LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTIONS
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/09/2011
APPLICATION No. 10/1681/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 08/09/2010
ED: PONTPRENNAU/ST MELLONS
APP: TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Heron Land Developments & Mr & Mrs James LOCATION: LAND AT CHURCH ROAD, LLANEDEYRN VILLAGE, PONTPRENNAU/OLD ST MELLONS, CARDIFF PROPOSAL: OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 150 DWELLINGS THE LAYING OUT OF OPEN SPACE NEW MEANS OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposal, by reason of the location and nature of the development, would represent an unsustainable form of development of land which is defined as ‘Countryside’ within the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policies H3 and C1 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan, Policies 2.39 (development within the countryside) and 2.43 (general landscape protection) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003), and with advice contained in Planning Policy Wales (2002) which states that new development in the open countryside, away from established settlements should be strictly controlled.
2. The proposal, by reason of the location would represent an unsustainable form of development by virtue of poor connectivity due to unsatisfactory pedestrian access and a lack of alternative transport modes resulting in residents being car dependent in order to access services and facilities, contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Wales, TAN 12, Policy 2.57 of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) and the Cardiff Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2008).
1. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This outline application seeks permission for the construction of up to 150 dwellings, open space, new means of vehicular access and associated infrastructure. The application also includes a ‘Toucan’ crossing of the A4232 (Pentwyn Link Road) in proximity to the north western corner of the site, to link the proposed development to the centre of Pontprennau to the west. The means of access is a matter for consideration with all other matters being reserved for subsequent approval. However, an indicative site plan has been submitted for consideration.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application relates to a greenfield site measuring 6.61 Hectares on land between Pontprennau and Llanedeyrn Village. To the immediate west the site is bounded by the Pentwyn Link Road, which joins the A48 Eastern Avenue to the M4. To the north of the site is Church Road as it curves around to join the Pentwyn Link Road. To the east of the site is Llanedeyrn Village and countryside beyond. To the south of the site is the A48 Eastern Avenue.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 04/2266E – Permission refused for the erection of 5 dwellings on part of this site - subsequent appeal dismissed.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Planning Policy Wales, (Edn.3, July 2010)
4.2 Technical Advice Note 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (June 2006): 2.2 Local planning authorities must ensure that sufficient land is genuinely available to provide a 5 year supply of land for housing. This land supply must inform the strategy contained in the development plan. Local planning authorities should also have regard to the requirement to prepare and provide timely housing land supply figures to satisfy the requirements of the Wales Programme for Improvement Core Planning Indicators3 and Local Development Plans Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR) 4.
5.1 The results of the Joint Housing Land Availability Studies should be treated as a material consideration in determining planning applications for housing. Where the current study shows a land supply below the 5 year requirement, the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications, provided that the development would otherwise comply with national planning policies. In addition, Local Planning Authorities must take steps to increase the supply of housing land. This may include reviewing the development plan, releasing land in its ownership, expediting planning applications or securing the provision of infrastructure for particular sites, which prospective developers may be prepared to finance in whole or in part. The local planning authority must include a statement in the JHLA study outlining the measures it is taking to address the shortfall in housing land supply.
4.3 TAN 12: Design, (2009)
4.4 TAN 18: Transport, (2007)
4.5 The site lies within an existing area which is identified as Countryside and Urban Fringe, as defined in the City of Cardiff Local Plan.
4.6 The application should be considered against the following policies of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan:
Policy 5 ‘The Countryside Including the Urban Fringe’ Policy 7 ‘Open Space’ Policy 8 ‘Nature Conservation’ Policy 11 ‘Design and Aesthetic Quality’ Policy13 ‘Energy Use’ Policy 17 ‘Parking and servicing requirements’ Policy 31 & 32 ‘Community Facilities’
4.7 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant:
Policy 1.A: General Principles for the Location of Development Policy 2.20 ‘Good Design’ Policy 2.24 ‘Residential Amenity’ Policy 2.26 ‘Provision for Open Space, Recreation and Leisure’ Policy 2.43 ‘General Landscape Protection’ Policy 2.45 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’ Policy 2.48 ‘Biodiversity’ Policy 2.57 ‘Parking and Servicing’ Policy 2.58 ‘Impact on Transport Networks’
4.8 Cardiff Residential Design Guide, Supplementary Planning Guidance (March 2008)
4.9 The South East Wales (Sewta) Regional Transport Plan (2010)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The comments of the Strategic Planning Manager are contained within the Analysis of the report.
5.2 The comments of the Strategic Planning Manager (Countryside) are contained within the Analysis of the report.
5.3 The Operational Manager Environment (Pollution Control) has no objections subject to conditions ground gas, contaminated land measures and imported soils and aggregates and advisory notes relating to construction site noise, radon gas protection and contaminated and unstable land.
5.4 The Chief Highways and Waste Officer (Drainage) advises:
‘The applicant has carried out a preliminary land drainage assessment of the site which has identified certain land drainage features situated both within and outside the curtilage of the application site and reference is made to the possibility of constructing an off-site culvert to be thrust bored beneath the A48, outfalling directly into the Rhymney River.
Consultation with the EA, the Council and Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has taken place regarding drainage matters and an assessment into any potential Flood Risk to the site has been carried out. A site investigation has also been carried out which appears to rule out sustainable Drainage Techniques as an option for draining surface water from the completed development although this option cannot be ruled out at this time as more detailed investigations including permeability testing will need to be carried out.
In the light of the above and in order to minimise any risk of flooding and pollution and to ensure an orderly development I request that the following condition be applied to any granted planning permission :
' No development shall take place until ground permeability tests have been undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and a comprehensive drainage scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water and the Environment Agency. '
5.5 The Operational Manager Waste Management advises that no details of storage for waste and recycling is shown on the submitted plans.
5.6 The Operational Manager Transportation initially considered that there was a lack of information contained within the submitted Transport Assessment. In particular the Transport Assessment was considered not to address the issue of impact that the introduction of a controlled crossing of the Pentwyn Link Road would have on traffic at the Pentwyn Link / Heol Pontprennau roundabout junction – nor the safety implications. In response to the comments of the Operational Manager Transportation a Transport Assessment Addendum was submitted. Following consideration of the additional information the Operational Manager Transportation advised that there would be no objection on Highway grounds providing a number of conditions were met:
(i) The upgrading of the proposed pedestrian crossing to a ‘Toucan’ crossing, with a central refuge of at least 4 metres; (ii) A minimum 2 metre wide refuge would be provided within the splitter island adjacent to the left turn lane into Heol Pontprennau. (iii) Existing footways from the ramped access from the site to the fire training centre access road – to the start of the new crossing, and from the other side of the new crossing to the existing crossing on Heol Pontprennau should be widened to 2.5 metres to make them suitable for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists. (iv) The provision of a CCTV camera is required to monitor traffic conditions at the intersection of the Pentwyn Link Road with Heol Pontprennau. (v) The provision of street lighting along the full length of the Pentwyn Link Road between the junctions with Heol Pontprennau and Eastern Avenue.
In addition Vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development may choose to use Church Road to access Bridge Road, rather than the Pentwyn Link and Heol Pontprennau. This is a significant concern mindful that Bridge Road is a sub-standard country lane which is not capable of accommodating large numbers of additional vehicle movements. A Section 106 contribution to enable the Council to process the Order and implement the required works.
5.7 The Operational Manager Land Use Transport advises:
‘Ensuring new development is accessible by sustainable transport is one of the core principles of the latest edition of Planning Policy Wales (PPW).
Paragraph 8.1 of PPW states: “The Assembly Government aims to extend choice in transport and secure accessibility in a way which supports sustainable development and helps to tackle the causes of climate change by: encouraging a more effective and efficient transport system, with greater use of the more sustainable and healthy forms of travel, and minimising the need to travel. This will be achieved through integration:
within and between different types of transport; between transport measures and land use planning; between transport measures and policies to protect and improve the environment; and between transport measures and policies for education, health, social inclusion and wealth creation”.
Paragraph 8.6.2 of PPW states that the development plan should: Ensure that new housing, jobs, shopping, leisure and services are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling;
Paragraph 8.7.1 of PPW states: “When determining a planning application for development that has transport implications, local planning authorities should take into account: the impacts of the proposed development on travel demand; the level and nature of public transport provision; accessibility by a range of different transport modes; the willingness of a developer to promote travel by public transport, walking or cycling, or to provide infrastructure or measures to manage traffic, to overcome transport objections to the proposed development (payment for such measures will not, however, justify granting planning permission to a development for which it would not otherwise be granted); the environmental impact of both transport infrastructure and the traffic generated (with a particular emphasis on minimising the causes of climate change associated with transport); and the effects on the safety and convenience of other users of the transport network”.
Paragraph 3.4 of TAN 18 states:
“ Settlement policies and residential allocations in development plans should therefore: promote housing development at locations with good access by walking and cycling to primary and secondary schools and public transport stops, and by all modes to employment, further and higher education, services, shopping and leisure, or where such access will be provided as part of the scheme or is a firm proposal in the RTP”
Paragraph 3.6 of TAN 18 states: “Developers should be able to demonstrate that: the development will facilitate access by new residents to public transport stops, local shops and facilities by walking and cycling; new or existing walking and cycling routes provide direct and safe links to public transport stops, local shops and facilities”.
Local Planning Policies
Relevant policies are contained in existing development plans for the Cardiff area, the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991- 2011, and the City of Cardiff Local Plan 1996.
South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991-2011 Policy MV1 (Location of New Developments) states:
‘To minimise traffic movements, developments will be favoured at locations which: (i) Are well served by public transport and are easily accessible for those wishing to travel other than by car; (ii) Minimise traffic levels and related adverse environmental impact’.
City of Cardiff Local Plan 1996: Policy 13: Energy Use states:
Proposals for new development at locations other than those identified on the Proposals Map, will only be permitted where:- (i) resultant traffic flows, travel patterns, energy use and other emissions would be minimised; and (ii) they would be well located by reference to public transport and for those wishing to travel other than by car’.
The Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (Deposit Version )2003 is also relevant to this application. Assembly guidance indicates that a UDP that has not been adopted may remain a consideration in development control decisions. The weight to be attached to policies and proposals in the UDP depends on the extent to which they may conflict with those in the adopted plans and whether objections to them were raised through deposit
Policy 1.A: General Principles for the Location of Development states:
“Development proposals should be located: (a). so as to enhance the environment where possible or, otherwise, to minimise harm to it;………. (c). to minimise travel demand and dependence on the car, facilitate walking, cycling and use of public transport and, where appropriate, support the movement of freight by rail or water;”
The South East Wales Regional Transport Plan
Planning Policy Wales (paragraph 8.1.5) strongly emphasises the need for development plan strategies and policies to be consistent and integrated with the strategies and policies contained in regional transport plans (RTPs).Whether a planning proposal supports or conflicts with RTP strategies and policies can therefore be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
The proposed development involves the introduction of a new direct pedestrian access on to a major arterial route.
The South East Wales (Sewta) RTP (2010) includes a number of strategic objectives and policies which are relevant to the current application.
Paragraph 4.3.4 (page 35) of the RTP includes a definition of the strategic regional road network and the need to protect this network from in appropriate direct accesses. It states “The network comprises the motorways and trunk roads under Welsh Assembly Government control and the most important A- roads under local authority control. This regional network will comprise the main arteries for movement. Development control policies should aim to protect the network from unnecessary direct accesses”.
The Sewta RTP includes specific policies in relation to land use planning and the impact of developments upon the strategic regional highway network.
Planning Policy PLP4 of the RTP states: “Sewta opposes land use proposals which will adversely affect transport networks, or which will conflict with the objectives, policies and proposals of the RTP”.
Planning Policy PLP5 of the RTP states: “Sewta supports the transport elements of regeneration and development programmes where they are to the benefit for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and do not adversely affect the operations of the highway network”.
Planning Policy PLP5 of the RTP states: “Sewta supports the transport elements of regeneration and development programmes where they are to the benefit of RTP objectives, make provision for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport”
Highway policy HIP2 of the RTP states: Sewta supports control of access to the regional roads network in the interests of highway safety and capacity. Whether the proposed access is appropriate under the terms of the RTP strategy and its policies is material to the determination of the current application.
Policy Context Summary
National planning policies strongly emphasise the requirement for new housing developments to be located in areas where they can provide a choice of travel options, be made accessible by sustainable travel modes, minimise travel demand, reduce reliance on the private car, and promote sustainable access to local facilities, in order to tackle the causes of climate change, help protect the environment and promote peoples’ health.
Although they predate current national planning policies by a number of years, policies in adopted development plans and the unadopted UDP are broadly consistent with the requirements of Planning Policy Wales and TAN 18.
The Sewta RTP strongly emphasises the need for the function of the regional strategic road network to be maintained and protected against adverse impacts of new development including inappropriate new accesses.
5.8 The Schools and Lifelong Learning Service have no objections.
5.9 Housing Strategy, Housing and Neighbourhood Renewal Advise:
‘Cardiff has high housing need for affordable housing in this area of the City. Data available from the Council’s current housing waiting list (September 2010) indicates there are 4,165 households waiting for a property in Pentwyn (*includes Pontprennau) with only 26 properties becoming available within the last 12 months, and 2,850 households waiting for a property in Old St Mellons with only 6 properties becoming available within the last 12 months .
As the site is suitable for affordable housing, we would seek the following in terms of an affordable housing contribution on this site:
Affordable Housing Contribution Housing Strategy would seek an on-site affordable housing contribution of 30%. However, the Local Authority has recently approved Interim Planning Policy which increases the target for affordable housing to 40% on applicable sites via an Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (AHDS). Therefore our advice to applicants is to consider this issue early and incorporate the required affordable housing in anticipation for new planning applications submitted after 21st October 2010.
Applicants also need to be aware that if economic viability is evidenced via an acceptable appraisal as preventing the development coming forward unless an affordable housing contribution of less than the relevant policy is agreed, then the applicant shall accept a deferred payment clause in the s106 agreement to secure equivalent extra provision up to the full policy requirement should market conditions improve. The developer will be required to work on an ‘open book’ basis, as well as meeting the Council’s costs in having the appraisal and any revised contributions or extra provision agreed or determined by an independent expert.
Type2 We would seek an affordable housing contribution representative of the development as a whole. However, we would as a priority seek family accommodation as per the Council’s strategic housing priorities. In terms of design, traditional family housing would be the priority’.
5.10 The Strategic Planning Manager Ecology advises:
‘Dormice
We note that Dormice have been detected on this site, and they are a European Protected Species’
When the application was first submitted it was considered that further information was required with regard to the potential impact upon Dormice. Following concerns expressed a Dormouse Mitigation Strategy was carried out and the Strategic Planning Manager is now satisfied with regards to the provision for Dormice.
Bats
‘We welcome the extensive bat surveys undertaken in relation to hedgerows and other vegetation on the site, but note that no surveys of the farm buildings to be demolished have taken place. Although on the face of it these buildings would seem to offer low potential as bat roosts, the applicant should submit an assessment (if not necessarily a full survey) of their suitability for roosting bats. Given the level of bat activity around the site, the applicant should submit, as part of an ecological method statement, details of measures to avoid and mitigate disturbance to bat species, and to protect unlit vegetation corridors to retain connectivity across and around the site.
Nesting Birds
Birds may be nesting in trees and bushes which are to be removed as well as in farm buildings which are to be demolished. Therefore we advise that the following condition be attached to planning consent:- Condition: No removal of trees, shrubs, bushes or hedgerows or outbuildings shall take place between 1st April and 31st July without prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid disturbance to nesting birds which are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: Part 1, 1(1)(b), it is an offence to intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built.
Reptiles
The reptile survey methodology is based on the assumption that the site may support small numbers of slow-worms or common lizards. We believe this assumption to be incorrect, and that the survey methodology is inadequate. Although we would expect slow-worms to occur on this site, we would not anticipate common lizards to occur there. Conversely, we consider it reasonably likely that grass snakes would occur on the site. Either way, using 0.5m x 0.5m roofing felt sheets is not adequate to survey for either common lizards or grass snakes.
Contrary to the reference made in section 4.0 of the Phase 2 interim report, the Froglife 1999 guidelines* do not stipulate refugia of 0.5m x 0.5m, rather of 0.5m2, i.e. about 0.7m x 0.7m. This is reinforced by the KRAG ‘Protected Reptiles and Development’ guidance† and the NARRS Reptile Survey Protocol‡. Reptile survey methods in the DMRB§ suggest that this figure of 0.5m2 be used as a minimum size, and that a range of sizes including larger refugia should be used. The KRAG guidance similarly recommends that refugia should be a MINIMUM of 0.5m2 in area. Larger refugia are more likely to be used by larger animals such as grass snakes, so it is important in surveying for this species that refugia of sufficient size are used.
We would also prefer a range of materials to be used such as corrugated metal sheets, corrugated bituminised roofing sheets (Onduline or similar), wooden boards etc to be used, as advised in DMRB, KRAG, NARRS and FAS10, although we recognise that the presence of livestock and public access in some fields may constrain the type of material used.
Therefore we recommend that the survey should continue in April and May inclusive 2011, using larger refugia and preferably a range of materials. If reptiles are detected, the applicant should submit, as part of an ecological method statement, details of measures to avoid, mitigate and compensate for any loss in the habitat of these species and of measures to avoid harm to individuals. This may involve identification of a suitable receptor site and translocation of individuals.
Amphibians
We do not agree with the statement in section 3.25 of the Phase 1 survey that because there are no ponds, the site is unsuitable for amphibians. Amphibians will migrate considerable distances to breeding ponds and correspondingly to feeding grounds on their return from breeding. As there are several ponds within 1 Km, it is not unlikely that frogs, toads and newts will use this site as terrestrial habitat outside of the breeding season. However, none of the ponds in this area are known to support Great Crested Newts, so we agree that it is unlikely that this particular species will inhabit this area.
Validity of Surveys
Some species may colonise the site or alter their usage of the site between the time that survey work has been undertaken and implementation of planning consent has begun. Therefore, if planning consent is granted but has not been implemented within two years, all surveys should be repeated.
NERC
These comments contribute to this Authority’s discharge of its duties under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, wherein: (1) Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. (3) Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
5.11 The Strategic Planning Manager (Trees) advises: ‘Whilst the site contains no significant maiden trees the hedgerows identified within the Hedgerow Survey and Assessment do contain numerous tree species that may have been previously managed and have the potential to form trees of significant size once the previous management ceases. There have obviously been numerous detailed surveys carried out in relation to the site, the ‘Hedgerow Survey and Assessment (Constraints Report)’ and the ‘Landscape and Visual Appraisal’ being of particular relevance. As such there is not much I can add with regard to the importance of the hedgerows in relation to biodiversity and historic landscape value. It is noted that the intention appears to be to retain much of the existing hedgerow infrastructure at the site and integrate this within the layout of the new development. This is obviously important with regard to the retention of trees that are within the hedgerow network and obviously protection of these trees, including their rooting areas , would be important during any construction period. The future management of the hedgerows should also be given consideration by the developers as if left unmanaged there may be potential for future conflict between the development and retained trees. An opportunity to comment on the proposed new planting and how this could serve to enhance and integrate into the retained hedgerows would also be welcomed’.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water has no objections subject to appropriate conditions relating to foul water and surface water being drained separately from the site and a drainage scheme being submitted to the LPA for approval.
6.2 Glamorgan and Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) advised: ‘We have checked the location against the Historic Environment Record (HER) that is curated by this Trust. Features noted in the HER show the medieval church of St Ederyn, first mentioned in documentation of the 12th century, but likely to date from the 6th century, lies outside but close to the eastern site boundary. This was the site of a clas, an early Christian monastic settlement that included enclosures, for both settlement and stock, and would have created an extensive land management system. Any proposed works in the area therefore have the potential to impact upon both known and unknown archaeological and historical features.
GGAT therefore recommended that the applicant commission an archaeological assessment of the area concerned to assess the impact of the proposals on the archaeological and historic resource and enable mitigation works to be implemented. It was advised that given the impact of the proposed development on the archaeological resource would be a material consideration in the determination of the current planning application, the determination of the application should be deferred until the report has been submitted, following the advice given in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, Section 12.
The archaeological assessment has now been submitted in accordance with recommendations and GGAT have provided the following comments on the assessment:
‘The assessment report has considered the impact of the development on the potential archaeological resource, as a buried resource and the impact on any designated buildings. The work meets current professional standards and the provision of this assessment report means that there is sufficient information to provide your Members with advice in regard to the importance of the archaeological resource in the application area and the impact of the proposed development on it. The proposed development has the potential, although not high, to impact upon the archaeological resource; the post-Roman, Early Medieval and Medieval periods are identified as being the most likely dates for elements of settlement and land management to be represented, with a focus for settlement around the Church and the hamlet of Llanedeyrn. The report notes previous archaeological work, and the alterations to the levels of land surface regarding the modern road and depot areas.
Taking the results into account, the report considers the potential for encountering archaeological remains to be low, but also considers the possibility for previously unknown remains to be located, as there are areas that have not been disturbed by development or for archaeological reasons. We therefore have no objection to the positive determination of the current application and to ensure that archaeological material encountered during the works is fully investigated and recorded, recommend that a condition is attached to any planning consent that is granted, for the submission and implementation of a written scheme of investigation which must detail the programme of archaeological work to be undertaken.
We recommend that the condition should be worded in a manner similar to the model given in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, Section 23:
No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource’.
6.3 The Countryside Council for Wales has no objections to the proposed development. Initially CCW did object to the proposal due to insufficient information with regard to the impact on dormice, a European Protected Species. The applicant has now submitted a Dormouse Mitigation Strategy. ‘CCW consider that this report provides an adequate basis upon which to make an informed assessment of the likely impact of the proposals on the favourable conservation status (FCS) of dormice. We still have a number of outstanding concerns. However, we consider it should be possible to address these concerns through the application of appropriate conditions’.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 A letter of objection has been received from Councillors D. Rees raising the following issues:
(i) The development is not sustainable as the site is separated from the communities of Old St Mellons and Pontprennau and lacks facilities. (ii) Poor connectivity to the existing settlements – The site is segregated from the community of Pontprennau by heavy traffic along a four lane trunk road, the main arterial link to the M4 motorway at Cardiff Gate. At the junction of the Pentwyn Link Road with Eastern Avenue there are five lanes of traffic. Pedestrian access to the community of Pontprennau is hazardous. Pedestrian and cycle access to Old St Mellons from the site is along a single lane road with high hedges on both sides. Walking is hazardous. (iii) An absence of school provision within the area. (iv) Damage to wildlife – the site is rich in native hedgerows which are known to be the habitat of protected species such as dormice.
7.2 A letter of objection has been received from Councillor J Rogers raising the following issues:
(i) The proposal is contrary to Policy SP 4 as ‘there is a lack of connectivity, this is a rural area with limited community facilities, shops, safe walking routes, and transport links are poor. There will undoubtedly be a dependency upon vehicular usage which would increase the amount of car traffic and not reduce it. No rail provision is provided near this site nor is likely to be thus compounding the usage of car traffic. There is no school within Pontprennau, the proposal to build up to 150 home with proposed multiple occupancy.
(ii) The proposal is contrary to Policy SP 6 as Cardiff’s distinctive natural heritage will be protected, positively managed and enhanced together with improving access where this does not create unacceptable conflicts, in particular:
• The city’s landscape setting including its countryside, areas of high landscape quality, river valleys and coastline • Biodiversity interests including designated sites, habitats, and species of importance and ecological networks and features of importance
The Ward of Pontprennau and Old St. Mellons are home sites of importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The proposed development site is of specific interest with protected and priority species recorded within the priority habitat.
Bats are disturbed by many developments with increased lighting and domestic animals having a detrimental effect.
(iii) Policy SP 9: In the interests of the long-term sustainable development of Cardiff, the city’s natural resources will be protected and pollution tackled through: (i) Protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land (ii) Protecting the quality and quantity of water resources, including underground, surface and coastal waters.
(iv) Policy SD 3: Development will not be permitted: a. Within tidal or fluvial flood plains unless existing or proposed flood prevention and/or protection measures are acceptable or b. Where it would increase the risk of flooding or c. Where it would hinder future maintenance or improvement schemes of flood defences and watercourses or d. Where it would cause adverse effect on the integrity of tidal or fluvial defences.
This site is outside of the settlement boundary. The proposals are inappropriate to the countryside setting.
7.3 Representations have been received from the occupiers of ‘Shenstone’ Ty’r Winch Road, which raise the following objections: (i) The proposal does not accord with the provisions of the draft Local Development Plan Policy SP1, SP9 and SD3 as development would exacerbate flooding in the area. (ii) The proposal does not accord with the provisions of the draft Local Development Plan Policy SP2. The removal of open space between Pontprennau and Old St Mellons will reduce the sense of community in the areas and increase crime with the creation of additional routes between. (iii) Draft Local Development Plan Policy SP3 - there are high volumes of traffic on Pentwyn Link Road, and traffic problems would be exacerbated by the proposed development. (iv) Draft Local Development Plan Policy SP4 encourages development integrated with transport and the reduction in reliance on the car. The proposed development would not be accessible by rail and is therefore, contrary to the policy. (v) The proposal does not accord with the provisions of the draft Local Development Plan Policy SP6, which seeks to protect Cardiff’s natural heritage. The proposal would result in damage to the important wildlife corridor along the river. Increased lighting and domestic pets would be a threat particularly to Daubentons bats. (vi The proposal does not accord with the provisions of the draft Local Development Plan Policy HER1 as the proposed development is outside the settlement boundary. (vii) The proposal does not accord with the provisions of the draft Local Development Plan Policy HER5 as the site lies within the river corridor and would damage the character of the corridor. (viii The proposal could compromise the aims of Policy HER 6 for the development of a network of recreational routes to link river corridors. (ix) The proposal does not accord with the provisions of Policy HER 8 which seeks to only allow development where there would be no significant harm to a landscape feature of importance for wild flora and fauna or a network of importance for landscape or nature conservation. (x) The proposal does not accord with the provisions of Policy HER 9 as the significant adverse impact upon a wildlife habitat and species can not be adequately mitigated. (xi) The development does not accord with Policy Trans 2 as the development is not close to an existing bus corridor. (xii) The dormouse mitigation strategy treats the issue as a purely habitat engineering problem and is flawed. The impact of domestic pets upon the dormouse population should also be considered. (xiii) The traffic assessment is fundamentally flawed and based on ‘limited discussions and mathematical modelling. The numbers of cars using the link road during peak times is significantly underestimated.
7.4 Representation have been received from the occupiers of ‘Glan Alarch’, Bridge Road, ‘Hightrees’ and ‘Oaklands’ Ty’r Winch Road and 125 Lascelles Drive:
(i) The development would be an excessive overdevelopment of the area; (ii) Encroach on a greenfield, rural area; (iii) Cross the natural boundary of the A4232 below Lascelles Drive. (iv) Destroy the rural setting of St Edeyrn’s Church; (v) Be dangerous in the amount of vehicles trying to enter the A232; (vi) Be beyond the capability of the local drainage network; (vii) Cause pollution of the river Rhymney should any drainage fail due to the layout and slope of the site. (viii) Cause increased noise, air and light pollution; (ix) Damage wildlife within the area. (x) Increased traffic from people using Old St Mellons as a ‘rat run’ through to Pontprennau.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 It is considered that the key issues for consideration in assessing this application are firstly, the relationship with surrounding communities, facilities and infrastructure and how this will facilitate a sustainable community development. Secondly, the location of the proposed development on land which is defined as countryside in both the Cardiff Local Plan and the Unitary Development Plan. Thirdly the lack of housing land supply in Cardiff. These issues will be examined in turn.
8.2 The following policy statements have particular relevance to this application, and the analysis which is to follow:
(i) Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 4, 4.4.2 states – “Planning policies and proposals should: ….Locate developments so as to minimise the demand for travel, especially by private car.”
(ii) Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 9, 9.1.2 states - Local planning authorities should promote sustainable residential environments; avoid large housing areas of monotonous character… Local planning authorities should promote:
• development that is easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking, although in rural areas required development might not be able to achieve all accessibility criteria in all circumstances; • mixed use development so communities have good access to employment, retail and other services; • Greater emphasis on quality, good design and the creation of places to live that are safe and attractive;
(iii) TAN 12, 4.13 states that: ‘Movement and ease of access for all to and from development should be appraised at the strategic and local level, with a view to supporting a shift from car use to walking, cycling and public transport and recognising the need for better connectivity within areas and with the surrounding areas. Consideration should be given to the volume and relative ease of pedestrian movements, including people with mobility or sensory impairments. Similar consideration of volume and ease of movement should be given to cycle, public transport and car movements, while areas of conflict, congestion and connections should be identified throughout the area surrounding the site’.
(iv) TAN 12: 5.9.1 states that: ‘The siting, layout and detailed design of development will often be critically important to the success of efforts to provide genuine alternatives to car travel’.
8.3 In response to the design of the proposed development, in relation to the guidance contained within the above Policies: There is no provision for local facilities or services on site proposed as part of the application. Prospective residents would therefore be entirely reliant on facilities and services in neighbouring communities. The routes which pedestrians and cyclists would need to use in reaching the majority of these are currently very poor. While it is suggested within the Design and Access Statement that improvements will be made to ensure that the site is more easily accessible, details have not been provided as to how this will be achieved or to the extent to which thought has been given to the issue beyond the site and its immediate surroundings.
The site is surrounded by duel carriageways (A4232 & A48) where 50MPH speed limits apply. Any pedestrian or cycle movement outside the site proposal therefore would involve negotiating wide and busy roads, quiet, poorly surveyed, unlit, and inappropriately surfaced paths along difficult terrain, and/or pedestrian subways which receive inadequate levels of natural surveillance and which are prone to flooding, in order to reach basic / essential facilities and services. This significantly restricts the site’s connectivity to surrounding neighbourhoods by means of travel other than the car. As a result, the application site has a particularly isolated context.
Paragraph 5.9.4 of Tan 12 states that: “Particular care should be taken to ensure that the design of infrastructure avoids severance and fragmentation of communities. Permeable access for all is vital. Issues such as gradient, lighting, and security should be addressed in the design of pedestrian and cycle routes in particular to ensure that routes are coherent, legible, direct, attractive, safe, and unobstructed. The different needs of cyclists and pedestrians, including those with mobility impairments and/or sensory impairments, and potential for conflict should also be recognised and addressed. Safety and perception of safety are vitally important in efforts to encourage walking and cycling. Designs should take account of the need to protect the interests of all vulnerable road users. (Tan 12: Design, Page 41, 5.9.4)
Although the application is in outline, the issue of connectivity is clearly central to the analysis of the proposal. The submitted application and plans fail to provide sufficient justification as to how a proposed scheme would overcome the particularly difficult issues relating to pedestrian and cycle connectivity, infrastructure and facility provision that arise. Given the highly constrained nature of the site it is difficult to envisage how some of these issues could be overcome satisfactorily.
The additional information submitted in the transport assessment report focuses entirely on crossing the Pentwyn link road. No other improvements to the general connectivity of the area have been investigated in any depth.
The applicants are relying on the submitted Transport Assessment to make the case that the A4232 can be crossed safely with the provision of a pedestrian crossing. Their Transport Assessment states that the site is within acceptable walking distances to retail and employment areas:
• Bus stops (600m) • Cardiff Retail Park (750m)
A sustainable neighbourhood is a place where people live within safe and convenient walking distance to most places they want to visit, whether it is to their local shops or community and recreation provision. A highly walk-able neighbourhood is generally considered to be one where you can easily walk to most local facilities within within 10 minutes walk or around 800m.
It is accepted that the development site lies within reasonable geographic distance to bus stops and local shopping facilities. However, the site does not offer a high level of connectivity. There is no easy walking & cycling route from the site to other destinations. The A4232 is an inhospitable and intimidating barrier.
While a pedestrian crossing or bridge spanning the Pentwyn link road would link the site (albeit questionably) into the Pontprennau community, only limited facilities are available within this neighbourhood of the city which would support the proposed development. As such, the crossing would only create a small improvement in the quality of the environment and routes leading to the few facilities and services within the area. Consideration has not been given to improving the alternative links to and from the site and the accessibility of these to all member of society.
The Urban Design Compendium covers the issue of the integration of a development. How a site connects and overlaps with surrounding areas. The connectivity of streets is the defining factor. The Compendium recommends that walk-able neighbourhoods should provide pedestrian routes as part of shared corridors and road space; with the maximisation of frontages at street level; lighting for security and accessible routes for all abilities. Urban Design Compendium. 03 Creating the Urban Structure. September 2007
The pedestrian links from the application site will be across the A4232, the PDR which has no frontage development. All footways are lined with high hedgerow embankments and surveillance at street level is at a minimum.
Safety is not just about the provision of a pedestrian crossing or footbridge, it is the perception of the safety of the route to be taken. Various factors affect perception and therefore the walk-ability of a route: • crossing safety
• perception of security from crime • quality of motorist behaviour • convenience & attractiveness of route
The propensity to walk or cycle is not only influenced by distance but also the quality of the experience; people may be willing to walk or cycle further where their surroundings are more attractive, safe and stimulating. Developers should consider the safety of the routes (adequacy of surveillance, sight lines and appropriate lighting) …in their design. Building Sustainable Transport into New Developments: A Menu of Options for Growth Points and Eco-towns. p. 8 , Department for Transport. , April 2008
The inclusion of wording such as “potential improvements” within the amended plan fails to provide any certainty or clarity with regard to any proposed improvements to the public realm or connectivity to, from and within the site. While it is appreciated that the application is in outline form, it is again considered essential that further and more in depth information is provided with regard to how the development will overcome the issues indentified within this and previous correspondence relating to the development of the site.
Impact upon the hamlet of Llanedeyrn
No part of Church Road, including the turning area at the end, has been included within the application site boundary or appears to have any relationship with the development proposal. Church Road currently has a road block in place restricting vehicular access along its western end beyond the last of the houses in the hamlet.
The amended site plan indicates the potential for houses to front Church Road and for a potential pedestrian link. These should be a requirement for any reserved matters application.
Objective 1.3 of the Cardiff Residential Design Guide states that “the layout and design of developments should be sensitive to the appearance and setting of historic buildings, whether they are Listed, Locally Listed or located within Conservation Area.” Any development around the village should provide an opportunity to integrate it better with surrounding neighbourhoods, facilities and infrastructure and to strengthen its local identity through utilising and building upon its historic character’.
The proposal, as submitted fails to sufficiently address national and local policy and guidance and therefore the concerns raised above to an appropriate level. It is subsequently considered unacceptable from an urban design perspective.
The proposed development in urban design terms is considered contrary to Planning Policy Wales, Tan 12 and the Cardiff Residential Design Guide given:
• The lack of an appropriate level of connectivity between the site and its surroundings by means of travel other than the car • The failure of the scheme to propose / provide any new infrastructure or social / community facilities to address or alleviate the issue of its isolation. • Likely creation of a heavily car dependent environment.
Proposal turning its back on the existing buildings within the hamlet and the roads and footpaths leading to, from and through it. It therefore fails to create any meaningful relationship with the hamlet, fails to utilise or benefit from the existing character of the area and ignores numerous design opportunities’.
8.4 The second key issue is housing land supply. Planning Policy Wales (Edition 3, June 2010) and Technical Advice Note 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (JHLAS) (June 2006) make it clear that Local planning authorities must ensure that sufficient land is genuinely available or will become available to provide a 5 year supply of land for housing. Study Groups have been established across Wales to undertake housing land availability studies and are co-ordinated by the department for Economy and Transport of the Welsh Assembly Government.
The latest housing land availability figures for Cardiff were issued in June 2011 based on figures as at 1st April 2010. These indicate that Cardiff has a 3.4 year residential land supply (3,754 units) based on the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan and 2.2 years based on the past 5 year build rates.
The recent reduction in build rates – down to just 959 dwellings in 2001-11 will have implications for any future calculations of land supply based on build rates.
It is therefore apparent that whichever of the two methodologies is used, that the supply is less than 5 years. In such situations, TAN 1 states: “The results of the Joint Housing Land Availability Studies should be treated as a material consideration in determining planning applications for housing. Where the current study shows a land supply below the 5 year requirement, the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications, provided that development would otherwise comply with national planning policies”.
The Council is actively addressing the land supply situation as required by TAN 1. The candidate site process being undertaken as part of the LDP process is being used to assess current market interest and the suitability of sites. Additionally, work is being undertaken to explore the opportunities of maximising the contribution of brownfield sites- an approach that accords with WAG guidance on utilising previously developed land ahead of greenfield sites.
The deadline for the submission of candidate sites has just passed. It shows that approximately 18,000 units have been proposed for greenfield sites and some 2,000 units on brownfield sites. A full assessment of these submissions is now underway along with the wider consideration of further potential brownfield sites. It is not possible at this moment, prior to a full assessment being completed, to reach immediate conclusions on the acceptability or otherwise of potential sites but the work is underway.
8.5 The Operational Manager Land Use Transport sums up the key transport policy issues for consideration as:
‘Whether the proposed development, by virtue of its location, would minimise travel demand, enable a choice of travel options, and be highly accessible by sustainable transport modes.
The Transport Assessment (TA) submitted with the application indicates the development will generate 9.3 daily trips per unit equating to a total of 1,406 (two way) daily trips. The TA indicates that circa 80% of daily trips generated will be by car while 8.5% of trips would be by public transport, 3.6% on foot and only 0.6% by bicycle. This modal split and the predicted Trip Distribution in paragraph 5.1.3 of the TA indicate that the development would be highly car dependent.
The above conclusion is underlined by the TA Addendum which indicates in paragraphs 3.21 and 3.22 that in reality, the puffin crossing would only be called 6 times by pedestrians during the peak hour. This suggests that very few trips would be made to/from the site (including trips to the bus stops) on foot.
The TA indicates that the development is within 600 metres of the nearest bus stops, which are situated on Heol Pontprennau. IHT publication ‘Guidelines for Planning for Public Transport in Developments’ (1999) states that the maximum walking distance to a bus stop should not exceed 400 metres. This equates to a five minute walk and is defined on the basis that it is the maximum distance that most people would be prepared to walk to catch a bus. Large portions of the development site would in fact be more than 600 away from the bus stops on Heol Pontprennau. This distance is highly likely to deter most people from walking to either of the bus stops. Furthermore, it is considered that the need for people to cross a busy dual carriageway with a 50mph speed limit (even with a puffin crossing facility in place) would act as an additional deterrent to most people walking to the bus stops.
The bus stops concerned provide access to two bus services to Central Cardiff. These provide services to the city centre every 8-10 minutes. However, the timetabled journey at peak times is around 55 minutes, which means that the bus is unlikely to be an attractive alternative to car travel for residents travelling to work in the City Centre/Cardiff Bay areas given its relationship with the strategic road network.
The location of the site is such that the choice of travel options besides the private car will be very limited. There are no rail links near to or within easy reach of the site. The nearest bus services operate from stops situated some 600 metres away from the centre of the site (although a large proportion of dwellings will be situated further away than this from these stops). Walking facilities in/out of the site are very limited. Most walking trips to/from the site would involve crossing the A4232, which is not an attractive environment for pedestrians and would be likely to deter most people from making local trips on foot. The remoteness of the site from schools and other community facilities would also make walking impractical for many essential daily journeys made by residents of the development. This is clearly reflected in the predicted modal split for the site included in the TA and the assumption therein that the proposed puffin crossing would only be called 6 times during peak periods. The site would not be served by any purpose-built cycling facilities, besides the proposed provision for cyclists within the puffin crossing. The nearest traffic free facility, the Rhymney Trail is 1km away and accessible only by road. These factors would not make cycling to/from the site an attractive travel option for most people. The remoteness of the site from essential facilities (see below) and the need to cycle on the highway to reach those facilities would be an added deterrent to cycling for most people.
Due to its scale, the development site includes no community facilities of its own, meaning that residents would be reliant upon existing facilities in the area. The TA states that the development would be within a 25 minute walk of a wide range of employment and community facilities including GP surgeries and schools. From the centre of the site, the nearest primary school, Bryn Celyn Primary School, is over 2km away. The nearest post office and shops are approximately 750km away from the centre of the site although they would be further away from many parts of the development. The nearest GP surgery is approximately 1.4 km. Cardiff Gate Business Park is 1.7km distance from the site. The pedestrian route to Cardiff Gate Business Park is circuitous as there is no footpath or street lighting on the A4232. In practical terms, most essential facilities are not within a reasonable walking distance for most of the residents on the site. This is clearly reflected in the predicted modal split for the site included in the TA and the assumption therein that the proposed puffin crossing would only be called 6 times during peak periods.
On the basis of the above analysis, it can be concluded that the development would not minimise travel demand, would be dependent upon the car for daily travel, would not, offer a choice of travel options, or be highly accessible by sustainable travel modes. Although a Framework Travel Plan has been included within the TA, it is considered that the measures indicated in the Travel Plan would be insufficient to overcome the fundamental constraints to sustainable accessibility highlighted above’.
8.6 The third key issue, as outlined above is the development of a site which is defined as Countryside in both the Cardiff Local Plan and the Unitary Development Plan. The site forms part of the valley side in this area – sloping down in a south easterly direction from the high point in the north (from the Pentwyn link road towards Church Road and the river corridor). The site comprises irregular fields with some strong hedgerows including mature trees around the site, and forming the boundaries to the fields.
The Strategic Planning Manager (Countryside) advises: ‘It is part of Character Area 9: Rhymney River Corridor (as identified in the Review of Landscape Character Areas February 2008). This area extends from the county boundary in the north east to the coast. It comprises the flat floor of the river valley and its adjacent sides.
The site is outside the urban area, on land identified as countryside in the Local Plan. National and Local countryside polices seek to strictly control development in the countryside in order to protect its quality and character. Its elevated position on the valley sides means that the site is clearly visible from housing areas and open spaces in Llanrumney. It forms a green finger extending into Cardiff from the north east, and parts of the area are clearly visible from housing, a major arterial route into the city, and public rights of way, closer to (and within) the site. The proposed development would result in the loss of this area of open green land and inevitably have an urbanising and detrimental effect on the landscape character of this area.
This proposal is therefore contrary to national and local countryside and landscape policies’.
It is considered that the applicant has failed to justify the development of this site, which is on land defined as Countryside, in relation to both local and national policy. No satisfactory evidence has been provided to show how the site could be developed in a manner which would provide adequate connectivity with services, facilities and the wider community within the area. The proposed development would be likely to create an inward facing and isolated community who would be largely car dependent in order to access facilities outside of the area.
8.7 The Operational Manager Transportation has no objections, subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement with regard to a number of highway and pedestrian access improvements, (See paragraph 5.6 above).
8.8 The Strategic Planning Manager (Ecology) has no objections following the submission of the Dormouse Mitigation Strategy (See paragraph 5.9).
8.9 In response to objections received, which are not already addressed within the report:
(i) The Schools and Lifelong Learning Service have no objections with regard to school place provision. (ii) The Strategic Planning Manager (Ecology) is satisfied, following the receipt of additional information with regard to impact upon protected species that any potential impacts can be adequately mitigated. (iii) It should be noted that limited weight can be placed upon the policies contained within the Cardiff Deposit Local Development Plan (March 2009) as it has not yet been adopted. (iv) The safety concerns regarding residents of the proposed dwellings accessing the site via Old St Melons would be prevented by the closure of Church Road.
8.10 The proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Wales, TAN 12, Policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and Policy 2.57 of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003) with regard to the connectivity of the site and the reliance on the car as a mode of transport. There is no provision for local facilities or services as part of the application and prospective residents would be heavily reliant on vehicular transportation in order to access required facilities. The location of the site between duel carriageways (A4232 & A48) would make pedestrian and cycle movement from the site considerably unattractive and potentially inhospitable and access to public transport is not available from the site. In addition the site is located on land which is defined as ‘Countryside and Urban Fringe’ in both the City of Cardiff Local Plan and the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be an unsustainable form of development. (see comments of the Strategic Planning Manager paragraph 5.1).
8.11 The comments of the Planning Inspector should be noted, in determining the appeal for the refusal of application 04/2266E for the erection of 5 dwellings on part of this site: ‘I have noted the footpaths that serve the site and the location of bus stops and shopping facilities in the area. However, given the distance and intervening busy roads to the nearest services, I consider the occupiers of the proposal would rely almost entirely on use of private cars and in this respect the proposal is not an example of sustainable development and is objectionable because of this’.
8.12 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the above reasons, and the failure of the proposal to comply with national and local policy is considered to outweigh the lack of 5 year housing supply that the city presently experiences.