.9.1) “The design process should promote the efficient use of resources including the land. It should seek to maximise energy efficiency and minimise the use of non renewable resources and the generation of waste and pollution. Ways to achieve this include, for example, site selection and treatment.” (Para 2.9.2) “Mixed use development … emphasising flexibility and adaptability can provide particular design opportunities, adding interest and viability to living and working environments.” (Para 2.9.3) “The visual appearance of proposed development, its scale and its relationship to its surroundings are material planning considerations
Page 37 and local planning authorities should reject poor designs. External layout, access and setting all need to be considered.” (Para 2.9.9) As stated at Section 7.1 above, Planning Policy Wales requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development Plan. (Para 3.1.2) When determining a planning application for development which has transport implications, local planning authorities should take into account the following: • “the impact 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 …; • 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”. (Para 8.7.1) Section 13 of PPW provides advice on “ development control and flood risk ”. It advises that “Development proposals in areas defined as being of high flood hazard should only be considered: • Where new development could be justified in that location even though it is likely to be at risk from flooding; and • Where any development proposal would not result in the intensification of existing development which may itself be at risk or would increase potential adverse impacts of a flood event.” (Para 13.4.1) Section 13.5 advises that local planning authorities should guide development to lessen the risk from natural or human made hazards, including risk from land instability and contamination. (Paras 13.5 and 13.7 refer) 7.2.2 Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement “Planning for Retailing and Town Centres” (November 2005) The Retailing Chapter (10) of Planning Policy Wales was comprehensively overhauled last November with the introduction of this document. Therefore the Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement (MIPPS) supersedes and completely replaces Chapter 10 of PPW in its entirety. The following sections are relevant to consideration of the current planning application. The MIPPS advocates a sequential approach for the identification of new sites within development plans. “Local planning authorities should
Page 38 consider through their development plans whether new sites should be identified in town, district, local or village centres for retail development, leisure development or other uses best located in centres. Uses which need to be accessible to a large number of people, including retailing, major leisure uses (such as theatres, multi screen cinemas, bingo halls and bowling alleys), … are preferably to be located in town centres. …” (Para 10.2.9 refers) MIPPS then gives the following advice on development control and retailing in town centres. “When determining a planning application for retail, leisure or other uses best located in a town centre, … local planning authorities should take into account: • Compatibility with any community or update development plan strategy; • Consideration of the need for development/extension unless the proposal is for a site within a defined centre or one allocated in an up to date development plan; • The sequential approach to site selection; • The impact on existing centres; • If redevelopment is involved, whether it involves a net gain in floorspace and whether or not it is like for like in terms of comparison or convenience; • The rate of take up of allocations n any adopted development plan; • Accessibility by a variety of modes of travel; • Any improvements to public transport; • The impact on travel on overall travel patterns; and • The best use of land close to any transport hub in terms of density and mixed use.” (Para 10.3.1) “This approach reinforces the role of centres as the best location for most retail/leisure activities. Unlike locations outside existing centres, consideration for the need for additional provision is not a matter that should be taken into account when proposals for uses best located in centres come forward. It is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition between retailers within centres.” “To maximise the opportunities for new development in centres developers and retailers will need to be more flexible and innovative about the format, design and scale of proposed development and the amount of car parking, tailoring these to fit the local circumstances. Rather than propose developments with a mixture of large scale retail and/or leisure uses and a large amount of car parking which can only be accommodated at single out of centre or even out of town locations, developers are expected to demonstrate why they could not develop elements of the larger scheme on a site or a number of sites in more central locations with less car parking.” (Para 10.3.5)
Page 39 7.3 Planning Guidance Government planning guidance is contained in a series of relevant Technical Advice Notes issued by the Welsh Assembly Government (TANs). Those notes which are considered of relevance are referred to below. Technical Advice Notes should be read in conjunction with Planning Policy Wales. 7.3.1 TAN No. 4 (November 1996) – Retailing and Town Centres This TAN identifies town centres as including city, town and suburban district centres which provide a broad range of facilities and services and which fulfil a function as a focus both for the community and for public transport. Para 12 states: “In a town centre parking should, where possible, serve the centre as a whole rather than being provided for the exclusive use of a building occupier.” At Para !3 “In assessing the availability of paring in town centres, local planning authorities should consider the overall provision of on and off street public and private parking. …” Whilst pre dating the Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement referred to at 7.2 above, TAN 4 also posits the view that retail/mixed use development should be considered on a sequential basis, commencing with consideration of the town centre as the most appropriate location, then moving to edge and then out of town centre locations. 7.3.2 TAN 10 (Tree Preservation Orders) (October 1997) Paragraph 18 advises: “The effects of planning proposals on protected trees is a material planning consideration.” 7.3.3 TAN 12 Design (2002) “For the purpose of this advice, design is taken to mean the relationship between all elements of the built and natural environment…” (Para 2.1) “This advice is concerned equally with the way in which areas function and the connections between people and places as with aesthetic appearance. For this reason, design should also be taken to include the relationship of elements of the built and natural environment …” (Para 2.2) “Design should be considered in its broadest sense as a collaborative, creative, problem solving process embracing architecture, landscape, infrastructure and urban design that determines the quality of our
Page 40 environment and that can provide the basis for its sustainable future.” (Para 2.4) “Early consideration of design issues is essential and central to good planning.” (Para 3.4) “The visual appearance of the proposed development, its scale and its relationship to its surroundings are material considerations in determining planning applications and appeals.” (Para 4.5) “Planning Application Design Statements should be submitted with all planning applications for development which have design implications including applications for new or extended buildings and infrastructure and changes to landscape appearance. The Statement should explain: • The design principles and design concept; • How these are reflected in the development’s location, layout, density, scale, detailed design and landscape; and • How the design relates to its site and its wider context.” (Para 4.8) 7.3.4 Draft Revised Technical Advice Note 13 “Tourism” (Consultation Document July 2006) Para 3.13 states: “New tourism development in urban areas should be located and designed so as to ensure that it makes efficient use of land. Facilities which generate a high level of travel demand should be located within town centres or on other sites that are well related to town centres and accessible by a variety of sustainable modes of transport. Preference should be given to the development of brownfield land in the first instance in order to reduce the need to develop greenfield sites and contribute towards physical and community regeneration” . 7.3.5 TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004) This TAN advises “The susceptibility of land to flooding will be a material consideration in deciding a planning application. For proposals located in Zone C developers will need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the development can be justified in that location and that the consequences associated with flooding are acceptable … . The Environment Agency will assist planning authorities in coming to terms with their decision on whether the consequences of flooding are acceptable …” (11.1) “For Zone C an assessment in accordance with Appendix 1 should be submitted with the planning application.” (11.2) The application site is described as falling within the C2 Zone as “an area of the flood plain without significant flood defence infrastructure (Figure 1 of TAN 15 refers). Thus, the use within the precautionary framework as set out by TAN 15 is described as “…used to indicate
Page 41 that only less vulnerable development should be considered subject to application of justification test, including acceptability of consequences. Emergency services and highly vulnerable development should not be considered.” As stated at Section 3 above the applicants have submitted both a Flood Study and Flooding Consequences Assessment Report (Issues 1 and 2). They are considered at Section 8 below. 7.3.6 TAN 18 Transport (July 1998) This TAN advises, amongst other things, on the development control procedures and consultation measures with the highway authority which need to be undertaken when considering planning applications. TAN (Draft Revised) No. 18 – Transport (Consultation July 2006) Para 5 states: “Integration of land use planning and development of transport infrastructure has a key role to play in addressing the environmental aspects of sustainable development, in particular climate change and the outcomes identified in the Assembly Government’s environment Strategy 3 . Integration can help the Assembly Government achieve these environmental outcomes together with its wider sustainable development policy objectives by: • promoting resource and travel efficient settlement patterns; • ensuring new development is located where there is or will be good access by • public transport, walking and cycling thereby minimising the demand for travel and fostering social inclusion; • ensuring that new development and major alterations to existing developments include appropriate pedestrian, cycling, public transport, and traffic management provision; • encouraging the location of development near other related uses to encourage multi purpose trips; • promoting cycling and walking; • supporting the provision of high quality public transport; • promoting the location of industrial developments to facilitate the use of rail transport for freight; • encouraging traffic management measures in urban and rural areas; and • ensuring that transport infrastructure or service improvements necessary to serve new development allow existing transport networks to continue to perform their identified functions.” 7.4 Other Relevant Guidance 7.4.1 “The Standing Conference on Regional Policy in South Wales Parking Guidelines (1993)”.
Page 42 These Guidelines require servicing and operational parking in central area locations. (Operational parking space is defined as “…sufficient space to allow the maximum number and size of vehicles likely to serve the development at any one time and to manoeuvre with ease and stand for loading and unloading without inconvenience to vehicles and pedestrians on the public highway or to other users of the site.) ” (Para 3.1 refers). However the Guidelines acknowledge that within central area locations, non operational parking will be provided in public car parks or in limited waiting on street areas. 7.4.2 Welsh Office Circular 35/95 “The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions”. This Circular outlines the grounds on which conditions may justifiably be imposed on planning permissions. 7.4.3 Welsh Office Circular 13/97 “Planning Obligations”. This Circular sets out the policy for the appropriate use of planning obligations. Government guidance is explicit in that any agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act should be used only to mitigate the adverse effect of development proposals. Where it is not possible to demonstrate any adverse effect on development proposals, then this procedural vehicle is not appropriate. 7.5 Other Related Plans, Strategies and Relevant Documents. The following were considered in the overall assessment of this planning application. 7.5.1 The Wales Spatial Plan (People, Places, Futures)(November 2004) The Wales Spatial Plan which was published by the Welsh Assembly Government in November 2004 sets the spatial planning future for Wales over the next 20 years. It is the first all Wales spatial plan. Whilst the Wales Spatial Plan is not itself a land use plan (as for example the Structure and Local Plans are) the Welsh Assembly Government acknowledges that it “…will be a material consideration for local planning authorities in developing their plans and making planning decisions. In future, Local Development Plans will need to have regard to the Wales Spatial Plan.” Amongst other things the WSP gives the highest priority to tackling high and multiple levels of deprivation (poverty, worklessness) and the population.
Page 43 A strategic element of the plan identifies the need: “…To work with our partners to develop an ambitious programme of regeneration action along the Heads of the Valleys corridor which will complement the planned upgrading of the A465. The aim of this will be to improve quality of life, retain and attract residents and increase the prosperity of the whole are, focussing initially unlocking the potential of Merthyr Tydfil and Ebbw Vale.” Also: “…The Heads of the Valley corridor will be strengthened as an attractive location for people to live and for development to help secure more balanced prosperity across the area. Merthyr Tydfil and Ebbw Vale are the key centres on the corridor. They provide the population size and strategic development opportunities necessary for sustained economic development, retailing, housing and service provision (including higher order health and education provision). These centres should act as a catalyst for the regeneration of the upper valleys helping to retain and attract a socially mixed population.” The WSP identifies Merthyr Tydfil as a development led economic driver for the upper valleys regeneration. 7.5.2 “Turning Heads: A Strategy for the Heads of the Valleys” 2020 (June 2006) This strategy follows from the consultation strategic policy document titled “Heads – We Win” (A Strategic Framework for the Heads of the Valleys) (March 2005) which in turn is set within the context of the Wales Spatial Plan. The Strategy contains the following theme and strategic programme: • An appealing and coherent Tourism and Leisure experience; and • Linked local and regional attractions and facilities. It states: “… some large regional scale projects, such as a Valleys regional park, will be promoted. In parallel, we will encourage the development of an integrated support network of cultural, heritage, leisure, retail and tourist facilities, within (or linked to) town centres, including places to eat and stay and provision for business tourism.” 7.5.3 “The Big Heart of Merthyr Tydfil” (A Town Centre Strategic Framework and Action Plan)(2002) This document acknowledges the town centre as an important economic environmental and social asset. The foundation of attractions of the town centre are to be found in the range and quality of its shops and services which now have to compete not only with larger cities for comparison shopping but also edge of and out of town centres which offer free parking and extended shopping hours.
Page 44 Of the five strategic issues which have been identified in this key document, the following is of relevance. “…Extending the retail offer of the town centre should offer a full range of shops and services appropriate to its size and role.” 7.5.4 “The Western Corridor Masterplan” (February 2004) This non statutory Masterplan, undertaken by planning consultants Barton Wilmore on behalf of the WDA and this Council sought to indicate suitable potential uses long the corridor defined by the A470 on the west and the River Taff on the east, from Rhydycar intersection of the A470 to a point north of Pontycafnau. The Masterplan did not specify any particular use on the application site, which lies on the eastern extremity of the study area. 7.5.5 The Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council Improvement Plan (2003 – 2006) The Council’s Vision as set out in the plan states: “By 2010 Merthyr Tydfil will be a safe, healthy and exciting place to live and visit. Our ambition is to be a sustainable, confident County Borough which recognises and promotes equality of opportunity and where people want to achieve in all aspects of their lives, through work, leisure and learning. Our Vision is to be recognized as a vibrant, thriving regional centre for the valleys.” One of the strategic aims of the Vision is: “Leisure – developing a wide range of flagships, sporting and cultural facilities which reflect the diverse needs and expectations of our community.” 7.5.6 Merthyr Tydfil Town Centre Partnership – Bus Station and Glebeland Street Strategy and Implementation Plan (Final Draft Proposals March 2006)(Powell Dobson Architects) This document is a product of discussions since early 2005 between this Council, its nominated architects and relevant stakeholders. It represents a development concept for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Central Bus Station and environs, including the current application site. An integral element of the Masterplan, (which at the time of writing this report is in draft form) is the creation of an enhanced pedestrian route linking the public realm buildings (Civic Centre and Law Courts) to the north with the St Tydfil’s Shopping Precinct to the south. This draft document has, as yet, no formal planning status, but deserves close consideration as part of the current planning assessment. The plan was commissioned by this Council in July 2003 and the work subsequently undertaken by Powell Dobson (Architects)
Page 45 in conjunction with Council officers. It provides a framework for the redevelopment of the Central Bus Station Site and adjoining areas, including the current application site. The plan acknowledges the multiplicity of ownerships within that plan study area. The plan recommends a mix of land uses, including residential uses, as well as the retail use recommended on the adopted Local Plan. The plan acknowledges the application site and the Central Bus Station as “townscape voids” in need of development and upgrading if the retail offer within the town is to be uplifted. Whilst the proposed uses and building footprint of the Diageo proposal do not entirely accord with the Bus Station Masterplan, it will be noted that the submitted proposal fulfils the following requirements of the plan’s Vision: it provides retail A1 and A3 uses, as envisaged in the Masterplan; it allows for (though it does not provide) a physical (footbridge) link between the Bus Station/Victoria Street/Newmarket Walk and the College campus across the river; the form of the proposed building will reinstate the street edge along Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy, as recommended in the Masterplan. 7.5.7 The River Corridor Environment Enhancement Scheme One of the proposals of this enhancement scheme aims to re orientate the shopping centre towards the river front and to undertake environmental improvements of the Taff Trail, as well as enclosing undeveloped sections of the river corridor with new tree planting, including boulevard planting along the western verge of the Avenue de Clichy. 8.0 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 Material planning considerations are not defined in planning law, but government advice suggests that: • material considerations could include current circumstances, policies of the Local Planning Authority, national policies; and • factors to be taken into account in making planning decisions must be genuine planning matters, i.e. they must be relevant to the regulation of the development and use of land in the public interest towards the goal of sustainability. Material planning considerations must fairly and reasonably relate to the development concerned. Set out below are those issues considered material to the assessment of the current planning application. They are not necessarily cited in any order of importance but are set out in alphabetical order by topic heading.
Page 46 8.2 Access/Accessibility The site, due to its town centre location alongside the Bus Station, is easily accessed by foot, by car, by bus and by rail. The developers have indicated and will be obliged, by Building Regulations, to ensure appropriate access arrangements are made for the less able. 8.3 Design As stated at Section 7 above planning policy and guidance considers that the design of any building, particularly a landmark building upon a gateway site, is an important planning consideration. The design as originally submitted was considered to be, with certain reservations, generally acceptable. However, between the submission of the planning application and the time of writing this report, the three dimensional design of the building has been refined and further improved in order to take into account the specific views of the Design Officer, the Head of Planning and the comments from the Design Commission as a result of their Panel Meeting on 12 th May 2006. The scheme now before Committee is therefore a product of several meetings with the aim of continuous improvement. An assessment of the three dimensional impact of the proposal, if built, has been greatly enhanced by the submission of a series of photo montages upon which the proposal has been projected in relation to existing photographs viewed from key focal points, including the Avenue de Clichy (north and south), Castle Street looking west, college car park looking east, together with a series of aerial projections. The key revisions to the originally submitted scheme now incorporated in the scheme for consideration by Committee are as follows: i) reduction in overall height of the building; ii) reduction in height and mass of southern end of building by stepping roofline; iii) redesign of southern end of building with more attractive lozenge shaped glazed entrance; iv) reconfiguration of unit 2 to allow a more lively frontage in place of blank wall to the Avenue de Clichy and the provide views of river beyond; v) provision of canopy between colonnade and cinema entrance to protect pedestrians from the elements; vi) introduction of translucent cladding panels on river facing elevation and other improvements to external finishes. No adverse comments have been received from consultees nor other third parties regarding the three dimensional design of the proposed structure and its contextual setting.
Page 47 The Planning Division’s Design Officer is satisfied that the urban design issued raised have now been addressed. 8.4 Flood Risk As stated at Section 3 above an essential part of the planning application details included a Flood Study and a Flooding Consequences Assessment (Issue 1) as required both by TAN 15 and by the Environment Agency. The Flooding Consequences Assessment was revised, updated and presented to the Environment agency and this Council in August (Issue 2). The Environment Agency has been fully consulted during this planning application process. The Agency have accepted the conclusions of the Study, namely that with an adequate flood warning procedure in place the risks of flooding from an extreme event are effectively managed. Furthermore, the provision of a small flood barrier would provide protection not only to the proposed development but also the existing servicing areas of the adjacent retail development. 8.5 Impact of the Proposed Development Upon the Bus Station Masterplan The Bus Station Masterplan must be taken into account as a material planning consideration which should be accorded appropriate weight. It is a product of close collaboration between the architects, Powell Dobson Associates and officers of this Council. The Masterplan aims to redevelop the Bus Station and surrounding area for the reasons set out at Section 7 above. As the application site of the current proposal lies within the Masterplan area, then by definition it will physically impinge upon any such redevelopment proposals. The application site of the current proposal is of course entirely within the applicants’ ownership. As stated above, the Bus Station Masterplan has no official planning status as yet and, at the time of writing, it is uncertain precisely how the scheme would be funded or implemented and within which time frame. The Council’s Economic Development and European Officer expressed concern that the proposal subject to the current planning application could compromise the Masterplan, including the opportunity to create a strong pedestrian link between the Civic buildings to the north and the Town Centre to the south, alongside the revamped Bus Station, as well .Quarter יas affecting the ability of the Masterplan to deliver a Caf The Head of Planning’s response to this officer’s concern is set out below. Firstly, the Diageo proposal provides the opportunity to create a strong pedestrian link across Castle Street to connect Civic buildings to the
Page 48 north and town centre to the south can be retained, albeit in a modified form. If the Castle Street crossing was co ordinated in line with the covered entrance space and arcade along the eastern side of the proposed Diageo building, then the opportunity would exist to provide a pedestrian route between the Civic Square and St Tydfil’s Shopping Precinct. Furthermore the arcaded walk past the proposed building would offer protection from inclement weather. The anticipated increase in pedestrian flow would provide passive surveillance of the Bus Station and should create extra demand for bus services. .Quarter יSecondly the potential remains for the creation of a Caf Indeed the Diageo proposals, as described at Section 5, may be viewed as an integral and initial part of the realization of this ambition with the provision of A1 and A3 frontages in close proximity to the Bus Station. Thirdly the location of the cinema entrance at the Castle street end of the Diageo site will act as a significant generator of footfall across this retail area/יspace which would assist in the creation of a vibrant Caf generally. Fourthly given that finance is immediately available for the Diageo scheme, if the development is allowed, it would represent the initial phase of redevelopment of the western side of the Bus Station Masterplan Study Area. 8.6 Land Uses As stated at Section 7 above, the retail element of the proposals comply with the provisions of the Structure Plan and are specifically allocated on the Local Plan Proposals Map. During processing of this planning application the Head of Planning expressed the view of the applicants that the proposed retail uses appear to be primarily given over to A3 (Food and Drink) uses which would include restaurants, pubs, snack bars, cafes, wine bars and shops for the sale of hot food. As a consequence the applicants agreed to dedicate Unit 5 to an exclusive A1 (Shop) use and Unit 4 to both an A1 and A3 use. This would in future allow the opportunity, should a suitable tenant come forward, to combine the two units in order to provide a single A1 unit of approximately 890 sq.m/10,000 sq. ft. This would be of a sufficiently large size to attract a small food store or similar operator. In responding to my Head of Planning’s concerns, the applicants’ agents wrote on two occasions, the second response of which stated, on 30 th August: “Our cinema and retail proposal is a result of careful research as to what demand there is for town centre uses in Merthyr. Demand for Use Class A1 units in Merthyr Tydfil is not strong. Our retail agents are
Page 49 in regular contact with the ‘household name’ operators and there is no demand for an ‘anchor’ department store in the town centre. As you know, two proposals for major retail development on our site gained planning consent in the mid 1990’s and were renewed such that they were implementable until 2003. However, these consents were never implemented. We also gained consent for the sub division of the former Tesco unit. The second phase of this sub division was never implemented again due to lack of tenant demand. Demand for retail units in the town centre has been affected by the success of the Cyfarthfa Retail Park. Many of the shops that could have opened up an ‘anchor’ store in the town centre are now located on the Retail Park. Therefore we have informed the Partnership that we cannot amend our application as they request. We consider that the proposed cinema and A1/A3 retail uses are most appropriately located within the town centre as borne out by Welsh Assembly and local planning guidance and policy. The proposed uses will complement the existing offer of the town centre and extend its trading day. More than anything, our proposals will give people another reason to come to the town centre and this is one of the key drivers of vitality and viability. That notwithstanding, as stated in my last letter, we have asked to amend the applications so that Unit 4 can be used within A1 or A3 of the Use Classes Order and Unit 5 can be used within class A1. If demand arises, we would be able to combine Units 4 and 5 to offer a retail unit of over 890 sq. m (about 10,000 sq. ft) which would be of sufficient size to attract a small foodstore or similar operator.” That notwithstanding we remain hopeful that we might be able to attract a high quality A1 tenant to the town through our proposal…” With regard to the leisure (D2) uses Committee will note from Section 7 above both national and local planning policy and guidance favour such uses within central area locations. 8.7 Parking and Traffic Both issues are material planning considerations. As stated at Section 3 above, in pre application discussions with the applicants’ agents, the Head of Engineering made it clear that whilst a full traffic impact assessment would not be required, an estimate of the number of vehicle trips likely to be generated by the proposed development would be necessary in association with an assessment of
Page 50 the capacity of and demand for town centre car parking. A Car Parking Assessment was submitted with the planning application on 28 th April. The report provides a review of the existing car parking provision in the vicinity of the application site and provides an estimate of the number of vehicle trips which are likely to be generated by the proposed cinema and retail development. Other than for operational purposes, (See Section 7.4.1) no parking is proposed within the curtilage of the development. It is envisaged that existing public car parking facilities will be used, the nearest of which is College Car Park (East) some 100 metres west of the application site across the River Taff. The following is a summary of the Assessment. Car Parking Supply . The Assessment states there are 1163 off street car parking spaces available in the town centre within ten minutes walk of the application site, plus an additional 44 spaces at the Abermorlais Car Park at evenings and weekends when this car park is not used by Council employees. The assessment notes 460 spaces are also available at the Tesco car park, subject to limitations, in addition to on street car parking spaces within the town. Car Parking Usage . Surveys were undertaken to assess the use of existing car parks in the town centre during weekdays (including market day), and Saturdays, both during the day and evening to assess the level of usage. Survey methodology included a series of walkover surveys and a desktop survey based on an examination of ticket based data which was supplied by this Council’s Head of Engineering. The following conclusions were made on car parking usage of the nearest (College East) car park: “Table 2 indicates that a significant proportion of spaces at College East car park were vacant throughout the surveys, despite the presence of market vehicles displacing some cars elsewhere. 80 spaces (24%) were vacant at 4 p.m., with the number of vacant spaces increasing steadily after this time as town centre employees and shoppers returned to their vehicles. A significant number of arrivals were recorded between 4 and 6 p.m., although many of these were picking up or setting down college staff and students. As students arrived for their night classes from 6.45 onwards, so a small increase in parked vehicles was recorded. However, more than two thirds of spaces remained vacant. The majority of students left the car park between 8.30 and 9 p.m. The congregation of young people and their cars from 8 p.m. onwards represented a significant proportion of arrivals and departures, with cars regularly exiting and re entering the car park.”
Page 51 Public Transport Network . The application site is well located in relation to the local public transport network with the Central Bus Station being immediately to the east. Frequent bus services are provided to both the urban area and surrounding regions including Tredegar, Ebbw Vale, Brynmawr and Brecon, Cardiff and Abergavenny. The last bus departs from the Bus Station between 10 and 11 p.m. Merthyr Railway Station is located some 400 metres (5 minutes walk) to the south east of part of application site. The main taxi rank is located at Victoria Street some 100 metres away whilst after 7 p.m., the Bus Station is also authorised as a rank for use by taxis. Vehicle Trip Generation . This was assessed by means of accepted computer modelling methods. For the retail element of this scheme, the estimate was based on the overall retail floor space provided. For the cinema element of the proposal data was supplied by VUE Cinemas for a typical 7 screen 1100 multiplex cinema on a similar town centre site. The trip generation was estimated as follows: For weekdays, it was estimated that no trip generation would be anticipated during the morning peak hour (08.00 – 09.00), but an evening peak (17.00 – 18.00) trip generation of some 126 arrivals/departures was anticipated. The peak two way trip generation would be likely to be in the early afternoon (13.00 – 14.00), at some 262 arrivals/departures. For Saturdays, it was estimated that there would be a peak trip generation of 547 arrivals/departures per hour in the evening (18.00 – 19.00). The estimate does not however take into account the effect of “linked” trips between the retail units and the cinema. For example a person may travel to the application site to see a film, but beforehand may have a drink at a pub or coffee shop and then, after the film, remain within town for a visit to a restaurant before finally leaving the site. Car Parking Accumulation . The Assessment indicates a peak weekday parking accumulation of 185 vehicles between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. However another significant peak would occur around midday with 137 vehicles parked between 12 noon and 1 p.m. However: “The results of the car park arrival/departure survey indicate that the number of spaces vacant at College (East) car park is sufficient to cater for the increase in demand during weekday afternoons and evenings with the development in place, even on market days. Earlier in the afternoon, ticket data for the 370 space College extension car park indicates that sufficient spare capacity is available at this facility (approximately 150 spaces) to accommodate the midday peak in parking accumulation.
Page 52 This car park is still within an acceptable walking distance (500 metres) of the development. The peak Saturday parking accumulation is 281 vehicles between 6 and 7 p.m. …” Conclusions “The results of the car parking assessment indicate that the level of parking demands associated with the … development can be accommodated within the above public car parks at all times of the day. Although data supplied by the local authority indicates that College (East) and Castle Car Parks operate near capacity during the daytime, within a short walk of [the application site] spare capacity is plentiful at the College (Extension) car park. This can accommodate day time peaks in parking demand including on market days (Tuesdays and Saturdays)”.. As stated at Section 6 above the Council’s Head of Engineering offers no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of specific conditions. He has confirmed that ‘snapshot’ surveys conducted by his staff largely concur with the results of the exercise carried out on behalf of the developer. The Head of Engineering concurs with the methodology and conclusions of the Car Parking Assessment and estimated traffic generation produced by the development. He is particularly mindful of the growth in taxi and private hire vehicle usage since deregulation by Council and of the low car ownership in the County Borough which results in relatively high usage of public transport in its widest interpretation – taxis, private hire vehicles and buses in particular. In offering this view the Head of Engineering was mindful of the possibility that the present excess parking availability may be absorbed if other planning projects within the town centre proceed, but notes that few are yet extant or have any formal standing. The Head of Engineering also takes the view that the development, if allowed, will present an early opportunity to improve the junction approach from Castle Street by providing two full width lanes for vehicles approaching the traffic lights on Avenue de Clichy. This will ease traffic congestion on Castle Street and improve egress from the Civic Centre, Castle Car Park and Bus Station at peak times. In this connection, whilst the applicants have indicated their willingness to donate the land and to finance the cost of the Castle Street/Avenue de Clichy junction improvement, it is their stated position that the work is not necessary to mitigate the traffic generation effects of the
Page 53 proposed development. As stated previously, the applicants have indicated that early estimates of the cost of the improvement could be significant, largely due to the presence of telecom apparatus within the existing footway. The Head of Engineering concurs with this view. 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION This proposal is acceptable for the reasons set out below. The planning application is supported by the Head of Planning. • The application site is conveniently located in the town centre, accessible by car, bus, taxi and train. The development will provide the opportunity to increase diversity in the town centre, extend the retail trading day (which currently winds down from about 3.30 p.m.), will physically extend the St Tydfil Shopping Precinct and will enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre. ( Sections 1, 7 and 8 refer )
• The proposal complies with national and local planning policies and guidance which favours the provision of cinemas (and other D2 leisure uses) within town centre locations. (Sections 7.1 – 7.3 refer)
• The retailing aspect of the proposal is one which is specifically allocated on the Local Plan Proposals Map (Section 7.1.2 refers)
• Previous planning consents have been granted for redevelopment of the application site and adjoining areas for retailing and other uses (Section 2 refers) • The external design of the proposed building is such that it will create a distinctive, contemporary landmark at a strategic approach to the town centre, in place of the current townscape void (Section 8 refers) • When built, the development will produce a discernable planning gain for the town in the form of a widened Castle Street and improved junction of Castle Street and Avenue de Clichy which will improve left turning movements from Castle Street and thereby reduce congestion at peak times. This gain will be at no cost to the public purse (Sections 5 & 8 refers) • Whilst the application site (which is in the applicants’ ownership) physically impinges upon the Bus Station Masterplan area, it does not physically impinge upon the Bus Station nor will it have a negative effect upon the general ambitions to redevelop the Bus Station site and remaining, adjoining areas. It will produce the following positive effects: increased footfall past the Bus
Page 54 Station; increase passive surveillance for the Bus Station; an improved pedestrian route between the new development and Bus Station connecting the Civic Centre with the Bus Station and shopping precinct. Thus the development could act as a catalyst for redevelopment of the Bus Station and the adjoining areas (Sections 5 & 8 refer) • It has been demonstrated empirically that flood risk could be effectively managed (Sections 6 & 8 refer) • There would be no adverse highway, traffic nor car parking impacts of the development if allowed (Sections 6 & 8 refer) • No third party objections have been received against the proposal (Section 4 refers)
In view of the position with regard to the Environment Agency comments set out in Section 6.2.3 Committee will note that, if the following recommendation is accepted, a formal decision letter would not be issued until or unless the positive written comments of the Agency’s Planning Liaison Officer are to hand. RECOMMENDATION: BE APPROVED subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re enacting that order with or without modification), Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall not be used for any purpose defined by Class A2 of the above order, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To clearly define the scope of this permission. 2. The retail units contained within the Ground Floor premises shall be ascribed the following uses, as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987: Units 1, 2, 3 Class A3 Unit 4 Classes A1 and A3 Unit 5 Class A1 Reason To clearly define the scope of this permission. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class D2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re enacting that order with or without modification), the First Floor (except Unit 6) shall not be used for any purpose other than a cinema, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To clearly define the scope of this permission.
Page 55 4. Before development commences, a scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail the physical barriers to be erected at the southern end of the development to prevent unauthorised access to the residual land which will, at some future date, be used as a pedestrian footbridge. The scheme, as approved, shall be completed to the written approval of the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby approved is brought into beneficial occupation. Reason To secure the residual corridor in the interests of visual amenity and public safety. 5. No development shall commence until a detailed scheme for the widening of Castle Street (from the Bus Station entrance to Avenue de Clichy on the westbound approach to the junction) has been submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The widening scheme shall be completed to the written approval of the Local Planning Authority before the cinema is brought into beneficial use. Reason In the interest of highway safety and to relieve traffic congestion. 6. No development shall take place until a structural design certificate, completed and signed by a Chartered Engineer, and a scheme to deal with existing ground conditions has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Certificate shall certify that appropriate site investigations have been carried out at the site. The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify those precautions or measures deemed to be required in the design and construction of the proposed development in order to minimise any damage which might arise as a result of ground conditions. Reason To ascertain the stability of the site and to determine the structural suitability of the development thereon in view of prevailing ground conditions. 7. BEFORE construction works commence details/samples of all external finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and all works undertaken shall be completed in accordance with such approved details. Reason In the interest of visual amenity. 8. Before development commences, a scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, dealing with potential contamination on site. The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify any potential contamination and measures to avoid risk when the site is developed. Any remedial works shall be undertaken in accordance with the scheme, as approved.
Page 56 Reason To ensure any contaminated soil or material is addressed and dealt with in an appropriate manner, in the public interest and in the interests of the future occupiers of the buildings hereby approved. 9. Foul water and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site. Reason To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System. 10. No surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system. Reason To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment. 11. No land drainage run off will be permitted (either directly or in directly) to discharge into the public sewerage system. Reason To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment. 12. The developer must provide a suitable grease trap to prevent entry into the public sewerage system of matter likely to interfere with the free flow of the sewer contents, or which would prejudicially affect the treatment and disposal of such contents. Reason To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system, and sustain an essential and effective service to existing residents. 13. The proposed development site is crossed by a public sewer with the approximate position being marked on the attached Statutory Public Sewer Record. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No part of the building will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewer. Reason To protect the integrity of the public sewer and avoid damage thereto. 14. BEFORE construction works commence full details of any retaining wall which exceeds 1 metre in height which is necessitated by this development including structural calculations and facing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works subsequently carried out shall be undertaken in strict accordance with such approved details and shall be completed BEFORE the development hereby approved is brought into beneficial use.
Page 57 Reason To ensure the development meets current engineering requirements. 15. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping. Where applicable it shall indicate all existing trees and or/hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. Such details shall also be accompanied by a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of five years . Reason To ensure the development contributes towards the landscape quality and appearance of the site and surrounding area. 16. The landscaping scheme as approved shall be carried out in the first planting season following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with other of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason To ensure the landscaping scheme as approved is implemented and maintained in a satisfactory manner. INFORMATIVES 1. The applicant / developer is strongly advised to liaise with Hyder Consulting Ltd (Network Development Consultants Southern, Tel 01443 331155) in relation to any connections to the public sewer and/or to any works which affect the line of or are in close proximity to existing public sewers. 2. A water supply can be made available to serve this proposed development. The developer may be required to contribute (under Sections 40 41 of the Water Industry Act 1991) towards the provision of new off site and/ or on site watermains and associated infrastructure. The level of contribution can be calculated upon receipt of detailed site layout plans which should be sent to New Connections Design Department, Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea SA6 5BQ. 3. The proposed development is crossed by a trunk/ distribution watermain, the approximate position being shown on the attached plan. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. The developers attention is drawn to Dwr Cymru Welsh Waters "Conditions for Development near Watermains". It may be possible for this watermain to be diverted under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the cost of which will be re charged to the Developer.
Page 58 4. The works for the widening of the highway referred to above shall be subject of an agreement under Section 278 of the 1980 Highways Act, with an appropriate bond in place. 5. The developers are advised to enter into discussions with the Local Planning Authority, before development commences, to consider the following: Signage Strategy; Energy Efficiency Implementation Strategy; Illumination Strategy. 6. The developer is advised that approval for the hours of operation of premises will need to be obtained from the Council's Planning and Licensing Committee. 7. In connection with the Landscaping Conditions, the developer is advised to contact the Planning Division Landscape Officer and Countryside Officer in preparing appropriate schemes.
Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 60
Appendix 2
MERTHYR TYDFIL COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL
DATE WRITTEN 4th October 2006
REPORT AUTHOR A N Davies
HEAD OF SERVICE A N Davies
COMMITTEE Council
COMMITTEE DATE 18 th October 2006
TO: Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen
PLANNING APPLICATION 060218 – PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING RETAIL UNITS WITH CINEMA ABOVE LAND AT JUNCTION OF CASTLE STREET/AVENUE DE CLICHY, CENTRAL AREA DIAGEO PENSION TRUST LTD C/O SAVILLS COMMERCIAL LTD
PURPOSE OF REPORT: For Full Council to determine the above planning application which was presented to Planning and Regulatory Committee on 27 th September 2006. (Appendix 1)
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 On 27 th September 2006 my Head of Planning presented a detailed report with regard to the above planning application (Planning Minutes refer – Appendix 2).
1.2 The recommendation of the Head of Planning was for conditional approval of the planning application subject to the following proviso: “In view of the position with regard to the Environment Agency comments set out in Section 6.2.3, Committee will note that, if the following recommendation is accepted, a formal decision letter would not be issued until or unless the positive written comments of the Agency’s Planning Liaison Officer are to hand.”
1.3 Committee did not accept this recommendation and resolved instead to defer for consideration at Full Council meeting.
1.4 For Council’s information Section 8 of the relevant report refers to “Material Planning Considerations” which may be taken into account, along with any other issues considered relevant by Council.
Page 61
2.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
2.1 There are no financial implications with regard to this matter.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council determine Application Number P/06/0218.
GARETH CHAPMAN DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER CORPORATE SERVICES
INTERNAL REPORT CONSULTATION:
The following officers have been consulted in respect of the proposals and recommendations set out in this report.
Chief Director of Director of Director of Director of Chief Officer, Executive Integrated Integrated Customer Corporate Finance, Children’s Adult Community Centre Audit and Services Services Services Risk Management
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Title of Document(s) Document(s) Date Document Location
Report (part) of Head of 27 th September 2006 Planning Division Ty Keir Planning to Planning & Hardie & Members’ Library Regulatory Committee 27 th September 2006
Page 62
Appendix 3
MERTHYR TYDFIL COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL
DATE WRITTEN 19 th October 2006
REPORT AUTHOR Norman Davies
HEAD OF SERVICE Norman Davies
COMMITTEE Special Council
COMMITTEE DATE 1st November 2006
TO: Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen
PURPOSE OF REPORT: To advise Special Council of additional recommended planning conditions when considering planning application No. 060218 (proposed mixed use retail/leisure development), land at junction of Castle Street/Avenue de Clichy, Central Area.
The detailed report of my Head of Planning, presented to Planning and Regulatory Committee on 27 th September and to Council on 18 th October 2006, recommended approval subject to 16 conditions. The recommendation was made subject to the proviso that, if the report was accepted, the formal decision letter would not be issued until/unless the positive comments of the Environment Agency were received with regard to the applicants’ Flooding Consequences Assessment (Issue 2) document. In a letter dated 17 th October 2006, the Planning Liaison Officer of the Environment Agency wrote to confirm: “We have received the revised FCA [Flooding Consequences Assessment] … and consider it to be acceptable.” Copies of this letter, which suggested five additional planning conditions were circulated to all Councillors on Thursday 19 th October, for their information. For the avoidance of doubt, these additional conditions are repeated below (conditions 17- 21) together with a further condition (22) suggested by the Head of Planning. The conditions are enumerated to account for the conditions originally recommended (1-16) to Planning and Regulatory Committee on 27 th September. 17. No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until: − A desktop study has been carried out which shall include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. And using this information a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors has been produced. − A site investigation has been designed for the site using the information obtained
Page 63
from the desktop study and any diagrammatical representations (Conceptual Model). This should be submitted to, and approved in writing by the LPA prior to that investigation being carried out on the site. − The investigation must be comprehensive enough to enable a risk assessment to be undertaken relating to groundwater and surface waters associated on and off the site that may be affected, and refinement of the Conceptual Model, and the development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements. − The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details approved by the LPA and a risk assessment has been undertaken. − A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, including measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters, using the information obtained from the Site Investigation has been submitted to the LPA. This will need to be approved in writing by the LPA prior to that remediation being carried out on the site.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause pollution of Controlled Waters. 18. The development of the site should be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement. Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters. 19. If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA for, an addendum to the Method Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters. 20. Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the approved Method Statement, a report shall be submitted to the LPA that provides verification that the required works regarding contamination have been carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement(s). Post remediation sampling and monitoring results shall be included in the report to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met. Future monitoring proposals and reporting shall also be detailed in the report.
Reason: To protect the environment and prevent harm to human health by ensuring that the remediated site has been reclaimed to an appropriate standard.
21. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity
Page 64
of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
22. Before development commences, full details of the proposed flood defence barrier along the western site boundary shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority. The flood defence barrier shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the building is brought into beneficial use.
REASON: To ensure flood risk is effectively managed.
RECOMMENDATION That, if the report originally presented to Planning and Regulatory Committee on 27 th September 2006 is accepted by Council, the above additional conditions are incorporated within the decision letter. GARETH CHAPMAN DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE & DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER CORPORATE SERVICES
INTERNAL REPORT CONSULTATION:
The following officers have been consulted in respect of the proposals and recommendations set out in this report. Chief Executive Director of Director of Director of Director of Chief Officer, Integrated Integrated Adult Customer Corporate Finance, Audit Children’s Services Community Centre and Risk Services Services Management BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Title of Document(s) Document(s) Date Document Location Report on App. No. 060218 presented 27 th September 2006 Tŷ Keir Hardie (Copy also circulated to Planning & Regulatory Committee with the Council Agenda on 18 th October 2006) Report regarding App. No. 060218 for 18 th October 2006 Tŷ Keir Hardie Full Council to make determination on planning application referred from Planning & Regulatory Committee
Page 65
Page 66 Appendix 4
Supplementary Statement on Traffic and Parking
1.0 Introduction
1.1 This statement has been prepared following comments made at the Full Council meeting on 1 st November 2006.
2.0 Car Parking Provision in Merthyr Tydfil
2.1 Car Parking provision is as shown in Table 1 of the Arup Car Parking Assessment (26 th April 2006). This was provided as part of the original planning application. These figures have been counted on site by our transport consultant, Arup and corroborated by a Council officer (see Appendix 1).
2.2 The College (Extension) car park has 307 car parking spaces.
3.0 Car Parking Supply and Demand Survey Methodology
3.1 The assessment of the use of car parking spaces was carried out by a walkover survey carried out in March 2006. This was corroborated by a subsequent week long study of car park ticket data.
3.2 Subsequently, our consultants carried out a car park arrivals and departures survey in College East (not extension) car park on Tuesday 4 th April (a market day) between 1600 hrs and 2200 hrs. This showed a minimum of 80 spaces vacant at 1600-1615. the availability of spaces increased through the evening.
3.3 Therefore to support the planning application we have analysed the results from two on site surveys and a week of ticket data.
4.0 Car Parking Survey Results
4.1 The car parking survey results are included in the original assessment. They are briefly summarised below for completeness.
4.2 During weekday mornings all Merthyr Tydfil car parks are considered to be near to capacity, except the College Extension car park. This is corroborated by Council ticket data and the walkover survey.
4.3 The peak weekday lunchtime accumulated parking demand from the proposal is 137 spaces. Most of this (114 spaces) is generated by the retail aspect of the development, not the cinema.
4.4 However, there are sufficient empty spaces in the College Extension car park to accommodate the anticipated number of morning and early afternoon visitors to the development.
4.5 By 1900 hrs (the estimated weekday peak arrival time for users of the proposed development), there were 237 car parking spaces available in the College East (not extension) car park. This is in excess of the expected maximum weekday cinema/retail development parking accumulation of 185 cars.
4.6 At weekends, the cinema generates more traffic. A maximum parking demand accumulation occurs at 1800 hrs of 281 vehicles (retail and cinema combined). At this time, there is significant capacity across the town centre car parks.
Page 67
4.7 It is noted that the traffic generation estimation is a worst case scenario as it does not include the following:
- many visitors would use public transport or taxis; - leisure uses have a high occurrence of shared vehicles; - many visitors would be visiting the town centre anyway, therefore there will be a high occurrence of linked trips.
5.0 Need for a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)
5.1 We were advised by Council officers that a full TIA would not be required.
5.2 It would not generally be expected to provide a full TIA for a town centre retail and leisure development that does not provide any parking spaces.
5.3 Visitors to the proposed development will use existing town centre car parking spaces. These spaces are already in operation and already generate vehicular trips.
5.4 Accordingly we do not consider there is any need to carry out a TIA.
6.0 Walking Route from College Extension to Application Site
6.1 At certain times, visitors to the proposed development will need to park in the College Extension car park. It is likely that this will only occur during the daytime and perhaps in the early afternoon. At these times, visitors to the proposed development will be able to use the shopping centre bridge.
6.2 Appendix 2 is a survey of the walking route between the College Extension car park to the application site which would be used when the shopping centre footbridge is closed (evening). The survey demonstrates that there is a good pedestrian route along the riverside that is generally separated from vehicular traffic. This links to are user operated pelican crossings over Avenue de Clichy and Castle Street.
Page 68 ADDITIONAL NOTE ON CAR PARKING
Page 69 ROUTE SURVEY BETWEEN COLLEGE EXTENSION CAR PARK AND PROPOSAL SITE
Page 70 Appendix 4a Survey of route taken by pedestrians from Car Park Extension to proposed Cinema/Retail Unit.
On leaving the College Extension Car Park there are two options. The first choice is to leave by the vehicular car park entrance (see photo 1) and along the footpath in front of the college building. Alternatively, a quicker route could be taken along the riverside (see photo 2).
Photo 1: Vehicular Car Park Exit Photo 2: To Riverside Path
It is assumed that pedestrians will take the quicker riverside route which also minimises road crossing. This is the pedestrian route along the riverside (photo 3,4 and 5). The riverside footpath is illuminated by lights in the adjacent College East Car Park. (During shopping hours, many pedestrians will take the bridge into St Tydfil Square (photo 6)).
Photo 3: From Car Park to Riverside Photo 4: Riverside Path
Photo 5: Riverside Path Page 71Photo 6: Entrance to Shopping Centre
On leaving the riverside footpath, pedestrians will join Penry Street and walk towards Avenue de Clichy (photo 7). Note the protective barrier as the corner is turned towards Avenue de Clichy (photo 8).
Photo 7: Penry Street towards Avenue de Clichy Photo 8: Turning corner onto Avenue de Clichy
There is a user operated pelican crossing over Avenue de Clichy (see photo 9). There is significant protection from barriers. The road crossing has an island refuge which is also well protected by barriers (see photo 10).
Photo 9: Pelican Crossing over Avenue de Clichy Photo 10: Barriered central refuge
Page 72
On reaching the north side of Avenue de Clichy, there is another protected walkway around the corner onto Castle Street (see photo 11). This leads to another user operated pelican crossing over Castle Street to the application site. Again, there is a protected central pedestrian refuge (photo 12).
Photo 11: Avenue de Clichy towards Castle St Photo 12: Central refuge on Castle St crossing
This leads directly to the application site (photo 13).
Photo 13: Arrival at Application Site
In summary, the route between the College Extension Car Park and the planning application site is safe for normal pedestrian use. The route is paved along its entire length. From the car park to Penry Road, the route is separated from vehicles. Along Avenue de Clichy there are protective barriers at the kerbside. All pedestrian crossings are user operated pelican crossings with protected central refuges.
Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 74 Technical Note
Page 1 of 2
Job title St Tydfil Square Job number 119668 cc APS Project Management File reference
Prepared by Ryan Hopkins x 26594 (Cardiff) Date
9 November 2006
Subject Further to Car Parking Assessment 26.04.06
APPENDIX 4b
INTRODUCTION
A previous Car Parking Assessment report (26 th April 2006) was carried out for Tydfil Square to see if the traffic generated by a mixed use development, including retail and a multiplex cinema could be absorbed by the existing local car parks.
This Technical Note will address queries raised after submission of the previous report.
EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS
Local car parks were identified in Merthyr Tydfil town centre, these car parks had approximately 1163 spaces, which were recorded by our surveyors while on their site visits. A further 44 spaces are available at Abermorlais on weekends.
There were concerns that the parking numbers weren’t accurate and so Mary O’Manny in the Parking department of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council was contacted on 7 th November 2006, she then confirmed the following parking numbers.
Table 1: Existing Town Centre Off-Street Car Parks, Merthyr Tydfil
Car Park Name Number of spaces Number of spaces (incl. disabled) (incl. disabled)
(as per report 26 April 06) (Confirmed by Mary O’Manny)
Abermorlais (Saturdays / Sundays 44 42 only)
Castle 291 286
Castle (South) 19 13
College (East) 334 370
College (South) 56 47
College (Extension) 307 307
Gilar Street 91 94
Swan Street (disabled 23 27 only)
Tramroad 42 33
Total 1163 (Mon – Fri) 1219 (Mon – Fri)
D:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\1\3\AI00004317\APPENDIX4B0.DOCPage 75 ©Arup F0.15 Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004
119668 Technical Note
9 November 2006 Page 2 of 2
Although similar the above table shows there were discrepancies between numbers, however Mary O’Manny confirmed there were in fact more parking spaces than previously assumed.
CAR PARKING USAGE
Ticket data was supplied by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council for the College Car Parks and the former Castle Cinema site, for the week Monday 3 rd April 2006 – Saturday 8 th April 2006. As stated in the previous report this information shows the car parks operate at approximately four-fifths of their capacity. This information is in keeping with parking proportions witnessed on a walk over survey carried out 11am - 12:30pm Friday 31 st March 2006.
College (East) Car Park is the closest facility to the development and so is assumed to be the most desirable. In order to get a more accurate parking profile a parking survey was carried out 4pm -10pm Tuesday 4 th April 2006. This data was then used to calculate the existing parking demand and see whether there would be any spare capacity for the development traffic. It shows that even with the displacement of 25 vehicles for the markets on Tuesdays and Saturdays there is sufficient capacity.
D:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\7\1\3\AI00004317\APPENDIX4B0.DOCPage 76 ©Arup F0.15 Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004
Technical Note
Page 1 of 8
Job title St Tydfil Square Job number 119668 cc APS Project Management File reference 4.70
Prepared by Arup (Cardiff) Date 26 April 2006
Subject Car Parking Assessment
1. INTRODUCTION This report provides a review of the existing car parking provision in the vicinity of the St Tydfil Square site and provides an estimate of the number of vehicle trips likely to be generated by the proposed cinema and retail development.
2. DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Site Location The proposed cinema and retail development is located to the west of Merthyr Tydfil town centre, on a 0.45ha site bounded to the north by Castle Street, to the west by Avenue de Clichy, to the south by St Tydfil Square Shopping Centre and to the east by the central bus station. The site is currently vacant.
2.2 Proposed Development The proposed development comprises the following (as of 25 April 2006): Ground Floor x Units 1 – 4 = A3 Retail (1595m²) x Unit 5 = A1 or A3 Retail (use to be confirmed, A3 Retail assumed for trip generation purposes) (545m²) First / Second Floors x Leisure Unit 792m² (use to be confirmed, A3 Retail assumed for trip generation purposes) x 8 screen multiplex cinema, 1140 seats (3882m²) Other than for operational purposes, no parking is proposed within the curtilages of the development; instead the use of existing public car parking facilities is envisaged. The nearest car park is College (East), 100m to the west on the opposite bank of the River Taff.
Page 77 J:\119000\119668-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-70 TECHNICAL NOTES\0001PG TRANSPORT TECHNICAL ©Arup F0.15 NOTE_REV3.DOC Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004 119668 Technical Note 26 April 2006 Page 2 of 8
3. EXISTING TRANSPORT CONDITIONS
3.1 Car Parking Supply There are a total of approximately 1163 off-street parking spaces in Merthyr Tydfil town centre, all within 10 minutes’ walk of the St Tydfil Square site. An additional 44 spaces are available at Abermorlais, to the north of the development site, at weekends when not occupied by permit- holding employees of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council. These facilities are subject to charges between 8am to 6pm, Monday to Saturday. The town centre car parking facilities and tariff is indicated in Table 1. The car park locations are illustrated in Figure 1.
Table 1: Existing Town Centre Off-Street Car Parks, Merthyr Tydfil
Car Park Name Number of spaces Tariff (incl. disabled) 1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 4 hours All day 5 days 6 days
Abermorlais (Saturdays / Sundays 44 40p 60p 70p £1.00 £2.00 £9.00 £9.50 only)
Castle 291 40p 60p 70p £1.00 £2.00 £9.00 £9.50
Castle (South) 19 40p 60p 70p £1.00 £2.00 £9.00 £9.50
College (East) 334 40p 60p 70p £1.00 £2.00 £9.00 £9.50
College (South) 56 40p 60p 70p £1.00 £2.00 £9.00 £9.50
College (Extension) 307 40p 60p 70p £1.00 £2.00 £9.00 £9.50
Gilar Street 91 40p 60p 70p N/A N/A N/A N/A
Swan Street (disabled 23 40p 60p 70p £1.00 £2.00 £9.00 £9.50 only)
Tramroad 42 40p 60p 70p £1.00 £2.00 £9.00 £9.50
Total 1163 (Mon – Fri) An additional 460 public parking spaces are available at the former Station Car Park site; however these spaces are managed by Euro Car Parks on behalf of Tesco. Stays of longer than 2 hours are prohibited at all times, with the store being open 24 hours from 8am Monday to 10pm Saturday. There are also a number of on-street parking spaces in the town centre; however most of these are restricted to short stays of two hours or less.
3.2 Car Parking Usage A walkover survey was undertaken between 11am and 12:30pm on Friday 31 March 2006 to gain an impression of the level of spare capacity in town centre car parks during the day. The observations made were as follows: x Castle – operating at 90% of capacity; x Tramroad – 90%; x Gilar Street – 66%; x College (East) – 90%; x College (South) – 100%; and x College (Extension) – 25%.
J:\119000\119668-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-70 TECHNICALPage NOTES\0001PG 78 TRANSPORT TECHNICAL ©Arup F0.15 NOTE_REV3.DOC Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004 119668 Technical Note 26 April 2006 Page 3 of 8
Data for the number of tickets issued by length of stay was supplied by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council for the car parks around the College and adjacent to the former Castle Cinema site, for the week Monday 3 April 2006 – Saturday 8 April 2006. This suggests that College (East) car park operates at approximately four-fifths of daily capacity on both weekdays and Saturdays. Demand for the Castle car park is at a similar level. However, the College (Extension) car park is significantly less well used, with ticket data indicating that parking demand is approximately one-third of available capacity. These findings were corroborated by the walkover survey. With regard to the effect of market days on parking demand, the ticket data indicated that demand on the Tuesday at College (Extension) car park was significantly higher at approximately one-half of available capacity, although Saturday demand was marginally lower than the weekday average. However, this data does not indicate the peaks in parking demand throughout the day. Discussions with Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council indicate that spare parking capacity is plentiful in the town centre after 4:30pm. Despite this, a significant level of evening parking demand is generated by Merthyr Tydfil College students attending night classes, which run from Mondays to Thursdays, ending at 9pm. Most night-time students arrive by car, parking in the adjacent College (East) car park. As College (East) is the facility in closest proximity to the proposed cinema and retail development, it is anticipated that the majority of car-borne visitors will park at this location. To estimate the level of spare capacity at College (East) car park during the late afternoon and evening period (at which time the level of cinema admissions are likely to be at their highest), a survey of car park arrivals and departures was undertaken on Tuesday 4 April 2006 between 4pm and 10pm. This represented a worst case scenario as Tuesdays and Saturdays are market days on which the majority of spaces in College (South) car park are allocated to authorised users (i.e. market traders’ vehicles), increasing pressure on the adjacent car parks. The results of the survey, together with the estimated parking accumulation, are presented in Table 2 below.
J:\119000\119668-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-70 TECHNICAL NOTES\0001PGPage TRANSPORT 79 TECHNICAL ©Arup F0.15 NOTE_REV3.DOC Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004 119668 Technical Note 26 April 2006 Page 4 of 8
Table 2: Afternoon and Evening Arrivals/Departures, College (East) Car Park, 04/04/2006
Time Arrivals Departures Accumulation Spaces Vacant Vehicles parked at 16:00 254 80 16:00 - 16:15 23 37 240 94 16:15 - 16:30 18 36 222 112 16:30 - 16:45 11 26 207 127 16:45 - 17:00 9 39 177 157 17:00 - 17:15 16 63 130 204 17:15 - 17:30 20 29 121 213 17:30 - 17:45 20 39 102 232 17:45 - 18:00 27 31 98 236 18:00 - 18:15 15 16 97 237 18:15 - 18:30 3 12 88 246 18:30 - 18:45 4 6 86 248 18:45 - 19:00 18 2 102 232 19:00 - 19:15 6 4 104 230 19:15 - 19:30 4 16 92 242 19:30 - 19:45 7 9 90 244 19:45 - 20:00 4 14 80 254 20:00 - 20:15 1 11 70 264 20:15 - 20:30 9 20 59 275 20:30 - 20:45 6 30 35 299 20:45 - 21:00 5 25 15 319 21:00 - 21:15 4 9 10 324 21:15 - 21:30 14 7 17 317 21:30 - 21:45 13 5 25 309 21:45 - 22:00 10 11 24 310 End 24 310 Table 2 indicates that a significant proportion of spaces at College (East) car park were vacant throughout the survey, despite the presence of market vehicles displacing some cars elsewhere. 80 spaces (24%) were vacant at 4pm, with the number of vacant spaces increasing steadily after this time as town centre employees and shoppers returned to their vehicles. A significant number of arrivals were recorded between 4pm and 6pm, although many of these were picking up or setting down college staff and students. As students arrived for their night classes from 6:45pm onwards, so a small increase in parked vehicles was recorded. However, more than two-thirds of spaces remained vacant. The majority of students left the car park between 8:30pm and 9:00pm. The congregation of young people and their cars from 8pm onwards represented a significant proportion of arrivals and departures, with cars regularly exiting and re-entering the car park.
3.3 Public Transport Network The St Tydfil Square site is well located in relation to the local public transport network, with the central bus station being located immediately to the east of the development site (Figure 1). From the bus station frequent services are provided to both the Merthyr Tydfil urban area and the surrounding region, including Tredegar, Ebbw Vale, Brynmawr and Brecon. The majority of services are operated by Stagecoach South Wales, although Sixty-Sixty Coaches operates the X43 route between Cardiff and Abergavenny. The last buses depart from the bus station between 10pm and 11pm. Merthyr Tydfil railway station is located 400m (approximately 5 minutes’ walk) to the east of the St Tydfil Square site (Figure 1). Arriva Trains Wales services operate hourly from Merthyr Tydfil
J:\119000\119668-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-70 TECHNICALPage NOTES\0001PG 80 TRANSPORT TECHNICAL ©Arup F0.15 NOTE_REV3.DOC Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004 119668 Technical Note 26 April 2006 Page 5 of 8
to Pontypridd and Cardiff, with the last service departing at 10:30pm. Access to taxi services from the St Tydfil Square site is also straightforward, with the nearest rank being located on Victoria Street, 100m to the south (Figure 1).
4. TRIP GENERATION ASSESSMENT
4.1 Vehicle Trip Generation To provide an estimate of the number of vehicle trips generated by the St Tydfil Square development, trip rate data from the TRICS 2005 (b) database was used for the A3 retail uses and applied to the floorspaces as indicated in Section 2.2. To estimate the number of trips likely to be generated by the cinema, data was supplied by VUE Cinemas for a seven-screen 1100 seat multiplex on a similar town centre site. This data was then factored in order to estimate the likely vehicle trip generation of the St Tydfil Square cinema, and cross-checked with trip rates from the TRICS 2005 (b) database for similar sites in order to assume a worst case scenario. The estimated trip generation for weekdays and Saturdays is presented in Table 3. For weekdays, Table 3 indicates that no trip generation is anticipated during the morning peak hour (0800-0900), but an evening peak (1700-1800) trip generation of some 126 arrivals / departures. The peak two- way trip generation is likely to be in the early afternoon (1300-1400), at some 262 arrivals / departures. For Saturdays, Table 3 indicates a peak trip generation of 547 arrivals / departures per hour in the evening (1800-1900).
J:\119000\119668-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-70 TECHNICAL NOTES\0001PGPage TRANSPORT 81 TECHNICAL ©Arup F0.15 NOTE_REV3.DOC Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004 119668 Technical Note 26 April 2006 Page 6 of 8
Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation, St Tydfil Square
Weekday Saturday A3 Retail Cinema Total A3 Retail Cinema Total Arr Dep Arr Dep Arr Dep Arr Dep Arr Dep Arr Dep 00:00-01:00 0 0 0 34 0 34 0 0 0 114 0 114 01:00-02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00-03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00-04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00-05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00-06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00-07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00-08:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00-09:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00-10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00-11:00 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 11:00-12:00 33 13 6 0 38 13 46 16 29 0 74 16 12:00-13:00 140 72 17 2 157 74 72 52 57 10 129 62 13:00-14:00 124 130 6 2 130 132 91 94 19 10 110 104 14:00-15:00 46 101 6 8 51 109 65 91 38 29 103 120 15:00-16:00 29 59 11 8 41 66 65 81 76 29 141 110 16:00-17:00 33 29 6 11 38 41 39 46 38 57 77 103 17:00-18:00 72 26 17 11 89 37 208 101 57 57 266 158 18:00-19:00 104 98 34 6 139 103 173 222 114 38 287 260 19:00-20:00 114 59 17 23 131 81 78 81 57 95 135 177 20:00-21:00 49 111 17 17 66 128 72 104 57 57 129 161 21:00-22:00 23 49 34 17 57 66 29 59 114 57 144 116 22:00-23:00 16 62 17 34 33 96 20 16 57 114 77 131 23:00-24:00 0 0 0 17 0 17 0 0 0 57 0 57 782 808 190 190 972 998 958 964 724 724 1682 1688
However Table 3 does not take into account the effect of linked trips between the retail units and the cinema. For example, a person may travel to the St Tydfil Square site to see a film, but beforehand have a drink at a pub or coffee shop, and then after the film go to eat at a restaurant before finally leaving the site. Thus it is possible that two or three generated retail trips as shown in Table 3 could result in only a single in/out movement on the local highway network. In particular, the majority of trips to the retail uses are likely to be linked with other uses within the St Tydfil Square site, or other activities within the town centre.
4.2 Car Parking Accumulation Using the forecast vehicle trip generation presented in Table 3, Table 4 shows the estimated car parking accumulation profile throughout the day for St Tydfil Square for a weekday and Saturday. Table 4 indicates a peak weekday parking accumulation of 185 vehicles between 7pm and 8pm. However another significant peak occurs around midday, with 137 vehicles parked between 12noon and 1pm. The results of the car park arrival / departure survey indicate that the number of spaces vacant at College (East) is sufficient to cater for the increase in demand during weekday afternoons and evenings with the development in place, even on market days. Earlier in the afternoon, ticket data for the 307-space College (Extension) car park indicates that sufficient spare capacity is available at this facility (approximately 150 spaces) to accommodate the midday peak
J:\119000\119668-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-70 TECHNICALPage NOTES\0001PG 82 TRANSPORT TECHNICAL ©Arup F0.15 NOTE_REV3.DOC Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004 119668 Technical Note 26 April 2006 Page 7 of 8
in parking accumulation. This car park is still within an acceptable walking distance (500m) of the development. The peak Saturday parking accumulation is 281 vehicles, between 6pm and 7pm. On Saturdays the level of daytime parking demand associated with the development is significantly increased; however sufficient spare capacity exists within the College (Extension) car park on Saturdays (approximately 200 spaces) to comfortably cater for this demand. Moreover, a significant proportion of the vehicle trips generated by the cinema during the day are likely to consist of set down and pick up movements, for example as parents collect their children. As daytime cinema visitors are generally younger, the location of the development adjacent to the central bus station, with frequent bus services to all parts of Merthyr Tydfil and the surrounding area, will minimise daytime car trip generation and thus parking demand. A significant proportion of visitors during the evening will also arrive by public transport. Although there are few bus services after 10pm, the taxi rank on Victoria Street is well located for cinema goers who are returning home. Also, as St Tydfil Square primarily consists of leisure uses, the sharing of car trips, and thus vehicle occupancy, is likely to be high. Taking these considerations into account, Table 4 represents very much a worst case scenario – the actual parking accumulation may be significantly lower than that indicated. Table 4: Estimated Parking Accumulation, St Tydfil Square
Weekday Saturday A3 Retail Cinema Total A3 Retail Cinema Total 00:00-01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:00-02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00-03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00-04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00-05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00-06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00-07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:00-08:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00-09:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:00-10:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00-11:00 26 2 28 16 10 26 11:00-12:00 46 8 53 46 38 84 12:00-13:00 114 23 137 65 86 151 13:00-14:00 108 27 134 62 95 157 14:00-15:00 52 25 77 36 105 141 15:00-16:00 23 29 51 20 152 172 16:00-17:00 26 23 49 13 133 146 17:00-18:00 72 29 100 121 133 254 18:00-19:00 78 57 135 72 210 281 19:00-20:00 134 51 185 68 171 240 20:00-21:00 72 51 123 36 171 207 21:00-22:00 46 69 114 7 229 235 22:00-23:00 0 51 51 10 171 181 23:00-24:00 0 34 34 10 114 124
J:\119000\119668-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-70 TECHNICAL NOTES\0001PGPage TRANSPORT 83 TECHNICAL ©Arup F0.15 NOTE_REV3.DOC Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004 119668 Technical Note 26 April 2006 Page 8 of 8
5. CONCLUSIONS The results of the car parking assessment indicate that the level of parking demand associated with the St Tydfil Square development can be accommodated within nearby public car parks at all times of the day. Although data supplied by the local authority indicates that College (East) and the Castle car parks operate near capacity during the daytime, within a short walk of St Tydfil Square spare capacity is plentiful at the College (Extension) car park. This can accommodate daytime peaks in parking demand, including on market days (Tuesdays and Saturdays). For example, College (Extension) operates at around 50% of capacity on Tuesdays, making available approximately 150 spaces to accommodate the midday peak in parking demand associated with the development of 137 vehicles. On Saturdays, ticket data indicates that the car park operates at less than one-third of capacity, releasing more than 200 spaces to accommodate the estimated early afternoon peak parking demand (1pm-2pm) of 157 vehicles. Accordingly, with the St Tydfil Square development in place, the Council may decide to extend the opening hours of College (Extension) car park later into the evening. It should be noted that the trip generation assessment has assumed a worst case scenario. The St Tydfil Square site is well located in relation to the local public transport and walking and cycling networks, with visitors being able to access the development by a variety of modes. This will minimise the level of car trip generation, and thus parking demand, associated with the site. In addition, many visitors to the development will already be parking in the town centre and will simply add St Tydfil Square to the number of purposes that they have for their existing trip.
J:\119000\119668-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-70 TECHNICALPage NOTES\0001PG 84 TRANSPORT TECHNICAL ©Arup F0.15 NOTE_REV3.DOC Rev 9.4, 15 March 2004 Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 86 Appendix 6 Initial On-site Capacity Survey
Castle College College Extension Total No of Spaces 286 336 294 Date (South 46) 21/03/06 13.58 14.06 14.09 Tuesday 14.02 14.09 14.17 9 10 136 22/03/06 10.00 10.09 10.14 Wednesday 10.04 10.14 10.20 0 0 206 23/03/06 09.57 10.06 10.11 Thursday 10.01 10.11 10.16 0 3 220 23/03/06 15.04 15.13 15.18 Thursday 15.08 15.18 15.23 16 61 235 31/03/06 10.02 10.12 10.18 Friday 10.04 10.18 10.25 7 47 231 31/03/06 15.04 15.13 15.18 Friday 15.08 15.18 15.25 24 119 254 04/04/06 10.03 10.10 10.15 Tuesday 10.06 10.15 10.20 4 0 91 11/04/06 10.02 10.10 10.16 Tuesday 10.06 10.16 10.22 3 59 229 11/04/06 15.07 15.16 15.21 Tuesday 15.11 15.21 15.27 9 55 239 06/06/06 10.00 10.08 10.13 Tuesday 10.03 10.13 10.21 4 2 139 08/06/06 10.00 10.09 10.13 Thursday 10.04 10.13 10.21 2 3 184 08/06/06 15.12 15.20 15.25 Thursday 15.16 15.25 15.32 33 82 253 13/06/06 10.04 10.13 10.17 Tuesday 10.08 10.17 10.25 3 1 143 13/06/06 15.12 15.21 15.26 Tuesday 15.16 15.26 15.33 34 65 223
Page 87 15/06/06 10.09 10.18 10.22 Thursday 10.13 10.22 10.30 5 23 215 15/06/06 15.31 15.40 15.45 Thursday 15.35 15.45 15.50 32 133 258 25/07/06 15.00 15.10 15.16 Tuesday 15.05 15.16 15.27 39 78 226 01/08/06 10.05 10.14 10.19 Tuesday 10.09 10.19 10.25 7 49 231 01/08/06 15.01 15.10 15.15 Tuesday 15.05 15.15 15.21 9 44 215 03/08/06 10.06 10.16 10.22 Thursday 10.10 10.22 10.28 10 121 271 03/08/06 15.01 15.10 15.16 Thursday 15.05 15.16 15.22 22 101 265 08/08/06 10.06 10.14 10.19 Tuesday 10.10 10.19 10.25 7 56 237 08/08/06 15.03 15.12 15.18 Tuesday 15.07 15.18 15.24 13 60 236 10/08/06 10.04 10.13 10.19 Thursday 10.08 10.19 10.25 9 127 263 10/08/06 15.07 15.16 15.22 Thursday 15.11 15.22 15.28 28 102 254 07/09/06 10.08 10.18 10.24 Thursday 10.12 10.24 10.30 8 40 237 07/09/06 15.14 15.23 15.29 Thursday 15.18 15.29 15.35 18 79 268 12/09/06 10.08 10.18 10.24 Tuesday 10.12 10.24 10.30 2 0 135 12/09/06 15.01 15.11 15.17 Tuesday 15.05 15.17 15.23 24 67 216 14/09/06 10.20 10.30 10.36 Thursday 10.24 10.36 10.42 2 15 229
Page 88 14/09/06 15.23 15.33 15.39 Thursday 15.27 15.39 15.45 24 89 261 19/09/06 15.05 15.15 15.21 Tuesday 15.09 15.21 15.27 28 54 204 21/09/06 10.09 10.19 10.25 Thursday 10.13 10.25 10.31 4 3 207 21/09/06 15.04 15.14 15.20 Thursday 15.08 15.20 15.26 30 44 222 26/09/06 10.05 10.15 10.21 Tuesday 10.09 10.21 10.27 5 0 117 26/09/06 15.03 15.13 15.19 Tuesday 15.07 15.19 15.25 21 55 185 28/09/06 10.29 10.39 10.45 Thursday 10.33 10.45 10.51 3 1 193 28/09/06 15.02 15.12 15.18 Thursday 15.06 15.18 15.24 28 58 209
Page 89 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 90 Appendix 7 Supplementary On-site Car Park Survey
Castle College College Extension Total No of Spaces 286 336 294 Date (South 46) 14/11/06 10.26 10.36 10.42 Tuesday 10.30 10.42 10.48 0 0 0 14/11/06 12.09 12.19 12.25 Tuesday 12.13 12.25 12.31 0 2 0 14/11/06 15.35 15.45 15.51 Tuesday 15.39 15.51 15.57 28 61 169 15/11/06 10.07 10.17 10.23 Wednesday 10.11 10.23 10.29 5 0 121 15/11/06 12.07 12.17 12.23 Wednesday 12.11 12.23 12.29 3 0 68 15/11/06 15.11 15.21 15.26 Wednesday 15.15 15.26 15.31 16 32 184 16/11/06 10.05 10.15 10.21 Thursday 10.09 10.21 10.27 0 1 149 16/11/06 12.14 12.24 12.30 Thursday 12.18 12.30 12.36 2 4 100 16/11/06 14.59 15.09 15.15 Thursday 15.03 15.15 15.21 13 37 210 17/11/06 10.07 10.17 10.23 Friday 10.11 10.23 10.29 0 1 124 17/11/06 12.17 12.27 12.33 Friday 12.21 12.33 12.40 1 9 147 17/11/06 15.03 15.13 15.19 Friday 15.07 15.19 15.25 37 77 230 20/11/06 10.06 10.16 10.22 Monday 10.10 10.22 10.28 5 2 135 20/11/06 12.09 12.19 12.25 Monday 12.13 12.25 12.31 2 10 89 20/11/06 15.06 15.16 15.22 Monday 15.10 15.22 15.28 26 56 218 21/11/06 10.19 10.29 10.35 Tuesday 10.23 10.35 10.41 4 1 31 21/11/06 12.09 12.19 12.25 Tuesday 12.13 12.25 12.31 0 0 16 21/11/06 15.05 15.15 15.21
Page 91 Tuesday 15.09 15.21 15.27 18 48 152 22/11/06 10.00 10.10 10.16 Wednesday 10.04 10.16 10.22 3 1 99 22/11/06 12.15 12.25 12.37 Wednesday 12.19 12.31 12.43 0 4 45 22/11/06 15.08 15.18 15.24 Wednesday 15.12 15.24 15.30 12 24 159 25/11/06 10.00 10.10 10.16 Saturday 10.04 10.16 10.22 133 102 226 25/11/06 12.03 12.13 12.19 Saturday 12.07 12.19 12.25 33 5 113 25/11/06 14.59 15.09 15.15 Saturday 15.03 15.15 15.21 78 56 206 28/11/06 10.01 10.11 10.17 Tuesday 10.05 10.17 10.23 0 0 32 28/11/06 12.10 12.20 12.26 Tuesday 12.14 12.26 12.32 4 1 0 28/11/06 15.10 15.20 15.26 Tuesday 15.14 15.26 15.32 41 37 146 29/11/06 10.06 10.16 10.22 Wednesday 10.10 10.22 10.28 0 1 103 29/11/06 12.07 12.17 12.23 Wednesday 12.11 12.23 12.29 1 1 56 29/11/06 15.09 15.19 15.25 Wednesday 15.13 15.25 15.31 14 41 173 02/12/06 10.00 10.10 10.16 Saturday 10.04 10.16 10.22 46 68 181 02/12/06 12.00 12.10 12.16 Saturday 12.04 12.16 12.22 6 2 67 02/12/06 15.00 15.10 15.16 Saturday 15.04 15.16 15.22 36 15 136 12/12/06 10.15 10.25 10.31 Tuesday 10.19 10.31 10.37 0 0 33 12/12/06 12.15 12.25 12.31 Tuesday 12.19 12.31 12.37 0 2 46 12/12/06 15.15 15.25 15.31 Tuesday 15.19 15.31 15.37 25 59 177
Page 92