CARDIFF COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
THE REPORTS OF THE CHIEF STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT OFFICER
LIST OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 14TH OCTOBER 2009 AT 2.30PM
AREA PAGES
EAST 1 - 42
CENTRAL 43 – 279
WEST 280 - 402
5th October 2009
20871513
TO: Members of the Council
Dear Councillor
Planning Committee Wednesday 14th October 2009 at Ferrier Hall, City Hall, Cardiff (meeting starts at 2.30.p.m.)
I attach a copy of the schedule of Development Control Applications which will be considered at this meeting of the Planning Committee.
The plans relating to the applications will be available for inspection at the City Hall, during the whole of Tuesday and Wednesday morning preceding the Committee.
Unless otherwise stated in the report, Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine the applications in the schedule. Planning Committee (but not an individual member) can also refer a matter to another committee or to the Council for a resolution. However, Council cannot move an amendment to a recommendation relating to a planning application or make a recommendation relating to a planning application and can only refer a matter back to Planning Committee on one occasion, after which Planning Committee shall decide the matter.
Please now note that if any requests for site visits are acceded to by the meeting, such site visits will take place during the afternoon of Monday 9th November 2009 . If you submit a request for a site visit, you must include in your submission -
(a) a choice of at least two starting times for the site visit that you are requesting, each of which must be at least 45 minutes apart; and (b) the reasons why you believe that such a site visit is necessary.
If you fail to provide any choices of starting times for the site visit that you've requested, it will be assumed that you will be available to attend such a site visit at any time of the day, regardless of what time it starts.
The Clerk to the Council will circulate the Agenda for the meeting to the Members of the Planning Committee separately.
Yours sincerely,
Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer
CARDIFF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In May 2005 the Welsh Assembly Government agreed a request from the Council to cease work on the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which had reached deposit stage and proceed as soon as possible with preparation of a new Local Development Plan (LDP) under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
On 28 April 2009, Cardiff Council placed the Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006-2021 on deposit for public inspection and the submission of representations. In approving the LDP for deposit on 19 March 2009, Council also resolved that “from the date of deposit, in addition to extant development plans, the deposited LDP be taken into account in development control decisions”.
Extant adopted and approved development plans for the administrative area of Cardiff will remain the statutory development plan for Cardiff until formal adoption of the new LDP. These are the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (1997) and the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Minerals Local Plan 1997) together with the approved Mid Glamorgan County Structure Plan incorporating Proposed Alterations No. 1 (September 1989). In accordance with Assembly guidance, in determining the weight to be attached to policies and proposals in the deposited LDP the Council will have regard to:
• The degree to which later statements of national policy and the Wales Spatial Plan make the statutory Development Plan out of date and suggest a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan; • The degree to which the statutory Development Plan is out of date for any other reason; • The degree to which a relevant policy of the LDP provides guidance on the issue; • Where this is the case the cogency of the evidence upon which it is based including the degree to which it is derived from and consistent with national policy; • The implications for the legitimacy of the plan process if effect is given to the policy at this stage; • The implications for the objectives of the policy and the public interest if effect is not given to it until a later date; • The level and nature of any objections to, and representations in support of, a particular policy; • The degree of any conflict with adopted / approved plans; • Whether particular development proposals are individually so substantial, or would be so significant a cumulative effect, that to grant permission would predetermine decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which ought properly to be taken through the development plan; and • The extent to which plan policies accord with current Welsh Assembly Government planning policy guidance.
In respect to the weight to be attached to the deposited UDP Welsh Assembly Guidance states that a UDP that has not been adopted may remain a consideration in development control decisions until such time as the LDP is adopted, unless it is formally abandoned by the authority in favour of an emerging LDP. As the UDP has not been formally abandoned by the Council the UDP remains a material consideration in development control decisions. However the weight which can be attached to the LDP relative to the UDP is likely to increase the further it progresses to adoption.
Table 1.1: Existing Development Plans covering the Cardiff County Area
Cardiff County Area Cardiff Deposit Unitary Development The Plan was placed on deposit in Plan (to 2016) October 2003 and agreement was reached with Welsh Assembly Government in May 2005 to cease work on the plan and commence work on a new Local Development Plan.
City of Cardiff Area (part of the County of South Glamorgan until April 1996) South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Adopted April 1997 Replacement Structure plan 1991- 2011
City of Cardiff Local Plan (including Adopted January 1996 Waste Policies)
South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Adopted June 1997 Minerals Local Plan Pentyrch Community Area (part of the County of Mid Glamorgan and Borough of Taff Ely until April 1996) Mid Glamorgan County Structure Plan Approved September 1989 incorporating Proposed Alterations No. 1 Mid Glamorgan Replacement Structure Modifications to the Plan including Plan recommendations of the EIP Panel approved by Mid Glamorgan County Council in January 1996 but not adopted in respect of the Pentyrch Community Area.
Glamorgan County Development Plan Approved March 1963 (Area No. 2)
Mid Glamorgan Minerals Local Plan for In June 1996 Cardiff County Council Limestone Quarrying resolved to approve the Plan as modified by the Inspector’s Report, for development control and other planning purposes, but the Plan was not adopted in respect of the Pentyrch Community Area.
PAGE APPLIC NO. ADDRESS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RECOMMEN OFFICER NO. DATION 1 09/197/E 2 & 4 WESTMINSTER RETENTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE PER GR COURT, LANGDALE CLOSE, EXTENSION PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 5NA 9 09/198/E 2 & 4 WESTMINSTER PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO PER GR COURT, LANGDALE CLOSE, CURRENTLY UNAUTHORISED GARAGE PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 AND RETENTION OF RETAINING WALL 5NA 19 09/831/E MELWOOD, OLD NEWPORT DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND PER MCH ROAD, OLD ST MELLONS, REDEVELOP WITH 2 NO RESIDENTIAL CARDIFF, CF3 5FX UNITS 32 09/01281/E 40 NORTH RISE, LISVANE, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION PER DJ CARDIFF, CF14 0RN
43 08/02191/C CAMBRIAN MARINA HOTEL (INCLUDING CONFERENCE SUITE, GYM, SPA, 106 NEH BOATYARD AND RESTAURANTS AND BARS), RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE ADJOINING LAND, AND FOOD AND DRINK UNITS, PARKING AND SERVICE WATKISS WAY AREAS, NEW ACCESS, PUBLIC REALM AND NEW RIVER EDGE REVETMENT 89 09/00468/C 54 METAL STREET, PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTRE AND FIVE FLATS 106 NEH ADAMSDOWN, CARDIFF, CF24 0LB 105 09/00993/C CUSTOM HOUSE, CHANGE OF USE TO DAY CENTRE AND ACCOMODATION PER RJC CUSTOMHOUSE STREET, FOR HOMELESS PERSONS CITY CENTRE, CARDIFF, CF10 1RF 132 09/01084/C 36 RICHMOND ROAD, CONTINUATION OF OFFICE USE IN THE FRONT GROUND REF NEH ROATH, CARDIFF, CF24 FLOOR ROOM, IN THE FIRST FLOOR TWO FRONT ROOMS 3AS AND ON THE SECOND FLOOR, AND A PROPOSED ACCESS RAMP 148 09/01103/C SHERMAN THEATRE, ALTERATIONS TO AND EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING 106 NEH SENGHENNYDD ROAD, SHERMAN THEATRE CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF24 4YE 163 09/01133/C LAND OFF CELERITY 3 NO. 2 BEDROOM HOUSES, WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, PER CJE DRIVE, ATLANTIC AMENITY SPACE AND SPECIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE WHARF, CARDIFF PROPOSAL 175 09/01185/C CARDIFF BUSINESS REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING SITE TO CONSTRUCT NEW NEH TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, INNOVATION CENTRE FOR CARDIFF SENGHENNYDD ROAD, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF24 4AY 190 09/01191/C LAND AT DUMBALLS APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY (3 YEAR) CONSENT FOR REF OAG ROAD (FORMER A CAR PARK ON AN UNDEVELOPED SITE EARMARKED FOR CONSTRUCTION HOUSE FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND TO THE NORTH), BUTETOWN, CARDIFF, CF10 5FE
197 09/01293/C LOCOMOTIVE INN, 62-66 DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDING, CONSTRUCT 3 STOREY 106 OAG BROADWAY, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMPRISING 18NO ONE BEDROOM ADAMSDOWN, CARDIFF, DWELLINGS CF24 1NH 212 09/01316/C THE HALL, CECIL CONVERT MULTI-PURPOSE HALL INTO 3 SELF-CONTAINED 106 NEH STREET, ADAMSDOWN, FLATS CARDIFF, CF24 1NW 223 09/01368/C 17 CORPORATION ROAD, VARIATION OF CONDITION 3 & 4 OF PLANNING PERMISSION PERU OJF GRANGETOWN, 08/00416/C TO ALLOW TAKE AWAY SALES AND EXTENSION CARDIFF, CF11 7AN OF OPENING HOURS TO 09:00AM-11:00PM 229 09/01424/C Part Waterfront Park, Off THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF REF CJE Britannia Quay WATERFRONT PARK TO ACCOMMODATE THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A 'SKYFLYER' TETHERED AEROSTAT AND VIEWING 'GONDOLA' AND LANDING PLATFORM AND ELECTRICALLY POWERED WINCH RETRIEVAL, (WINCH HOUSED WITHIN THE LANDING PLATFORM STRUCTURE) 245 09/01472/C DRISCOLL WORKSHOPS, FOUR STOREY OFFICE BUILDING COMPRISING TWO PER NEH ELLEN STREET, BLOCKS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING ATLANTIC WHARF, CARDIFF, CF10 4BP 262 09/01501/C ADAMSDOWN PRIMARY SINGLE STOREY NEW BUILD EXTENSION WITH 106 OJF SCHOOL, SYSTEM ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS STREET, ADAMSDOWN, CARDIFF, CF24 0JF 271 09/01554/C 137 CITY ROAD, ROATH, CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM RETAIL TO PER OJF CARDIFF, CF24 3BQ NON-ALCOHOLIC RESTAURANT AND TAKEAWAY, OPENING 8AM TO 8PM AND FUME EXTRACTION SYSTEM
PLANNING COMMITTEE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 Page No. App No. Location Description Decision Officer
280 04/02535/W 56b-56a, Plasmawr Creation Of One, Three Storey Block Of 9 Flats LEG PWK Road, Fairwater 291 09/00363/W 6-8 Beulah Road, Removal Of Condition 2 Of Pp 07/2357/W To Allow STV OAS Rhiwbina The Mixed Shop/ Restaurant/ Gallery Use (Sui Generis) To Extend Throughout The Ground Floor Of 6 - 8 Beulah Road. Variation Of Conditions 3 And 4 Of Pp 07/2357w: Condition 3 – To Extend The Opening Hours From 7:30 Am To 11pm Monday To Saturday (To Be Closed On Sundays) Condition 4 – To Allow Outside Dining Within The Area To The Rear Of 8 Beulah Road Shown On Drawing No A-P-S-001
311 09/00380/W 171 & 173 Cathedral Demolition Of Rear Annex To 171, Construction Of 106 PWK Road, Pontcanna Replacement Annex To 171 & 173, Conversion To 8no Flats, Retention Of House At 173 And Associated Car Parking And Access. 322 09/00446/W 171 Cathedral Road, Demolition Of Rear Annex PERU PWK Pontcanna 326 09/00848/W Land To Front Of Y Temporary Use (3 Years) Of Highway For Outside PER OAS Mochyn Du, Sophia Seating (Up To 36 Seats) Between April And October Close, Pontcanna 338 09/00943/W Former Forge Garage, Construction Of 76 Bed Nursing Home With Associated STV OJH Cowbridge Road West, Car Parking. Caerau 356 09/00978/W Ysgol Gynradd Installation Of A Double Demountable Classroom On DEF OJH Gwaelod Y Garth, Existing School Grounds Including Continuous Main Road, Gwaelod- Services Y-Garth PLANNING COMMITTEE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 Page No. App No. Location Description Decision Officer
372 09/01044/W Old Vaughans Laundry Variation Of Condition 1 Of Planning Permission 106 PWK Site, Andrews Road 04/01956/W To Extend Expiry Date By A Further 3 Industrial Estate, Years. Andrew's Road, Llandaff North 381 09/01160/W Bilal Mosque, Severn Removal Of Condition 4 Of Planning Permission PER RWR Road, Canton 02/2523/W (All Rooflights And Two High Level Windows In The South Wall Shall Be Double Glazed And Fixed) 386 09/01315/W 12 Hanover Street, Convert 5 Bed House Into 2 No 2 Bed Apartments. PER OJJ Canton Construct Single Storey Extension To Rear 394 09/01580/W 16 Tregarth Court, Velux Dormer To Attic PER ODJ Creigiau
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/197/E APPLICATION DATE: 17/02/2009
ED: PENYLAN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: OCEAN COMMUNITY SERVICES LOCATION: 2 & 4 WESTMINSTER COURT, LANGDALE CLOSE, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 5NA PROPOSAL: RETENTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered AL(00)03E attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
2. Two off street parking spaces shall be retained and maintained at the site at all times for the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure provision for the parking of vehicles clear of the roads so as not to prejudice the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the retention of a single storey side extension to a semi-detached two-storey building containing two maisonettes.
1.2 The side extension has been erected outside the entrance to the maisonettes, forming a porch. The original entrance to the building was a stepped entrance which protruded 0.7 metres from the side of the building and consisted of two external doors giving access into the two maisonettes. The built extension protrudes a further 1.1 metres from the building and is 2.6 metres in width with a roof measuring 3.5 metres in height (2.5 metres to eaves). The extension encloses the two original entrances within a lobby area that has one external doorway at the rear, with a ramped entrance.
1.3 The site has a history of planning applications including a previous application for the side extension (application 08/2212/E). The previous application was withdrawn by the applicant due to concerns raised by the Operational Manager, Transportation, over the impact of the extension on the parking provision at the site. It should also be noted that another application relating to a garage at the site (application 09/00198/E) is currently under consideration by the local planning authority.
1 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The property is located within a cul-de-sac in Penylan, it consists of a semi- detached two-storey building containing two maisonettes, one at ground floor and one at first floor. Both are under the ownership of the applicant. The site includes front and rear gardens with off-street parking area and driveway at the side of the building, which is shared with Nos. 1 & 3 Raglen Court
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 07/02274/E Proposed replacement detached garage - Refused 17/01/2008 for the following reason:
Insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of the proposal with regard to its effect upon the character and appearance of the area and residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers since no information has been submitted in relation to the retaining walls and boundary treatment of the rear garden which would be a necessary part of the proposal.
3.2 08/02210/E Retrospective application for the construction of a conservatory to the rear of the property – Permission Granted 17/11/09
3.3 08/02211/E Retrospective application for the construction of garage and retaining wall – Withdrawn 19/11/09
3.4 08/02212/E Proposed single storey side extension – Withdrawn 01/12/08
3.5 09/00198/E Proposed alterations to currently unauthorised garage and
retention of retaining wall – Pending
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Policies 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) and 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996)
4.2 Policies 2.20 (Good Design), 2.24 (Residential Amenity) and 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003)
4.3 Policy SP2 (High quality, sustainable design) of the Cardiff Deposit Local Development Plan 2006-1021
4.4 Householder Design Guide (March 2007) and Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (June 2006) Supplementary Planning Guidance
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation, has no objection to the proposal.
5.2 The Operational Manager, Environment (Pollution Control), recommended the
2 inclusion of advisory notes relating to radon gas and contamination and unstable land.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 None.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The occupiers of Nos. 1 & 3 Raglan Court object to the application for the following reasons:
(i) The unauthorised porch interferes with the parking provision on the shared drive, particularly as the applicant’s have no intention of using the garages for parking. (ii) The porch on site is larger than shown on the plans (iii) Langdale Close is a narrow quiet cul-de-sac with virtually no room for on street parking, other than partially on the pavement. The shared entrance off the roadway for the 4 maisonettes is narrow and therefore any restriction to the driveway makes even parking on the driveway difficult for residents and visitors.
7.2 Letter received from Jenny Randerson AM objecting to the application on the basis of loss of available parking provision. Her letter raises the following:
(i) She understands that Nos. 2 & 4 Westminster Curt are in the same ownership and have been refurbished and designed for assisted living by Ocean Community Services. (ii) The occupier of No. 1 Raglan Court is concerned that the works carried out at the site have reduced the available parking provision at the site, which is already restricted in the Close and which will be under further pressure from the members of the social care team who will be required to assist the tenants of these flats.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The key issues with this planning application are considered to be the impact of the side extension on the visual amenities of the area, the general amenities of neighbouring residents, and the parking provision at the site.
8.2 In terms of design, the single storey extension is a modest addition to the building and street scene. It is considered that the development does not have an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area.
8.3 The extension forms a lobby outside the entrances to the two maisonettes; the development does not prejudice the privacy of neighbouring properties.
8.4 The extension erected on site protrudes approximately 1.1 metres into the driveway and does not restrict the movement of vehicles to and from the garage at Westminster Court or Raglan Court. The site plan illustrates one car
3 parking space within the right-hand side of the garage and one car parking space on the driveway. This arrangement provides two car parking spaces within the application site without encroaching on land belonging to Nos. 1 & 3 Raglan Court or obstructing access to and from the neighbouring garages. It should be noted that the parking arrangement at the site forms a key consideration of planning application 09/00198/E relating to the unauthorised garage built on site.
8.5 The representations received are noted. The four properties that use the shared driveway (Nos. 2 & 4 Westminster Court and 1 & 3 Raglan Court) enjoy equal rights to cross over the driveway. If one of the occupiers of these properties parks on the driveway in such a way that would restrict movement to and from a neighbouring garage then this is a civil issue between the occupiers and is not a planning matter. The side extension built on site does not restrict the movements of vehicles to and from the garages and the plan illustrates that there are two adequate off-street car parking spaces within the application site, which satisfies the Local Planning Authority’s parking requirements. The Operational Manager, Transportation, has no objection to the proposal.
8.6 It is recommended that the extension be granted planning permission.
4 5 6 7 8 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/198/E APPLICATION DATE: 17/02/2009
ED: PENYLAN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: OCEAN COMMUNITY SERVICES LOCATION: 2 & 4 WESTMINSTER COURT, LANGDALE CLOSE, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 5NA PROPOSAL: PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CURRENTLY UNAUTHORISED GARAGE AND RETENTION OF RETAINING WALL ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered AL(00)04E attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the email from the agent dated 7th April 2009. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
4. Two off street car parking spaces, one of which shall be within the structure hereby permitted, shall be retained and maintained at the site at all times for the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate parking provision is retained clear of the roads so as not to prejudice the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic.
5. The structure hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the residential units of 2 and 4 Westminster Court as such and for no other purpose whatsoever. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties are protected.
6. Within two months of the date of this permission the front elevation of the structure hereby permitted shall be constructed in strict accordance with the details of the drawing numbered Al (00)04E. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with existing buildings in the area.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
9 (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no windows shall be inserted in the side (south-east) elevation. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
RECOMMENDATION 2: This development falls within an area which has a geological predisposition to radon and will require basic radon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations 2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for alterations to a currently unauthorised garage structure and retention of a retaining wall.
1.2 The application as originally submitted sought permission retrospectively for the construction of a garage and retaining wall. Following the case officer’s site visit, it was noted that the plans submitted did not accurately reflect the garage as built on site. The applicant confirmed that the plans include proposed changes to the building. Subsequently the application description has been altered and amended plans have been received. The plans now under consideration illustrate the garage as proposed.
1.3 The siting and design of the garage is shown on the attached drawings. The garage is built abutting the boundary with Nos. 1 and 3 Raglan Court giving it an irregular shape; it measures 6.2 metres across the front elevation and 9.2 metres across the rear elevation, with a depth of 6.9 metres. The garage as built has a pitched roof which is concealed from the front elevation by a 1.6 metre high parapet wall, making the garage 4 metres high at its highest point (see photographs). The proposed plans illustrate that this parapet wall will be removed to provide a front facing gable.
1.4 The retaining wall runs across the width of the rear garden. It supports built up land at the rear of the site. The retaining wall is constructed of bricks and measures approximately 1 metre in height with intermittent pillars extending a further metre.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The property is located within a cul-de-sac in Penylan. It consists of a semi- detached two-storey building containing two maisonettes, one at ground floor and one at first floor. Both are under the ownership of the applicant. The site includes front and rear gardens with off-street parking area and shared drive with Nos. 1and 3 Raglan Court at the side of the building.
2.2 Langdale Close is characterised by brick built semi-detached properties, each containing two maisonettes that share a detached double garage and associated parking area in front of the garage. Nos. 2 and 4 Westminster Court and Nos. 1 and 3 Raglan Court are different to other properties on
10 Langdale Close in that they have a shared driveway from the estate road giving access to their respective double garages and there is no physical boundary to separate the associated parking area in front of the garages between the four properties.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 07/02274/E Proposed replacement detached garage – Refused 17/01/2008 for the following reason:
Insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of the proposal with regard to its effect upon the character and appearance of the area and residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers since no information has been submitted in relation to the retaining walls and boundary treatment of the rear garden which would be a necessary part of the proposal.
3.2 08/02210/E Retrospective application for the construction of a conservatory to the rear of the property – Permission Granted 17/11/09
3.3 08/02211/E Retrospective application for the construction of garage and retaining wall – Withdrawn 19/11/09
3.4 08/02212/E Proposed single storey side extension – Withdrawn 01/12/08
3.5 09/00197/E Retention of single storey side extension – Pending
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Policies 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) and 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996)
4.2 Policies 2.20 (Good Design), 2.24 (Residential Amenity) and 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003)
4.3 Policy SP2 (High quality, sustainable design) of the Cardiff Deposit Local Development Plan 2006-1021
4.4 Householder Design Guide (March 2007) and Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (June 2006) Supplementary Planning Guidance
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation, advises he has no adverse comments. He notes that if a vehicle is left parked on the drive rather than within the garage then it may impede access to the garages associated with Raglan Court. However, this is a private matter between the respective parties who presently share this drive - and construction of the garage does not significantly alter the existing arrangement in this respect.
11 5.2 The Operational Manager, Environment (Pollution Control), recommends the inclusion of advisory notes relating to radon gas and contamination and unstable land.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 None.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The occupier of 4 Dorchester Court states that he had no objection to the construction of a garage but advises that the building erected on site is not a garage. He advises that it is two centrally heated residencies.
7.2 The occupiers of Nos. 1 and 3 Raglan Court object to the application for the following reasons:
(i) Even if the high façade is removed the garage with the pitched roof is still not in keeping with all other garages in the area. (ii) The garage is larger than the one it replaced. The rebuilt garages are now at a different angle to the shared driveway making the entrance to the right-hand garage of Westminster Court and the left-hand garage of Raglan Court nearer, and therefore more difficult to negotiate in and out of the Raglan Court garage. (iii) The proposed plan shows the left-hand garage is split to provide a workshop and space to park motorcycles. At the moment, the space looks more like a utility room with washing machine already installed. The right hand garage is completely lined with plasterboard including the garage door, forming a room which is entered from the workshop. (iv) Langdale Close is a narrow quiet cul-de-sac with virtually no room for on street parking, other than partially on the pavement. The shared entrance off the roadway for the four maisonettes is narrow and therefore any restriction to the driveway makes even parking on the driveway difficult for residents and visitors.
7.3 Letter received from Jenny Randerson AM objecting to the application on the basis of loss of available parking provision. Her letter raises the following:
(i) She understands that Nos. 2 and 4 Westminster Court are in the same ownership and have been refurbished and designed for assisted living by Ocean Community Services. (ii) The occupier of No. 1 Raglan Court is concerned that the works carried out at the site have reduced the available parking provision at the site, which is already restricted in the Close and which will be under further pressure from the members of the social care team who will be required to assist the tenants of these flats. (iii) Although the façade of garage doors have been retained, the garage has been converted into a kitchen or utility room.
12 8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The key issues with this planning application are considered to be the impact of the garage and retaining wall on the visual amenities of the area, the general amenities of neighbouring residents, and the parking provision at the site.
8.2 It is noted that the garage as erected on site does not reflect the design of existing garages at Langdale Close. In particular, the parapet feature at the front of the garage is unlike any other form of development on the estate and creates a 4 metre high frontage to the garage. The submitted drawings propose to alter this front elevation of the building to a gable wall, revealing the pitched roof of the building. It is considered that the appearance of the building as proposed is acceptable and would not have an adverse impact on the street scene.
8.3 In terms of residential amenity, it is considered that the garage’s position on the boundary with Nos. 1 and 3 Raglan Court does not have an adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. No windows are included in the side elevation of the garage facing this property and a condition can be imposed on any permission to ensure no windows are inserted in this elevation in future.
8.4 Due to the shared nature of the driveway and parking area between the application site and Nos. 1 and 3 Raglan Court, the need to retain adequate off-street car parking spaces within the application site is considered essential in order to protect the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers as well as highway safety. In accordance with the Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements SPG a minimum of one space is required for each maisonette with separate access and egress from the estate road. The unauthorised garage at the site is not currently used for car parking and there is insufficient area on the driveway in front of the garage to provide two 4.8 metres x 2.4 metres car parking spaces with separate access and egress within the application site.
8.5 The current application proposes to alter the existing garage to include one car parking space within the right-hand side of the garage and provide one parking space on the driveway in front of the left-hand side garage. The site plan illustrates that this arrangement would provide the two car parking spaces required within the application site without encroaching on land belonging to Nos. 1 and 3 Raglan Court or obstructing access to and from the neighbouring garages.
8.6 The representations received are noted, apparently the four properties (Nos. 2 and 4 Westminster Court and 1 and 3 Raglan Court) enjoy equal rights to cross over the shared driveway and if one of the occupiers of these properties parks on the driveway in such a way that would restrict movement to an from a neighbouring garage then this is a civil issue between the occupiers and is not a planning matter. The plan demonstrates two adequate off-street car parking spaces within the site, which satisfies the Local Planning Authority’s
13 parking requirements. The Operational Manager, Transportation, has no objection to the proposal on this basis. Condition 4 is recommended to ensure the parking spaces are retained and maintained at the site at all times.
8.7 In terms of other issued raised in the representations received not already addressed above:
(i) It is considered that the key issue with regards to the use of the two smaller rooms in the garage is to ensure that the rooms are used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the maisonettes at 2 and 4 Westminster Court only, be it a workshop, motorcycle storage, or utility room. Condition 5 is recommended to ensure this. (ii) It is noted that Nos. 2 and 4 Westminster Court are under the same ownership and that refurbishment work has taken place to the property. The application has been considered on the basis that the property continues to be used as two separate residential properties, hence the requirement for individual parking spaces for each maisonette with separate access and egress.
8.8 The retaining wall built within the rear garden does not have an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the area nor the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
8.9 In conclusion, it is considered that the retaining wall and garage as proposed complies with all relevant development plan policies. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.
14 15 16 17 18 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/831/E APPLICATION DATE: 18/05/2009
ED: PONTPRENNAU/ST MELLONS
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr James Ponchaud LOCATION: MELWOOD, OLD NEWPORT ROAD, OLD ST MELLONS, CARDIFF, CF3 5FX PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND REDEVELOP WITH 2 NO RESIDENTIAL UNITS ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no windows shall be inserted in the side and rear elevations of house H1 facing Lorien and 1 Melville Avenue and house H2, other than those hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no windows shall be inserted in the side elevations of house H2 facing Shaina and house H1, other than those hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
4. The first floor windows on the side elevation of both dwellings hereby approved facing Lorien and Shaina shall be non opening below a height of 1.8 metres above internal floor level and glazed with obscure glass and thereafter be so maintained. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
5. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered MSP.1148/02 and MSP 148/03 dated 30th September, 2009, attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
6. D3D Maintenance of Parking Within Site
7. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
19
(i) An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) setting out the methodology that will be used to prevent loss or damage to trees (ii) A Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in the form of a scale drawing showing the finalised layout and those tree and land protection methods detailed in the arboricultural method statement that can be shown graphically The development shall subsequently be carried out in conformity with the approved proposals. No work on site shall be done other than at the stages set out in the AMS Reason: The trees are of value in the local environment and should be protected and maintained in the interests of visual amenity
8. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro
9. C4R Landscaping Implementation
10. D7Z Contaminated materials
11. Prior to commencement of development ground permeability tests shall be undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and a drainage scheme shall be submitted for the disposal of surface water to the approval of the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed as approved Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development.
12. No development shall take place until details of a 1.8m wide footpath (to adoptable standard) along the whole frontage of the site to Old Newport Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into beneficial use Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site
13. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure
14. During demolition work, dust control measures shall be implemented on site, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to any demolition. Reason: To protect the amenities of residential occupiers adjacent to the site.
15. Immediately following demolition of the building, the site shall be cleared of debris; thereafter the site shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition pending its redevelopment. Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of
20 the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 3: This development falls within an area which has a geological predisposition to radon and will require basic radon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations 2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division
RECOMMENDATION 4: The applicant be advised that he will need to secure the technical approval of the Operational Manager, Street Operations in respect of the required footpath along Old Newport Road and for any works within the adopted highway
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application is for the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling at Melwood, Old Newport Road and the erection of two new dwellings
1.2 The proposed single storey dwellings are to be 8-14 metres long, 9.6 metres wide and 6.6 metres high with a pitched roof and forward facing pitched roof dormers
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site is an existing single storey dwelling
2.2 The site is located in a housing area as designated in the Local Plan.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 08/2164/E – Demolition of existing dwelling & redevelop with 2 no residential dwellings. Refused for the following reasons;
(i) The proposed two-storey dwellings are considered to be an unneighbourly and overbearing form of development sited in close proximity to the boundaries with Lorien and Shaina Old Newport Road, which would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers, contrary to Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (ii) The proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and would result in a cramped and congested form of development, which would be incongruous in the street scene and would thus be contrary to policy 11 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.20 of the deposit
21 Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (iii) The proposed dwellings would have a prejudicial impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene due to their scale, height and design and would thus be contrary to policy 11 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (iv) No tree survey or assessment has been submitted to enable the LPA to properly assess the relationship between the proposal and the protected trees which adjoin and overhang the site and which are of amenity value; thus the proposal is considered contrary to policy 2.45 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Plan and the approved Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Guidance
The above proposal was subsequently dismissed at appeal by a Planning Inspector. The Inspector, in coming to her decision, stated that
(i) ‘The side elevations of the adjoining dwellings are not principal ones, and both properties are set off the boundary. In terms of privacy any views of the neighbouring gardens from the rear windows of the proposed house would be oblique and not unusual in residential built-up areas such as this. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the proposed development would be overbearing or un-neighbourly for the adjoining residents’
(ii) ‘The proposed House H1 would be sited further away from the tree than the existing dwelling and, from what I saw generally outside its crown. I consider that whilst construction of the parking space and proposed house H1 would have to be undertaken with care, in my experience, suitable protective measures would ensure a minimal impact on the amenity value and life span of the tree’.
(iii) ‘However, notwithstanding the 2-storey development on the opposite side of the road, the proposed houses would be seen primarily in the context of the dwellings that lie on either side of the site. The latter are modest in appearance and scale and have an unassuming and muted impact on the street scene. Although the height of the proposed houses and spacing around the development would be generally typical of the existing housing form and layout, the massing and scale of the proposed houses is a matter of concern. Relative to the simple scale and form of the adjoining properties, the bulk and magnitude of the large front gable projections would be prominent and visually imposing. As a consequence, the dwellings would appear crowded within the site and out of scale with their immediate context. I conclude that the proposal would result in an overly dominant and intrusive form of development that would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene’.
22 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The application site is shown as part of an existing housing area indicated on the Proposals Map of the City of Cardiff Local Plan. Relevant policies of the Local Plan Include:
Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) Policy 17 (Parking & Servicing)
4.2 The Council has resolved that in addition to extant development plans, the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) should be taken into account in development control decisions.
4.3 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are considered to be relevant to the proposal:
Policy 2.20 (Good Design) Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) Policy 2.45 (Trees, woodlands and hedgerows) Policy 2.57 (Access, circulation and parking)
4.4 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Local Development Plan (April 2009) are also considered to be relevant to the proposal;
Policy SP2 (High quality sustainable design) Policy SD2 (Sustainable drainage) Policy HER4 (Trees, woodlands and hedgerows) Policy TRANS3 (Access, circulation and parking)
4.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Design Guide (June 2007)
4.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Trees and Development
4.7 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Access, Circulation and Parking
4.8 National Policy guidance is also relevant. Paragraph 2.9.9 of Planning Policy Wales (March 2002) advises that the visual appearance of the development, its scale and relationship to its surroundings are material planning considerations. Paragraph 9.3.3 advises that:
“Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment, including conversion and adaption, should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity. This includes any such impact on neighbouring dwellings, such as serious loss of privacy or overshadowing.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Environment (Pollution Control) has no objection to the proposal provided the following conditions/recommendations are inserted into any grant of permission; R2 (Radon Gas), R4 (Contamination and
23 unstable land advisory notice) and D7Z (Imported materials)
5.2 The Operational Manager, Transportation states that 2 off-street parking spaces are required in association with each of the new dwellings and these are adequately provided. He has no objection, subject to a condition relating to the future retention of 2 off-street parking spaces in association with each dwelling
Old Newport Road currently has no footways with the exception of a short section adjacent to the neighbouring property ‘Lorien’. He advises the need for a condition requiring the provision of a 1.8 metre footway to adoptable standard along the full frontage of the site prior to beneficial occupation. This would be an extension to the existing section and would represent an improvement to pedestrian facilities as well as benefiting highway safety by ensuring improved visibility for vehicles emerging from the new dwellings
He would also suggest a second recommendation advising the applicant of the need to secure the consent of the Operational Manager, Street Operations prior to undertaking any works within the adopted highway and in relation to the construction of the new footway
5.3 The Strategic Planning Manager (Design) states that he has considered this proposal in light of the appeal decision for application 08/2164/E. The Inspectors concerns lay primarily with the massing and scale of the proposed houses and in particular with the ‘bulk and magnitude of the large front gable projections’ considered to be prominent and visually imposing relative to the simple scale and form of the adjoining properties, and as a consequence, the dwellings would appear crowded within the site, and out of scale with their immediate context
The Inspector considered that this would result in an overly dominant and intrusive form of development that would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the street scene’. This was particularly seen in the context of the modest scale of the dwellings either side of the site.
With the current application, the large gable details have been omitted and replaced with dormer windows. The proposal does still present an increase in terms of the bulk of development within the street-scene from that of the existing property within the site. However a significant amount of this bulk is roof-space, sloping away from the road frontage and its impact on the street- scene is causing less harm than that of the earlier application. The dormers are not overly dominant and present a more acceptable solution to providing accommodation to the first floor
The ridge height of the proposed houses is greater than that of the neighbouring property to one side of the side and close to that of the property to the other side. The variations in heights arising is considered acceptable in this context
The layout and siting of the development is acceptable in terms of relating to
24 existing building frontages
5.4 The Operational Manager, Waste Management states that he has no objection to the proposal
5.5 The Operational Manager, Highways (Drainage), states that he has no objections in principle to the consent of this application from a drainage viewpoint, where ground conditions are suitable surface water should be drained via sustainable drainage techniques, such as permeable paving or soakaways etc, as indicated in TAN 15
In light of the above and in order to minimise any risk of flooding and pollution, he advises the need for condition 11
5.6 The Strategic Planning Manager (Trees and Landscaping) states that the main conflict between the proposed development and trees of amenity value relates to the ‘B’ category Japanese black pine (T1 in the submitted tree report). Car-parking will be sited within the Root Protection Area of this tree and since it could attain a significant height, there is the potential for future resident in the proposed dwelling (house H1) adjacent, to consider it over- dominant. However, the tree has been topped in the past and this is likely to mean it will require some remedial pruning as it grows to reduce stresses of acting on the new leading stem. Such pruning will restrict the crown volume of the tree. A Japanese black pine growing in the UK is capable of growing tall but quite slowly and the spread is not usually extensive (believe the species is grown as a bonsai in Japan). Consequently, T1 could sit quite comfortably close to the proposed house without significant conflict. He concurs with the proposal in the tree report to construct car-parking spaces 1& 2 using a ‘no- dig’ technique and fully permeable surfacing to prevent significant conflict with the Root Protection Area. He advises condition 7
EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water advise that a drainage condition should be imposed (see condition 11)
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Three letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of Lorien, Radleigh and Shaina, Old Newport Road, objecting for the following reasons;
(i) Loss of amenity (ii) Loss of privacy (iii) Overdevelopment of site (iv) Design is out of keeping with surroundings (v) Lack of amenity space for proposed dwellings (vi) Proposal does not overcome previous reasons for refusal/dismissal of appeal (vii) Surface water/drainage water problems (viii) Insufficient parking provision
25 (ix) Loss of view (x) Potential loss of adjacent protected tree/s (xi) Overhead power lines in close proximity to development
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The main planning issues relate to:
(i) the design and appearance of the dwellings and the likely impact on the character and appearance of street scene; (ii) the impact of the proposal on the privacy and amenities of neighbouring occupiers; and (iii) the impact of the proposal on the adjacent protected trees
8.2 The design of the proposed dwellings is considered to be acceptable. The Strategic Planning Manager (Design) considers the proposal to be acceptable in design terms (see paragraph 5.3 above). The proposed dwellings are approximately 1.3m higher than Lorien and 0.1m higher than Shaina (the two adjacent properties). (See attached street-scape elevations). However, the street contains a mixture of different roof heights and building design, with no one style or design being prominent
8.3 House 1 is approximately 1.5-4 metres from the boundary with Lorien, 2 metres from House 2 and 5-8.5 metres from the rear boundary with 1 Melville Avenue. The submitted plans show that it is proposed to insert a rooflight and a bathroom window into the side elevations facing Lorien. It would be prudent to ensure that those windows (set below 1.8 metres internal floor level) are obscurely glazed and non-opening, so as to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours (see condition 4). It would also be prudent to ensure that no additional windows are inserted into the elevations facing Lorien, 1 Melville Avenue and House 2, so as to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours (see condition 2)
8.4 House 2 is approximately 1 metre from the boundary with Shaina, 2 metres from House 1 and is 9-16 metres from the rear boundary with 1 Melville Avenue. The submitted plans show that it is proposed to insert a rooflight and a bathroom window into the side elevations facing Shaina. It would be prudent to ensure that those windows (set below 1.8 metres internal floor level) are obscurely glazed and non-opening, so as to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours (see condition 4). It would also be prudent to ensure that no additional windows are inserted into the elevations facing Shaina and House 1, so as to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours (see condition 2)
8.5 It is not considered that the proposed dwellings would have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers due to their design and siting off the boundary. House H2 is sited approximately 1m from the boundary (facing onto the blank wall of Shaina). It does not project forward or rearward of the adjacent property (see plan). House H1 is sited approximately 1.5-4 metres (the boundary is angled) from the boundary with Lorien
26
8.6 The Strategic Planning Manager (Trees and landscaping) has stated that the proposal is acceptable, provided a condition is imposed to protect the protected trees on and adjacent to the site during construction works
8.7 The Operational Manager, Transportation has no objections to the proposal
8.8 The amount of private amenity space for both dwellings is considered to be acceptable
8.9 It is noted that the previous application for redevelopment of the site was refused (App 08/2164/E) and the subsequent appeal was dismissed (see paragraph 3.1 above). However, it should be noted that the Inspector had no objection in principle to the development of the site for two dwellings
8.10 It is considered that the current proposal overcomes the Council’s reasons for refusal of application 08/2164E and the Inspectors reasons for dismissing the appeal. The proposed dwellings have been altered in their design and appearance from two-storey gabled fronted dwelling to single storey dormer bungalows, with a subsequent reduction in ridge height by 0.9 metres and it is considered that their design and scale is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The proposed dwellings have also been set further back into the site and the layout altered, so that there is an improved relationship with the adjacent properties of Lorien and Shaina
8.11 In regard to the objections received from adjoining neighbours:
(i) See paragraph 8.5 (ii) See paragraphs 8.3 and 8.4 (iii) It is not considered that the proposal is an overdevelopment as there is sufficient space within the plot to site the two proposed dwellings and the associated parking, manoeuvring areas and gardens (iv) See paragraphs 5.3 and 8.2 (v) See paragraph 8.8 (vi) See paragraphs 8.9 and 8.10 (vii) The Chief Highways and Waste Management Officer (Drainage) and Welsh Water have not raised any issues with regard to drainage/surface water problems, subject to condition 11 (viii) See paragraph 5.2 (ix) Not a material planning matter consideration (x) See paragraph 5.6 and condition 6 (xi) It is noted that there is an existing minor power line, which crosses the site. However, it is not considered that this represents a planning constraint nor that it would have a prejudicial impact upon the proposal, as the line already crosses above the existing property at Melwood and other adjacent properties
8.12 The proposal is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions
27 28 29 30 31 ASSEMBLY MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/1281/E APPLICATION DATE: 24/08/2009
ED: LLANISHEN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr Shama LOCATION: 40 NORTH RISE, LISVANE, CARDIFF, CF14 0RN PROPOSAL: SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no windows shall be inserted in the side elevation facing 42 North Rise. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
2. The windows on the rear elevation facing 1 Beverley Close shall be non opening below a height of 1.8 metres above internal floor level and glazed with obscure glass and thereafter be so maintained. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
3. C2I Ancillary Occupation
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the retention of a rear single storey extension at 40 North Rise. The extension, at its maximum measures 8.7 metres in width (extending 3.2 metres from the side elevation), extends 9.1 metres from the rear elevation of the house and is part flat and part pitched roof with a maximum height of the roof being 2.8 metres and 3.8 metres respectively. Windows are located in the rear and side (north) elevation and a carport is located to the front of the extension. Two high level roof lights have been installed within the side (south) roof plane. The extension is finished in a mix of render, facing brickwork and concrete tiles.
1.2 The proposed extension accommodates two bedrooms, a shower room, garden room and a garage/store.
1.3 Planning permission was originally approved for a rear single storey extension by virtue of planning permission 06/667/E dated 22nd June 2006 by Planning Committee. The current application differs from that approved in the following ways:
32
• The rear most 1.8 metres of the extension now has a pitched roof with a gable projection rather than a hip roof. • The rear most 1 metre of the extension is 2.2 metres wider and nearer to the boundary with 42 North Rise. However, this section of the extension is set 0.5 metres from the boundary with No. 42 and has a flat roof. • Only one bedroom was originally proposed to be accommodated within the extension. The built extension now contains two bedrooms.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is a detached dormer bungalow located in a cul-de-sac within a residential area of Llanishen. A flat roof garage was located along the southern boundary to the rear of the property and was demolished to accommodate the proposal. The land rises from south to north by approximately 1 metre per dwelling. The rear enclosure consists of a 1.5 metre high retaining wall with a 1.8 metre dense mature hedge on top of this. The rear garden of the application site is enclosed to the north by the single storey flat roof garage serving No 38. No 42 benefits from a rear conservatory.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 Planning permission 06/667/E – Single storey rear extension – Approved June 2006
3.2 Planning application 05/1493/E – Single storey rear extension – Refused August 2005 for the following reasons:
1. The development by virtue of its size and design would result in an incongruous addition to the dwelling and would result in an over development of the site and an unacceptable amount of rear amenity space. The proposal would be contrary to Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan and Policies 2.20 (Good Design) and 2.24 (Residential Amenity) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
2. The proposed development by virtue of its siting, size and height would have an overbearing impact upon the occupiers of the adjoining properties to the detriment of their residential amenity and would be contrary to Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site is allocated as part of an area of existing housing on the City of Cardiff Local Plan Proposals Map.
33 4.2 The following Local Plan policies are of relevance to the determination of this application:
Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality)
4.3 The following policies from the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are also of relevance:
Policy 2.20 (Good Design) Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity)
4.4 The following policies from the Cardiff Deposit Local Development Plan (April 2009) are also of relevance:
Policy SP2 (High Quality Sustainable Design)
4.5 The following supplementary planning guidance is also of relevance:
Householders Design Guide (2007)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation has no objection.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 None
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Jonathan Morgan AM objects to the proposal for the following reasons:
• It is not considered that this application is in keeping with other properties in the street and the applicant has exceeded the terms of the original planning permission. • The rear most one metre of the development is more than 2 metres greater in width than what was proposed in the original planning permission and it encroaches by overhanging on to the neighbouring property. • Jonathan Morgan AM raised concern regarding the use of the extension for two bedrooms when previously one was proposed. He suggests that the developer has gone beyond what the Planning Committee agreed to and has in effect created a new property at the rear and not merely an extension. • The applicant has shown little regard either for his neighbours or for the authority of the Planning Committee in the way that he has constructed this extension at odds to what he was permitted in the first place. Committee is requested to reject this retrospective planning application and enforce the original application.
34 7.2 The occupier of 42 North Rise objects to the proposal for the following reasons:
• The application should be referred to Planning Committee so that all aspects of the development can be fairly addressed and a site visit made. • If this application were to be approved, there would be nothing to stop others for applying or such extensions in other adjoining properties. All the garden plots in this area are quite small and not adequate for building extensions. The current proposal practically covers the whole of the garden site. • The development bears no resemblance to an extension but is equivalent to a semi-detached bungalow and has well exceeded the original planning permission. There has been no consideration from the applicant or builder as to what is correct. • The extension intrudes upon the privacy of her property and greatly exceeds the needs for extra space for any family. • The garage space has now been utilised as living accommodation and it is too close in proximity to No 42 and its garden. As a result there is a single wall between No 42 and the application site and the occupier of No 42 is concerned as to how this garage space, which is being used as living accommodation, would affect her future life. • The fascia board and guttering of the extension overhangs the property of 42 North Rise and is an eyesore. • There have been many occasions of trespass by the builder during construction of the extension and there was a breach in the Party Wall Act which she was not made aware of until after the construction of the extension. • As the garage is now used as living accommodation there is little room for the owner of the property to store household goods. He now has to resort to storing his goods around the house. • The proposal will prejudice the valuation of her property.
7.3 The occupiers of 1 Beverley Close note that they expressed certain views during the determination of planning application 06/667/E regarding their privacy, the distance of the building from their boundary, the duty of care to ensure that the spring and ponds are not affected by the new building and the maintenance of the height difference between the application site and 1 Beverley Court which were taken into consideration in planning application 06/667/E.
7.4 A petition containing 51 signatures from residents of North Rise and South Rise has been submitted in objection to the proposal.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The principle of the development has been approved by planning permission 06/667/E; which was granted by Planning Committee in June 2006. The key issues are the effect of the amended scheme upon the character and
35 appearance of the area, living conditions of neighbours and highway safety/parking.
8.2 It is officers opinion that although a petition signed by 51 residents has been received the development only affects the 3 surrounding occupiers of No’s 38 and 42 North Rise and 1 Beverley Close.
8.3 The amended development is considered acceptable in regards to its design, appearance and finish. Although fairly large, the amendment to the roof and increase in width of the rear most 1 metre of the development is not visible from the street scene and does not prejudice the character or appearance of the area. It was not considered by Planning Committee that the extension approved by planning permission 06/667/E was prejudicial to the character or appearance of the area.
8.4 During the determination of application 06/667/E the development was amended so the last 1.8 metres of the pitched roof was hipped. The roof of the extension as built contains a gable projection to the rear. However, it is officers’ opinion that the alteration to the design of the roof combined with the increase in width of the rear most 1 metre of the flat roof element of the extension has not resulted in a significant increase in the scale or massing of the extension such as to prejudice the residential amenity of the occupier of 42 North Rise to an unacceptable level. It is noted that the maximum height of the pitched roof is some 4.9 metres from the boundary with No 42 and the rear most 1 metre of the extension is sited 0.5m from the boundary with No 42. In addition, it is noted that the extension is sited to the direct north of No 42 and overall it is considered that the extension, as currently built, does not prejudice the outlook or amount of sunlight enjoyed by the occupiers of 42 North Rise such as to warrant a refusal of planning permission.
8.5 In regards to the effect of the proposal on the occupiers of 1 Beverley Close, it is noted that No 1 Beverley Close is on a higher level (approx 1.5 metres) and has a very long rear garden (37 metres). Furthermore the boundary with the application site and 1 Beverley Close contains a dense hedgerow which limits the view of the extension from the occupiers of 1 Beverley Close. Accordingly, it is officers’ opinion that it is not considered the extension (as built) prejudices the residential amenities of the occupiers of 1 Beverley Close. A window has been installed in the rear elevation and condition 2 will require this to be obscurely glazed due to it short proximity to the rear boundary with 1 Beverley Close.
8.6 In regards to the effect of the proposal upon the occupiers of 38 North Rise the development is sited 6 metres from the boundary with No. 38. In addition, No 38 is sited approximately 1 metre higher than the application site and has its own single storey rear garage site along the boundary with the application site. No objection has been received from the occupiers of 38 North Rise.
8.6 In regards to the comments received from Jonathan Morgan AM and neighbours which are not covered above, the following points should be considered by Planning Committee:
36
• The statement by Jonathan Morgan that the rear most 1 metre of the development which has been extended in width by 2 metres now overhangs 42 North Rise is incorrect. Although this section has been increased in width from that approved by planning permission 06/667/E it is positioned 0.5 metres from the boundary with 42 North Rise and is of a flat roof design. • The use of the extension is proposed to remain ancillary to the use of the dwelling. The extension contains no kitchen and is not separated from the dwelling. It is expected that the occupiers of the bedrooms contained within the extension will use the communal facilities of the dwelling. However, in order to ensure that the extension remains ancillary to the dwelling and is not used as a separate dwelling unit it is deemed necessary to impose condition 3 on any permission granted. • It is not illegal to construct a development which requires planning permission before gaining the necessary consent. In addition, it should be noted that the Local Planning Authority should not punish developers for doing so. National guidance advises that, when a breach of planning control takes place the Local Planning Authority should invite a retrospective planning application to be submitted so that the acceptability of the unauthorised development can be fully considered in light of relevant planning policy and any other material planning considerations. • Any other planning application submitted for similar proposals in the area would be determined based on their own merits. • Although the extension is large, it does not erode the available private amenity space at the rear of the dwelling to such a degree as to be considered prejudicial to the amenities of the occupiers of 40 North Rise. The current proposal is no different in terms of the amount of amenity space compared with the development as approved by planning permission 06/667/E. • No windows have been inserted into the southern elevation of the extension overlooking 42 North Rise. Condition 1 will ensure that no such windows are installed in the future in order to protect the privacy of the occupiers of 42 North Rise. • Concern has been expressed that the fascia and other rainwater goods of the extension overhangs 42 North Rise. It is noted that this would appear to be the case. However, Certificate B was completed on the planning application form which declares that part of the development is sited on land at 42 North Rise. Accordingly, the correct administrative procedure has been carried out in the receipt and registration of this application. Furthermore, Planning Committee should note that land ownership is not a material planning consideration and any dispute the occupier of 42 North Rise has with the developer concerning the location of the rainwater goods and any trespass and damage to her property is a civil matter and it is advised that the occupier of 42 North Rise contacts her solicitor in this respect. • It should also be noted that the Party Wall Act is a civil act and the Local Planning Authority has no powers under this legislation. Furthermore, it is not for the Local Planning Authority to advise neighbours or developer
37 in this respect. • The Local Planning Authority does not oversee development during its construction. It is entirely the responsibility of the developer and the owner of the land to ensure any development accords with the planning permission granted. • The Operational Manager (Transportation) has no objection and there is adequate room for off road car parking within the drive and car port. • It is for the occupiers own discretion where they store their domestic goods. However, it should be noted that with any construction there is normally a period of inconvenience and the necessity to store building material and plant within the curtilage of the application site.
8.7 Although it has been noted that the original hipped roof design was introduced by the applicant following concern expressed by officers during the determination of planning permission 06/667/E, it is clear from the above analysis that following inspection of the development on site it is not considered that hipping the rear most 1.8 metres of the extension or decreasing the width of the rear most 1 metre of the extension would have any beneficial effect upon the residential amenity of neighbours. It is not considered that the extension, as built, is detrimental to the amenity or privacy of neighbours or the character of the area. Accordingly, retrospective planning permission is recommended, subject to appropriate conditions.
38 39 40 41 42 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 08/2191/C APPLICATION DATE: 23/09/2008
ED: GRANGETOWN
APP: TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Bayscape Limited LOCATION: Cambrian Marina Boatyard and adjoining land, Watkiss Way PROPOSAL: HOTEL (INCLUDING CONFERENCE SUITE, GYM, SPA, RESTAURANTS AND BARS), RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, OFFICE AND FOOD AND DRINK UNITS, PARKING AND SERVICE AREAS, NEW ACCESS, PUBLIC REALM AND NEW RIVER EDGE REVETMENT ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That it be recorded that Cardiff Council is satisfied that the Environmental Statement, submitted with the application, contains sufficient information, and that the Council has taken account of the Environmental Statement in assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed development, and that the National Assembly for Wales be notified of the Local Planning Authority’s decision.
RECOMMENDATION 2: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in paragraph 8.15 of this report, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C00 Standard outline A. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
B. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1A above, relating to the siting, design and external appearance of any buildings to be erected, the means of access to the site and the landscaping of the site, shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.
C. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
D. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the
43 expiration of two years from the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
Reasons: A. In accordance with the provisions of Article (3)1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Procedure) Order 1995. B, C and D. In accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. D7G Road Traffic Noise
3. F7Y Ground Gas Protection
4. C7Z Contaminated Land Measures
5. Any topsoil [natural or manufactured],or subsoil, to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced
6. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced
7. Prior to the commencement of development, detailed drawings which demonstrate that the proposed cut and fill works on the site's river frontage would maintain live flood storage volumes in Cardiff Bay, shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent the loss of live flood storage volume in the Bay.
44 8. Prior to the commencement of the approved development (or at such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
(i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: • all previous uses • potential contaminants associated with those uses • a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors • potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
(ii) A site investigation scheme, based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site.
(iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
(iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To prevent the pollution of the environment.
9. C2N Drainage details
10. Foul and surface water discharges shall drain separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
11. Surface water shall not drain, directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, in the interests of health and safety, and the environment.
12. Land drainage run-off shall not discharge, directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, in the interests of health and safety, and the environment.
45
13. A riverside walk to adoptable standards, and lit, shall be provided through the site frontage to link with the approved riverside walk, to its east and west. Details of the walkway shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, and no use, hereby permitted, shall be commenced unless the walkway is complete and open for use. The design of the walkway, and related revetments, shall match the design of the walkway on either side of the site. Public access along the walkway shall be available at all times, except in an emergency or when essential repairs are taking place. Reason: To ensure that the provision of a riverside path is achieved, in accordance with Policy 2.7 of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
14. The reserved matters application shall ensure that DDA compliant access is available to the adjacent river bus stop and pontoons, along the riverside walkway, and along the paths which connect the Pont-y- Werin bridge and Watkiss Way, and the riverside walkway and Watkiss Way (through the eastern edge of the site, next to the canoe slalom course). The access routes shall be available at all times to the public, except in an emergency or when essential repairs are taking place. Reason: To ensure that these facilities and routes are accessible to all.
15. C7S Details of Refuse Storage
16. Prior to commencement of development details shall have been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority, of a procurement strategy for public art. The approved artworks shall be in place before any flat hereby permitted is brought into beneficial use unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To enhance the character and appearance of the development and to accord with Policy 2.56 of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
17. No development shall take place until details as to the provision within the site for loading, unloading and parking of vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into beneficial use and be thereafter maintained and retained at all times for those purposes in association with the development. Parking spaces shall be assigned to residents. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site, and to minimise space searching behaviour.
18. Any barrier controlling access to the car parks shall be set back from the highway in accordance with details which have first been submitted
46 to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The access shall not be gated. Reason: To ensure that the barrier does not cause a queue, which backs up onto the highway.
19. The gradient of the ramps serving any car park within the development shall not exceed 10%. Reason: In the interests of safety.
20. The footway/cycleway along the site frontage to Watkiss Way shall be retained to a width of 4m. Reason: In the interests of pedestrians and cyclists.
21. Details of provision for the secure and under cover parking of at least 190 cycles (or such lesser numbers as agreed with the Local Planning Authority), shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved provision shall be in place before any dwelling hereby permitted is brought into beneficial use. Reason: To ensure that appropriate and adequate cycle parking provision is made.
22. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme of construction management shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of construction traffic routes, the site means of enclosure, the site access and wheel- washing facilities. The approved scheme shall be adhered to. Reason: In the interests of safety and amenity.
23. A car park management plan shall have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development being brought into beneficial use. The plan shall include the designation of the parking spaces, control mechanisms, enforcement action and specify a timescale for their periodic review. The approved plan shall be implemented and shall be reviewed/revised, as specified. Reason: To ensure that the use of the spaces allocated to the various uses is controlled and reviewed as necessary.
24. The development shall accord with the submitted master plan. Reason: To ensure that the key elements of the submitted plan are followed.
25. The hotel hereby permitted shall have no more than 200 bedrooms, the number of dwellings shall not exceed 103, the floorspace used for retail (Use Class A1) and food and drink (Use Class A3) purposes (other 2 than such uses which are ancillary to the hotel) shall not exceed 750m 2 and no unit shall have a floorspace exceeding 300m , and the 2 floorspace of the Marina management suite shall not exceed 50m .
47 Reason: To ensure that there is control and certainty over the key elements of the scheme, and that the retail units do not prejudice the Council’s retail policies.
26. Any application for approval of reserved matters shall accord with the design parameters which are given on pages 41, 42 and 43 of the Design and Access Statement (dated June 2009), and shall have regard to the exemplars which have been included on pages 35 and 36 of the same statement. Reason: To ensure that there is control and certainty over the key elements of the scheme.
27. The hotel hereby permitted shall not be brought into beneficial use before the proposed restaurant and bar, towards the top of the buildings, has been brought into beneficial use, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that a mixed use is achieved, and to secure maximum public benefit from the proposed tall building.
28. The non-residential buildings shall be constructed to achieve a minimum BREEAM (or subsequent equivalent quality assured scheme) overall 'Excellent' rating, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the building is sustainable.
29. Each dwelling hereby permitted shall be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide April 2009, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of sustainability.
30. Prior to the commencement of development details of an upgraded temporary pedestrian link between the application site and the front of the Toys'R'Us shop on the opposite side of Watkiss Way shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved link shall be in place before the development hereby permitted is brought into beneficial use. Reason: In the interests of connectivity and sustainability.
31. The details which are submitted for consideration in discharge of condition 1 shall have been subject to wind testing, the results of which shall be reported to the Local Planning Authority, and shall have been incorporated into the detailed design. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not result in excessively high wind speeds.
32. Prior to the commencement of development, a design code shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The code shall specify the design principles for the public realm, including
48 materials, street furniture, balustrades, hard and soft landscaping, and water safety measures. The approved code shall be adhered to. Reason: In the interests of good design and safety.
RECOMMENDATION 3: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
RECOMMENDATION 5: That the developer be requested to take into account the advice of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer, and of the Waste Management Officer, which has previously been forwarded to their agent.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Consideration of this application was deferred on 16th September, to enable Members to visit the site.
1.2 This outline application proposes the development of a hotel (including a conference suite, a gymnasium, a spa, restaurants and bars), residential, retail, office and food and drink outlets, parking and service areas, new access, pubic realm and of a river edge revetment. The office could be used as a management suite in connection with the adjacent moorings. All matters of detail are reserved for later approval. The application was submitted when reserved matters still comprised siting, design, means of access, external
49 appearance and landscaping. The site comprises the Cambrian marine boatyard, some land between that site and Watkiss Way, land up to the boundary with Victoria Wharf, and a riverbank.
1.3 When the application was registered it gave no clear indication of the scale of the proposed development, nor of the siting of buildings. Drawings were submitted, but the application indicated that these were illustrative only. Floor space was not stipulated and the numbers of hotel bedrooms and the number of dwellings were not specified. The agent was advised that the application was considered to be too vague to facilitate a meaningful assessment. Since then, the agent has submitted an Environmental Statement and amended illustrative plans, together with a new design and access statement. The application drawings envisage that the hotel would be 127m high, and that the two residential blocks would be around 41m and 38m high.
1.4 The agent suggests that the Local Planning Authority should grant outline planning permission but, in order to have certainty over key design elements, conditions could be imposed which limit the floorspace, as follows:
• up to 200 hotel bedrooms plus ancillary conference suite, gym, spa, pool, restaurants and bars; • up to 103 residential apartments; • up to 750 sq. m of Class A1 and A3 floorspace (in addition to the hotel); • up to 50 sq. m of floorspace for the management suite for the existing marina;
In addition, he suggests that conditions could require the reserved matters application to be in accordance with the drawings on pages 41, 42 and 43 of the Design and Access Statement in terms of siting and design; and with the exemplars on pages 35 and 36, in terms of external appearance. The proposed materials for the tower and adjacent blocks would be a combination of masonry, slate, high quality concrete, glass and cladding.
1.5 The proposed hotel, which could include serviced apartments and suites, would be accommodated in a 30 storey tower. A restaurant and bar could be accommodated on the twenty third and twenty fourth floors, marking the point where the tower would narrow for its top quarter.
1.6 The application suggests that the residential accommodation would comprise a mix of one and two bedroom apartments in two blocks, up to 10 storeys high. Of the envisaged 103 one and two bedroom flats, it was originally intended that 21 would be “affordable”, however, it now appears likely that equivalent affordable off-site provision is preferred. The blocks would front onto the proposed riverside path and Watkiss Way. The hotel would be positioned near to the north-west corner of the site, close to Watkiss Way.
1.7 An illustrative Masterplan has been attached to the application (see the appendix containing the Non-Technical Summary Environmental Statement, at the end of this report). It shows the relationship of the proposed development to Watkiss Way, the River Ely, the Pont-y-Werin (whose
50 construction has commenced) and to Victoria Wharf. The Masterplan shows two public squares: one between the proposed hotel and the proposed riverside walk, and the other between Victoria Wharf and the hotel (and the path beside the hotel which will connect Watkiss Way to the Pont-y-Werin). Tree planting is envisaged in these squares, along Watkiss Way, and in the amenity space between the two almost parallel apartment blocks. Commercial uses are envisaged along the frontage to the riverside walkway and to Watkiss Way. A restaurant or pub is envisaged adjacent to Victoria Wharf, fronting onto a square, with water in it. (The water would compensate for Cardiff Bay flood storage capacity which would be lost when the revetment is constructed).
1.8 Illustrative drawings, submitted with the application, show that vehicular access would be from Watkiss Way. The application drawings show a 6m wide vehicular access into the development. Vehicles entering the site would be driven down or up a ramp, into a two level car park. The illustrative drawings show the provision of 167 car parking spaces, 18 motor cycle spaces and 120 cycle spaces. All of the parking would be hidden from view, the decks having buildings or decking, used as public or private open spaces, above them. The parking decks would be linked to the hotel, flats, and other proposed uses, by stairs and lifts. Commercial units, including cafes, would be accommodated on the riverside edge of the concealed car park, and other units would front onto Watkiss Way. The proposed public realm would, the application advises, deliver a highly accessible public realm.
1.9 The application proposes pedestrian access from Watkiss Way, and via the continuation of the approved River Ely riverside walk across the front of the site. A 3m wide path, along the site frontage, is shown. It would link with the riverside paths which are envisaged through the adjacent canoe slalom and Victoria Wharf residential sites. The site would be traversed by the foot and cycle path, which would connect the new Pont-y-Werin Bridge to Watkiss Way. To the west of this path, areas of water would be left for flood storage reasons. The plan envisages the need for steps between the end of the Pont- y-Werin and the Victoria Wharf riverside footpath, but makes clear that a convenient alternative fully accessible route could be provided.
1.10 The application envisages a BREEAM excellent rating for the commercial development and Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 for the residential component.
1.11 The master plan shows how access to moorings and a waterbus stop could be maintained.
1.12 The application envisages the use of high quality materials, and a series of places and spaces which would create a lively pedestrian environment. Business and food and drink uses would open onto public spaces, and footpaths and the pub/restaurant would open onto a south facing public square. The conference centre could have a space in front of it which could be used for performances and events. Tree planting would frame the key routes through the site and along the Watkiss Way frontage.
51
1.13 The application proposes the discharge of surface water directly into the River Ely and of foul sewage to the mains drainage system.
1.14 The application was accompanied by a transport assessment, a wind microclimate desk study, and environmental desk study report, a design and access statement, and a ‘sustainable development outline’.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The Cambrian Marine boatyard is on the north bank of the River Ely, adjacent to, and to the south-east of, the Council’s temporary ISV office. With the exception of the sloping river bank, the site is used for the storage, repair and maintenance of boats. The yard is fenced. Access is from Watkiss Way. There is a workshop near to the river bank. A slipway, enables boats to be raised from, and returned to, the river. Approximately 70m to the east of the site are the remains of a coal discharger, which is a scheduled Ancient Monument. The application site also includes adjacent land, to the north and north-west of the boatyard. The applications for the adjacent Victoria Wharf development envisaged that a pub or restaurant would be developed here. The land to the north is “leftover land” between the yard and Watkins Way.
2.2 There are pontoon moorings on the river across the site’s frontage.
2.3 The whole area to the north and east of the application site has been remediated. The back of the Toys ‘R’ Us shop is on the opposite side of Watkiss Way, and the swimming pool and temporary ice rink, are to the north- east of the site. The land to the east of the application site is unused, but the development of an Olympic Standard canoe slalom facility is proceeding.
2.4 The Pont-y-Werin bridge across the River Ely would ‘land’ on the application site and the foot and cycle path linking the bridge to Watkiss Way would pass through the site. The development of the bridge has commenced, and it should be complete next year.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 Application no. 04/1425C proposed the development of 106 flats on the Cambrian Marine boatyard site and adjacent riverbank. The Committee resolved, on 13 April 2005, to grant outline planning permission, subject to a S106 agreement, dealing with open space, affordable housing and a bus subsidy, and to conditions. The agreement was never completed, so no permission has been issued.
3.2 Application no. 06/1219C, which proposed 145 flats on the Cambrian Marine boatyard site, and adjacent riverbank, was refused on 13 September 2006. There were several reasons for refusal, relating to concerns about the scale and mass of the larger of the two of the three blocks then proposed, the impact of the development on visual amenity, the absence of a design statement, and the appearance of a riverside walkway. Other concerns,
52 reflected in the reasons for refusal, were the lack of meaningful open space, possible conflict could have arisen resulting from the retention of the slipway and boat lift, and some irregularities in the drawings.
3.3 Application no. 06/2304C proposed 191 dwellings on the Cambrian Marine boatyard site, and adjacent riverbank. The Committee resolved, on 15th November 2006, to grant outline planning permission, subject to a S106 agreement relating to open space, affordable housing and bus and water bus subsidy issues. This application envisaged two 15 storey blocks. The agreement has not been signed, so the permission has not, therefore, been issued.
3.4 The western part of the application site had planning permission for the development of a restaurant or pub, under one of the Victoria Wharf planning permissions.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The following policies of the City of Cardiff Local Plan are relevant to the consideration of this application:-
8 Sites of nature conservation or geological value 9 Development in areas at risk of flooding 10 Contaminated or unstable land 11 Design or aesthetic quality 12 Energy efficient design 17 Parking and servicing facilities 18 Provision for cyclists 19 Provision for pedestrians 20 Provision for special needs groups 21 Land for housing 24 Affordable and special needs housing 31 Residential open space requirement
The site is within an area, identified by Policy 21, as being allocated for housing.
4.2 The river bank in front of the site, is identified, in the Council’s Nature Conservation S.P.G. as being within SNCI 95 – the River Ely – which it describes as being important for migratory fish, otters, wildfowl and bankside vegetation.
4.3 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant to the consideration of this application:-
2.20 Good Design 2.23 Affordable Housing 2.26 Provision for Open Space, Recreation and Leisure 2.27 Provision for Schools 2.47 Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation
53 2.50 Ancient Monuments and Other Archaeological Remains 2.57 Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements 2.61 Protection of Water Resources 2.62 Flood Risk 2.63 Contaminated and Unstable Land 2.74 Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
4.4 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant to the consideration of this application:
Access, Circulation and Parking Archaeologically Sensitive Areas. Public Art Biodiversity Energy Efficient Designs for New Residential Development Restaurants, Takeaways and Other Food and Drink Uses Affordable Housing Community Facilities and Residential Development Waste collection and storage facilities Open Space Cardiff Residential Design Guide Developer Contributions for Transport (Draft) Tall Buildings Design Guide
4.5 Planning Policy Wales; March 2002 favours the redevelopment of previously developed land.
4.6 TAN’s 12 – Design, and 18 – Transport
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation comments:
(i) The existing footway / cycleway along Watkiss Way which runs parallel to the frontage of the site must be retained at its full width of 4.0 metres.
(ii) The application is supported by a TA which borrows information relevant to this application from the overall TA produced by Arup on behalf of Cardiff Bay Infrastructure Ltd (submitted with application 05/00592/C for the Infrastructure associated with CISV). He has reviewed the TA, together with Traffic Management Officers and an independent consultant, and it is considered to be generally satisfactory. However, no Transport Implementation Strategy (TIS) has been provided, which would include proposed mitigation measures to be introduced in order to address the overall impact of this development (in accordance with TAN 18). The developer should be able to overcome issues of impact and sustainable transport through the entering into of a S106 Agreement - details of which are listed below in paras. (xiii) to (xvii);
54
On the basis of the above and subject to those outstanding issues being addressed, he has no objection, subject to the following conditions and S106 contribution:
Conditions:
(i) No development shall take place until details as to the provision within the site for loading, unloading and parking of vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into beneficial use and be thereafter maintained and retained at all times for those purposes in association with the development. Parking spaces shall be allocated. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site and to minimise space searching behaviour;
(ii) A car park management plan to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, prior to the development being brought into beneficial use. The plan to comprise but not be limited to the designation of the parking spaces, control mechanisms to be put in place, enforcement action and agreed timescale for their periodic review. The approved plan to be implemented in accordance with the details contained within and reviewed/revised as specified. Reason: To ensure that the spaces allocated to the various use classes are strictly controlled and reviewed as necessary;
(iii) No obstruction to vision exceeding one metre in height shall be placed within the area defined in red on the plan no. JNY6699/01 attached hereto. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed access does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site;
(iv) Details of provision for the secure and under cover parking of at least 190 cycle parking spaces shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved provision shall be in place before any part of the development hereby permitted is brought into beneficial use. Reason: To ensure that appropriate and adequate cycle parking provision is made;
(v) A riverside walk to adoptable standards, and lit, shall be provided through the site to link with the approved riverside walk, to its east and west. Details of the walkway shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, and no part of the development, hereby permitted, shall be brought into beneficial use unless the walkway is complete and open for use. The design of the walkway, and related revetments, shall match the design of the walkway on either side of the site. Public access along the walkway
55 shall be available at all times, except in an emergency or when essential repairs are taking place. Reason: To ensure that the provision of a riverside path is achieved, in accordance with Policy 2.7 of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003);
(vi) Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed access from Watkiss Way shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access shall be complete and available for use before any part of the development hereby permitted is brought into beneficial use. Reason: To ensure that adequate and safe access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists is available. Reason: To ensure that adequate and safe access provision is made to and from the site;
(vii) The gradient of the ramps serving any underground car park shall not exceed 10%. Reason: In the interests of safety;
(viii) Any barrier controlling access to the car parks shall be set back from the highway. Reason: To ensure that the barrier does not cause a queue, which backs up onto the highway;
(ix) No gates shall be erected to the proposed vehicular access. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site;
(x) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA, no beneficial occupation of any part of the development is to take place before a scheme of environmental highway improvements and programme for their implementation, to Watkiss Way are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The scheme should include but not be limited to, the reconstruction of the carriageway / footway, including surfacing, kerbing, edging, drainage, lining and signing and street lighting improvements. The agreed scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the LPA in accordance with the approved details and agreed programme. Reason: To ensure the comprehensive enhancement / improvement of the adjacent highway in accordance with the principles set out in the planning application;
(xi) Prior to commencement of each phase of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to include details of construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access, and wheel washing facilities. The development construction of the relevant phase shall be managed strictly in accordance with the scheme so approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity;
(xii) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the Framework Travel Plan has been progressed, submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The Travel Plan shall set out proposals
56 and targets, together with a timetable to limit or reduce the number of single occupancy car journeys to the site, and to promote travel by sustainable modes. The Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timetable set out in the plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA. Reports demonstrating progress in promoting the sustainable transport measures detailed in the Travel Plan shall be submitted annually to the LPA, commencing from the first anniversary of beneficial occupation of each phase or element of the development;
S106 Contribution:
Following discussion with planning officers and the agent, he has concluded that there should be a S106 obligation of £450,000. This sum is to be used to:
• Support the second Baycar service • Support the Dunleavy Drive cycle/pedestrian improvements • Fund TRO’s/telematics as appropriate
In terms of supporting the implementation of a water taxi service via the Bayscape Water Shuttle service proposal, he considers that this is best commented on by the Harbour Authority Manager but this should not be included in the £450,000 contribution outlined above.
5.2 The Waste Management Officer has given advice on storage and collection arrangements. This advice has been forwarded to the agent.
5.3 The Parks and Bereavement Manager thinks that the public realm treatment, which is suggested by the current plans, is much better than previously proposed. He presumes that there will be discussions over open space and/or an off-site open space contribution, when the numbers are known.
5.4 The Strategic Planning Manager advises that the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Community Facilities and Residential Development states that ‘the Council will seek a financial contribution for improvements to existing community facilities or the provision of additional community facilities on all significant developments because the increased population will result in increased demand for local community facilities’. A financial contribution is sought on all residential developments containing 25 or more new dwellings.
The formula in the Community Facilities SPG is based on the number of habitable rooms per dwelling. In this instance the number of habitable rooms is not known. It is recommended, therefore, that the Section 106 agreement for the development makes provision for payment of a financial contribution for community facilities to be calculated in accordance with the formula in the SPG.
He further advises that he considers the following policy framework to be relevant to this application:
57
• Planning Policy Wales (WAG March 2002) • City of Cardiff Local Plan (Adopted Jan 1996) • South Glamorgan Replacement Structure Plan (April 1997) • Cardiff Unitary Development Plan to 2016 (Deposit) • Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006 – 2021 (Deposit 2009) • City Centre Strategy (2007 – 2010) • Ferry Road Area Planning Brief (CBDC 1992)
He also considers the following SPG’s to be relevant:
• Restaurants, Takeaways & other Food & Drink Uses • Tall Buildings • Open Space • Affordable Housing • Access, Circulation and Parking • Community Facilities • Public Art • Developer Contributions for Schools Facilities
He observes that whilst the land is allocated for housing development (LP Policy 21(18)) the area is also identified for mixed use development including business, leisure, retail and community uses in the Ferry Road Area Planning Brief (CBDC 1992). In addition the site is within the Waterfront Area of the City Centre Strategy (approved Sept 2007).
He comments that the Land Use Policy considerations are:
(i) Whether the proposed residential use is acceptable The use of this brownfield site for housing will help meet city-wide housing needs, relieve pressure for development in the countryside and help to promote urban regeneration. The Deposit UDP, LDP and the City Centre Strategy seek to ensure that Cardiff realises its full potential in contributing towards the city’s housing needs through the promotion of residential development at appropriate locations.
(a) The provision of affordable housing National planning policy states that a community’s need for affordable housing is a material planning consideration. Structure Plan policy H5 requires that priority be given to facilitating the provision of affordable housing at appropriate locations. Local Plan policy 24 states that provision for an element of affordable housing and special needs groups will be sought on all new housing sites of more than 50 dwellings where there is evidence of need which can be satisfactorily met on the site and where site conditions allow. The policy also notes that the precise scale will vary from case to case and will be a matter for negotiation.
58 (b) The provision of public open space Policy 31 of the Local Plan requires that the provision of a satisfactory level and standard of open space will be sought on all new housing developments, based on a minimum of 2.43 hectares of recreational open space per 1000 projected population. The supporting text acknowledges that, whilst open space provision will normally be sought within the development site, there are circumstances where the Council may be prepared to negotiate off-site contributions. The Open Space SPG provides further clarification and guidance on the application of this policy.
Given that the site is located within an area allocated for housing in the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan, the proposed residential use is considered acceptable from a land use policy perspective subject to the satisfactory provision of affordable housing and public open space.
(ii) Whether the proposed hotel use is acceptable Whilst Policy 26 of the Local Plan favours new hotel development within the designated Principal Business Areas it is acknowledged by criterion (3) that new hotel development may be acceptable at alternative locations within the urban area, provided there is no need to preserve the site for its existing or allocated use and subject to detailed considerations of scale, location, design, amenity and transportation. Given the precedent established by adjacent proposals which include hotel development, and the commitment for hotel development within the Ferry Road Planning Brief, it would be difficult to sustain an objection to the principle of hotel development at this location subject to the above detailed criteria.
(iii) Whether the proposed food and drink uses are acceptable Whilst food and drink uses are most appropriately located within the city centre Principal Business Areas, district and local centres it is acknowledged in the approved Restaurants, Takeaways and Other Food and Drink Uses (SPG June 1996) that such uses may be considered acceptable in “other areas of commercial/business development” subject to detailed considerations.
(iv) Whether the proposed commercial/retail uses are acceptable The proposal lies outside the Principal Shopping Area (PSA) identified by the Local Plan and as such, any proposal for Class A1 (shop) use would need to satisfy the three tests of out-of-centre retail policy, namely:
• whether there is a need for the development; • whether there are sites available to accommodate this need within or on the edge of the PSA (i.e. the “sequential test”); and, • whether the proposal would have any harmful impacts on existing centres or retail strategies.
59 Given the scale of current retail developments and commitments in the city centre it is unlikely that an additional need could be demonstrated for city centre type retailing (i.e. clothing, footwear and other comparison goods) at this time. In addition, the availability of retail floorspace within the PSA means that proposals to sell city centre type goods on this site would fail to satisfy the sequential test.
However, the increased population associated with the proposal, together with that created by nearby housing developments, means that the developers may be able to demonstrate a need for more local/convenience type shopping provision to serve this new population. Provided that such provision was relatively low key, and generally related to the convenience needs of the newly established population and/or hotel patrons, it may also be possible for the developer to demonstrate that sequential test issues are satisfied. However, any retail proposal that did satisfy these tests could only then be considered acceptable if it was demonstrated that it did not have a harmful impact on the city centre, nearby local centres or any strategies aimed at protecting and enhancing these centres.
The creation of units attractive to mainstream clothing, footwear and other city centre type retailing could compete directly with existing and future provision within the protected centre and would, therefore, be undesirable and potentially harmful at this location. It is suggested, therefore, that conditions be imposed to control the nature of the retail element of the scheme to minimise potential for direct competition with retail provision in the PSA. Guidance on this matter (WO Circular 35/95) advises against the use of conditions involving the detailed specification of goods that can and cannot be sold and so in this case the most appropriate means of control would be to limit the amount of Class A1 floorspace, the mix of Class A1 and A3 floorspace, and the maximum size of any one unit. This would ensure that the proposal would not be attractive to significant trade that could compete directly with provision in the PSA and so would not raise any adverse policy issues.
Policy 2.55 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan identifies the need for new developments to make appropriate provision for public realm improvements. In addition, the approved City Centre Strategy (2007-2010) states that new developments will be expected to enhance the appearance, accessibility and the use of the public realm through the choice of materials, street furniture, planting, and the layout and uses proposed. This is supported by Action 4 of the ‘Urban Design and Public Realm’ Chapter which is “to secure contributions from new developments for public realm enhancements”.
The first stated “Strategic Challenge” in the approved City Centre Strategy is “Continuing to address the need to unite the city centre and its waterfront”. The proposal is likely to impact on existing pedestrian, cycle and transport routes to and from the site. In line with the aims and aspirations of the CCS, the applicant would be expected to demonstrate how their proposal would contribute to environmental enhancements in the wider area in order to achieve an orderly form of development.
60
Specific Actions and Aspirations within the Waterfront Chapter of the CCS include:
• To continue the redevelopment and regeneration of Cardiff Bay and its environs and to deliver benefits to existing communities • Improvements to transport infrastructure serving major leisure and tourism destinations in the city centre, Cardiff Bay and the International Sports Village • To attract further tourism and leisure facilities to the area • To improve public transport facilities serving the area, linking to the barrage and beyond • To extend the length of the bay-edge walkway/cycleway, facilitating the ultimate completion of a circuit, including public access from the Inner Harbour to the barrage
Consideration should be given to how this development can contribute to public realm, public art and wider infrastructure enhancements to deliver the strategic actions and aspirations as defined in the approved City Centre Strategy
He concludes that the proposed development is acceptable from a Strategic Planning (Land Use and Regeneration) perspective subject to the satisfactory resolution of the issues identified above.
5.5 The Housing Strategy Officer observes:
(i) The Council’s Affordable Housing – SPG states that the starting point for all affordable housing negotiations on applicable sites will be 30% affordable housing. However, the principle of 20% affordable housing provision has long been established on this site, and taking into consideration that the affordable housing will be delivered without social housing grant (SHG) a 20% affordable housing contribution is deemed appropriate in this case.
(ii) The Council’s Affordable Housing – SPG states that it is the normal expectation that affordable housing be provided on-site. However, in exceptional circumstances, it may be agreed that the affordable housing can be provided off-site on a mutually agreed site near enough to the development site to meet identified housing need. She considers this site to be an exceptional circumstance, given that the bulk of the site consists of a tall tower hotel complex and as a result the affordable housing cannot be reasonably incorporated within the residential accommodation proposed. This would result in potential management and maintenance issues for the Registered Social Landlord (RSL) who would be nominated to deliver these units, especially as ownership of the building will be retained, rendering a separate access for the affordable units unrealistic and unreasonable. As the residential accommodation is likely to attract a high level of service charges, this
61 would also be problematic for the RSL and tenants in terms of financial management.
(iii) The Council’s Strategic Housing Priority is to deliver family housing, and in view of the above issues, the applicant is proposing to deliver much needed social rented family accommodation on another site in the vicinity (with the vicinity defined as the ward of Grangetown), the equivalent of a 20% affordable housing contribution. In terms of design these affordable units would comply with the requirements of the Welsh Assembly Government set out in Development Quality Requirements (DQR) and in the Welsh Housing Quality Standard, and would need to be in line with Welsh Assembly Government Acceptable Cost Guidance (ACG), delivered on a nil SHG basis. The social rented units will be provided through a registered social landlord (RSL) with approved developer status in Cardiff.
(iv) Although a site for the affordable housing provision has not yet been secured, the applicant is confident that a site can be secured and the affordable housing units delivered within the same build period as the Cambrian Marina scheme, which is acceptable.
(v) In the event that an alternative site is not secured and/or delivered within the above timeframe, then the applicant has agreed to provide the Council with a financial contribution, in line with the formula in the Affordable Housing – SPG. This will be based on a 20% affordable housing contribution and in lieu of the resulting number of units.
(vi) In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a number of serviced apartments on the site which currently do not form part of the overall residential accommodation for negotiation purposes. However, if these were sold outright at a later date, then the affordable housing contribution would increase. It has been agreed that this increase will take the form of a financial contribution, in line with the formula in the Affordable Housing – SPG, and would be included within the s106 agreement.
(vii) She recommends a S106 agreement to secure the affordable housing, the precise terms of the S106 would be drafted by Legal Services.
5.6 The Operational Manager, Cardiff Harbour Authority, has been consulted. He comments:-
(i) The development impacts on the Inland Bay flood storage volume and this is recognised within the application. Detailed calculations on this matter need to be produced and the mitigation/ replacement storage proposals clearly presented for approval by the Environment Agency.
(ii) All surface water run off drainage systems that could impact on the River Ely water quality need careful design with the provision of interceptors etc
62
(iii) In the Environmental Statement Non Technical Summary – Summary of Environmental Effects Table:
(a) Within the Ecology Topic it states “Minor impact on Local Biodiversity Action Plan habitat”.
However the proposal requires the full removal of reed beds – this is clearly a major impact and should require mitigation measures to be undertaken.
(b) Within the Ecology Topic is a reference to “Careful design of lighting” but does not say what this entails, Detailed proposals should be supplied.
(iv) Drawing “Ground Floor Plan level 0” shows the bay edge walkway from the east (canoe slalom side) as a steady ramp allowing full DDA compliant access to the new Pont y Werin. However from the west the bay edge walkway rises as a steady ramp to a level of 9.0 m AOD then appears to cross the storage lagoon on a flat bridge and then includes a set of steps up to the level of the new bridge surface of 9.6m AOD. There does not appear to be an alternative access route to the bridge from the west that is suitable for wheel chair access.
The bay edge walkway should provide a fully DDA compliant access to the bridge from the west as well as from the north and east.
5.7 The Environment and Public Protection Manager recommends conditions relating to plant noise, delivery times, sound insulation, kitchen fumes, ground gas, contamination and imported soils/aggregates. He also makes a contaminants recommendation.
5.8 The Highways and Waste Management Officer has no drainage objection, but recommends that a standard drainage condition be imposed as there are drainage problems in the area.
5.9 The Chief Schools Officer has been consulted. Any response will be reported at Committee.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Vale of Glamorgan Council has no comment.
6.2 The Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust has no objection.
6.3 Cadw comment, in relation to their role as a consultee on applications which could have an impact upon scheduled Monuments and Registered Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens, that the development would have a direct effect on the nearby Ely tidal Harbour Coal Staithe Number One, which is a Scheduled Monument. The staithe is within the site which is being developed
63 as a white water rafting course, and Cadw has granted Scheduled Monument Consent to conserve and repair this structure and making it a viewing and access platform for the course. The proposed development would introduce tall buildings but the setting of the Monument has already undergone radical change and this development would not change that for better or worse. Cadw has no concerns.
6.4 The Countryside Council for Wales observes that, they do not object to the application. They welcome the submission of:
• The Revised Design and Access Statement (June 2009); • The amended site Plans, Sustainable Development Outline and the Environmental Statement dated May 2009.
The application site does not lie within a designated area and there are no records for European Protected Species within the site. Records of bat and otter do exist within the wider area, however, in this instance there is unlikely to be a significant effect to these species and they therefore have no objections to this proposal.
They welcome the precautionary approach to the proposed lighting scheme and support the commitment to ‘provide dark areas to encourage bat foraging and movement’.
They note, within the Sustainable Development Outline report, consideration of a number of renewable energy sources has been made, including wind energy. However, they note that the installation of a wind turbine is not included as part of the current planning application. Whilst CCW supports the use of renewable energy, they would highlight the need for careful consideration of the types of renewable energy suitable for use within this area, particularly with respect to wind turbines and their potential effects on bats and bird species. They would be happy to provide further advice to the applicant and the Local Planning Authority, in due course.
6.5 The Environment Agency have no objection to the application. They recommend the imposition of conditions to ensure that live Cardiff Bay flood storage volumes are maintained, and to deal with contamination issues.
6.6 Welsh Water have no objection. They request that drainage conditions be attached to any permission.
6.7 On 18th March 2009, the Design Commission for Wales considered a presentation by the applicants. They had serious concerns about the scale and quantum of development proposed, particularly in relation to the impact on Penarth. Moreover, they were not convinced of the deliverability of this scheme, especially given the high quality of finishes they were shown.
Their concerns were:
64 • They do not accept the argument that a 30 storey tower is necessary to create presence and legibility. • The proposed high quality of details and finishes would need to be well protected, in view of the D&B procurement process and the economics of delivery. • BREEAM and Code ratings should be defined prior to consent being granted, and with advice from the Local Authority. • Microclimatic issues of wind protection, solar shading and daylight access need to be resolved with the help of modelling. • The mixed use and active frontages on the riverside are strongly supported.
They had concerns about the scale of the tower, particularly given its location on the narrowest part of the river and its proximity to and impact on Penarth Haven. They did not agree that this scale is absolutely necessary for a quality development on this site, nor is it the only way to achieve good legibility. A greater flexibility is needed, especially as this is the element that is likely to arouse most opposition. Although the site is small for the quantum of development, it includes land which the developer has agreed to purchase which extends the area of the boatyard by 50%.
They considered the commercial viability of this scheme to be highly questionable, especially given the hotel layout of 5 to 8 bedrooms per floor, and the high level restaurant with the associated problems of access and servicing. The developer nevertheless believes that it is deliverable 2-3 years hence, and stressed that the project so far had been based on sound commercial advice.
The BREEAM/CSH rating for the scheme is not fixed and will depend on negotiations with the operator(s). However, important microclimatic issues need to be addressed at this stage. The wind tunnel effect, especially around the smaller blocks, is likely to be significant and should be mitigated by the built form or possibly by planting. The western glazed elevations will need appropriate shading and this is unlikely to be achieved by brises soleil or fritted glass. Modelling is needed to ensure that the shading is effective and that sufficient daylight reaches the lower floors of the residential blocks - which looks unlikely on the model. 'Eco stations' will be provided throughout the development, as amenity spaces and to recycle grey water.
The proposed mixed use is welcomed, as well the location of some commercial units on the riverside walkway. Timber decks will conceal the edge of the car park and cascade down to the water. There may need to be more open space allocation at the junction of the walkway and the footbridge.
Parking is provided at a ratio of 1:1 for the residential units plus 21 visitor spaces and 40+ spaces for the hotel. Spaces will not be specifically allocated. so it should be possible to dovetail daytime and evening uses, but this will need adequate management, in addition 120 cycle storage spaces are provided. The team stated that there are 8 bus stops within 400m, a water taxi stop on the site, and Cogan railway station will become easily accessible
65 across the new bridge. They did not accept the supporting argument for the density, namely that this would become a public transport hub.
6.8 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer made observations on the application, in its original form, and has confirmed that her observations on the amended application remain the same.
She recommends that the site achieve the Secured by Design Award, which is the minimum standard, considered suitable by the police service, for safety and security on new developments. A safe and secure environment is the prime objective of the Secured by Design initiative. To achieve this result, equal weight should be given to both environmental design and physical security.
Developers and local authorities are required to consider levels of crime and disorder in respect of any new developments and at the same time, promote the inclusion of architectural crime prevention measures into new products.
As this is a new development, on what is primarily wasteland, she is unable to give crime statistics relative to such a development. However, she advises that there were 8 incidents reported in the 12 months up to the end of October 2008, for Watkiss Way only, and her recommendations are based on similar developments, designs and potential problems that may arise due to design factors.
She recommends that:
(i) The site should provide car parking for a limited number of authorised users only as such clear signage would be required indicating location of designated bays and the segregation of residential and hotel users. She recommends compliance with the Park Mark Safer Parking scheme which would incorporate secure access control measures be incorporated into the design for the car parking area to prevent any unauthorised access. Walls and surface treatments within the car parking areas should be painted in a light reflective coating in order to reflect the light and provide a reassuring and well lit environment for users. (ii) Though parking provision for the residential units is adequate and in line with Supplementary Planning Guidance, Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements, parking provision for the hotel is limited and this could result in the future overspill of parking onto Watkiss Way and the surrounding area. She notes that there is an open car park in the area which is regularly full to capacity. (iii) Parking spaces on the southern (River Ely) side are beyond the normal movement route through the car park and this puts parked vehicles at vulnerable and high risk. (iv) The parking bay to the front of the hotel should have signage restricting parking to prevent obstruction by large commercial vehicles servicing the hotel.
66 (v) CCTV should monitor all external areas and access/exit points, including the ‘Pull in’ areas located to the front of the hotel, all car parking levels and access to public and private areas within the development, combined with an access controlled system that prevents tailgating. Landscaping should not obstruct CCTV surveillance over the site. (vi) External canopies, whilst providing shelter and protection for the users of the site, should not be designed to provide sheltered areas for congregation points that could contribute to anti-social behaviour. (vii) Cycle storage would be in a poorly overlooked and vulnerable location with easy approach/escape routes via internal hotel corridors, and needs to be relocated to an area of maximum passive surveillance. (viii) The stairwell that extends into the car park into the south western side of the car park could create hiding places, severely restrict sight lines and compromise the security of the hotel entrance. (ix) All doors leading from car parking areas should have access control.
Although there is no present threat, that she is aware of, with regard to a terrorist attacks, the recent review completed by Lord West, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism) highlights the necessity to regard the potential impact of terrorism when considering the built environment. Lord West has spoken within his report of the threat against Crowded Places within the UK.
As the threat level could change in the future and, looking at developments such as this long term there is need to consider risks that may arise especially if high profile people/high number of people are within the development.
The points below have also been discussed and agreed with Dc Simon Rees, Counter Terrorism Security Advisor: -
(i) The access control to the car park should be substantial with a crash proof arm. This barrier system should be located as close to the building line as possible to eliminate the need for vehicles mistakenly entering the car park entrance to fully enter the car park for turning purposes therefore compromising security. (ii) Although this barrier system should provide effective vehicle control it is unlikely to have any impact on pedestrian movement therefore to support these control measures a security office should be relocated to a prominent position which frames and overlooks the entrance to the car park and can influence vehicle and pedestrian movement. (iii) Height restriction should be placed at the entrance to the car park to prevent access to large vehicles/lorries. (iv) It is important to have measures in place to control access to vehicles around the development. (v) With any tall building which has a lot of glass it is strongly recommended that a glazing film or laminate glass is used to reduce risk of fragmentation. (vi) Any utilities should be underground and not exposed. This commercially makes sense to prevent attack and therefore interruption to trading.
67 This advice has been forwarded to the agent.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been publicised. Objections have been received from the occupiers of 762, 766, 775 and 777 Alexandria, Victoria Wharf. Their concerns are as follows:
i) The proposed tall building would result in a loss of light, view and privacy.
ii) The tall building would dwarf its surrounding and look seriously out of scale.
iii) Loss of value to adjacent flats.
iv) Inadequate consultation.
v) Inadequate parking appears to be intended for the considerable amount of development. Access problems could result to existing residents, especially when major events take place at the pool or ice rink.
vi) No need for more flats in the area. Many nearby are unsold.
vii) The site is too small to satisfactorily accommodate all of the proposed development.
viii) Nuisance to neighbours from construction work.
7.2 The Chandlers Quay Residents’ Association are concerned at the height of the proposed hotel and the high density of the development. Traffic and parking problems could result. They have heard that the existing sewage system is struggling to cope.
7.3 The occupiers of 257 Picton, Victoria Wharf, fully support, what they consider to be these exciting proposals which would add important facilities to their area of regeneration, would complement the Sports Village development plans, and bring employment. Mr. Barry of Boverton Street, Roath, believes that the application encompasses all that is best in contemporary urban design – quality, density, mixed use, tightly defined and active street/pedestrian areas. The high building would provide an important landmark and would add to, and raise the quality of the area. He strongly supports this proposal and points out that the urban framework in the area is poor, having been the subject of speculative apartment developments and car park based retail.
7.4 Mr Moor of 177 Hansen Court, Heol Glan Rheidol, Butetown congratulates the Planning Committee on taking the right approach in insisting upon a full site
68 visit prior to a decision, but he would also like to register his support for this scheme and urge it to be given outline planning permission.
• The scheme offers a high quality, mixed use development on a prime site. A site appropriate for tall buildings, and a site in which the people of Cardiff have the right to expect an exemplary and exciting development. • The Council, must look beyond the current economic crises, but nonetheless, this offers an exceptional opportunity to provide jobs, development and attract visitors to the city, in what is currently an under visited location. • While tall, the building is by no means taller than comparative buildings in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and indeed is only marginally taller than the tallest building in Swansea. For Cardiff to achieve a high profile status as a visitor destination, it needs development such as this. • In the S.W. Echo (19 Sept 09) The Design Commission for Wales expressed fears about the potential commercial reality of using such high quality materials. Given that the building is earmarked for 5-star hotel, it is clear that quality materials will be imperative to the development. It is obvious that materials far in advance of – for example – Ty Pont Haearn – would be used. • While recognising the rights of immediate neighbours, such landmark buildings cannot be the sole reserve of those who in time will consider themselves lucky to neighbour. This site is visable from his flat and would improve the value of the view, and would have a positive impact and spin- offs for a huge number of people. • Cardiff Bay remains a work in progress. Significant improvement is due to occur with the Pont-Y-Werin bridge, but nonetheless people require a reason to visit somewhere. This hotel would contribute to the development of the bay in this regard. • The site is sustainable-with cycle, train, and potential water bus provision. • The restaurant offers an opportunity to improve upon Cardiff’s cultural offer. • He urges support for this scheme. He believes it would be economic madness to reject it, and one that the city would regret for a great many years, setting back the entire ‘Cardiff Bay Project’.
7.5 In support of the application the agent states that as negotiations with potential developers are still in hand, a degree of flexibility is required, with regard to the hotel and residential elements of the proposal.
He advises that the applicant has taken into account the Design Commission’s Design review.
• The applicant continues to believe that the 30 storey tower is a necessary and appropriate response to the site for the reasons set out in the Design and Access Statement. The impact of the tower on Penarth – as well as a comprehensive selection of other locations – has been carefully assessed in the townscape and visual chapter of the Environmental Statement and has been found to be acceptable. The Report’s reference to potential
69 opposition to the tower has proved to be unfounded. The reference to the site being at the narrowest part of the river is not helpful. In fact the river is widest where it discharges into the Bay and narrows from that point upstream – continuing to narrow well past the Bayscape site. What is perhaps more relevant is to consider the changing character of the river. The Cogan spur road bridge can be seen as the place where the river changes from being essentially an extension of the Bay – with attendant activity, moorings and so on to being a quieter, stiller space. The construction of Pont y Werin, which will restrict boat movement further upstream, will only reinforce this transition. Regarded in this way, Bayscape can again be seen as a nodal location where the tower would assist in the legibility of the local geography.
• The need for high quality details and finishes is accepted and use of exemplars as described above seeks to lock these requirements into the consent:
• The sustainability performance of the buildings has been addressed in SKM’s report, which has been submitted in support of the application. It is proposed to achieve BREEAM Excellent for the commercial developments, and Code for Sustainable Homes level 4 for the residential components:
• Microclimate and solar shading studies have been undertaken and are reported in the Environmental Statement.
The Agent comments that the terms of any S106 agreement should take into account the provisions of the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan, which set out a detailed analysis of the public transport provision in the area, car and non car movements to and from the site and the opportunities which the development offers for sustainable travel modes. He draws attention to:
• The revised Tall Buildings SPG now refers to ‘locations that are highly accessible by a range of public transport options’, rather than to ‘transport hubs’;
• Contributions to transport improvements in the area have already been made or are committed by other developments;
• The contributions to non-car travel which the scheme would make in addition to any cash sum. Specifically the access to the water taxi landing station, the river edge walkway, and the link from the Pont-y-Werin to Watkiss Way. Whilst the river edge walkway is a planning requirement, both it and the Pont y Werin link are proposed to be generously proportioned, high quality spaces whose construction and land take costs would be far in excess of comparable provision elsewhere (eg Victoria Wharf or Watermark). The river edge walkway construction cost alone has been estimated at £179,575. Moreover the Pont y Werin link would be difficult to deliver at all without the Bayscape scheme. Whilst the costs of providing these spaces would be incorporated into the overall project plan
70 rather than presented to the Council as a separate sum of money, they nevertheless represent real ‘extra over’ costs which should be taken into account in the S106 negotiations.
7.6 In the Design and Access Statement the following aims and objectives are identified by the agent:
Supporting the ISV masterplan by:
• Improving connectivity within the masterplan area and enhancing the legibility of ISV and Cardiff Bay as a whole.
• Introducing an attractive and vibrant set of uses which will enable the scheme to act a local hub at what might otherwise be ‘backwater’ location within the ISV.
• Responding positively to the site’s strategic location and to the activities and routes which immediately adjoin it.
• Enhancing the development potential of neighbouring vacant land.
Creating an exciting sense of place by:
• Deploying an aspirational, contemporary, humane and inclusive architecture.
• Delivering an accessible high quality public realm through a sequence of purposeful, attractive and inclusive spaces and routes.
• Offering a diverse range of uses which create vital and lively street scenes around the site.
• Exploiting the links between land and water, the site and its surroundings, inside and outside.
Contributing to sustainability by:
• Supporting and facilitating a rich mix of travel options.
• Integrating sustainable energy, water and material use to the design from the outset.
• Contributing to the bio-diversity of the area within the public realm and within the buildings.
• Supporting the local community through direct and indirect job creation, local purchasing and raising the profile and perception of the area.
71 • Designing to achieve at least Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 for the apartments and BREEAM Excellent for the commercial elements of the scheme.
Key features and developments in the vicinity include:
• The white water rafting centre which is being developed by the Harbour Authority. This would provide an unusual and lively neighbour. Cardiff Marine Group and the Harbour Authority are liaising to ensure that both schemes made the most of their common boundary.
• The marina which occupies the river along and beyond the site’s southern boundary, is also controlled by Cardiff Marine Group. There will be a high degree of synergy between the marina and the operation of the hotel and apartments in terms of access and management, shared facilities and marketing. In turn this means linked visits to the hotel/apartments and the marina and reinforces the identity of both facilities as a distinctive destination. When the existing boat yard closes for redevelopment, boat building, repairs and sales will take place at a separate location on Penarth Road. This will ensure these services and associated employment will be retained locally without prejudicing the amenity of the Bayscape site.
• The water bus station which sits within the marina. This has the potential to be an important commuter and tourist service. Bayscape, the marina and the station are mutually supportive facilities.
• The proposed Pont y Werin footbridge. This long awaited link will place Bayscape at an important note joining Penarth Marina and Cogan with the ISV bay edge footpath, Watkiss Way and the rafting centre. Potentially that connectivity could extend to the core of the ISV leisure and retail developments.
• The vacant land to the north of Watkiss Way. This land is potentially suitable for a variety of uses. However, the way that the nearby retail development has been laid out, coupled with the presence of the elevated Cogan spur Road, currently gives it an isolated and disjointed feel.
• Considering this land in conjunction with Bayscape offers the opportunity to re-connect to with the water and new footbridge and onwards to the core of the ISV. Together they could also give Watkiss Way a new sense of place as it passes though (rather than between) the two sites.
The agent also makes the following points in the statement:
Cardiff County Council’s Tall Buildings Supplementary Planning Guidance builds upon TAN 12 to give specific guidance on tall buildings in Cardiff. It emphasizes that tall buildings, if well designed and located in the right
72 place, have the ability to make positive contributions to a city or town. Tall buildings will, it indicates, be considered positively in highly accessible locations in the city centre and Cardiff Bay.
Tall buildings should create a point of focus or be a positive feature on the city skyline and provide a benefit in terms of both the local and the wider strategic townscape. In the case of Bayscape the proposed tower would draw attention to the wider regeneration area placing acting as a visual magnet for the International Sports Village as well as the important new bridge over the River Ely.
The guidance generally favours tall buildings being located within an existing cluster or being part of a proposal to form a new cluster. However, it also recognises that free standing tall buildings can provide a landmark or terminate a vista as an exception. The Bayscape would fall within the existing cluster of buildings at Victoria Wharf. This development comprises six buildings up to 14 storeys in height.
By their scale and nature, tall buildings also have the potential to harm important qualities of a town or city. The guidance highlights the need to ensure that new tall buildings do not overshadow or overlook adjacent properties to the significant detriment of the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Tall buildings should be located within areas that have good access to community, leisure and other facilities. They should be sympathetic to their surroundings and have a minimal visual impact on important vistas and sensitive historic environments.
The design of tall buildings must be of exceptional quality and the SPG highlights four key issues:
• The form and silhouette of the building – this includes consideration of visual impact, and relationships with both the local context ad other tall buildings.
• The quality and appearance of the proposed materials and architectural detailing.
• The impact and interface at street level – how the building contributes positively to high quality, safe, secure and legible public realm and urban design.
• The sustainable performance of the development – how the building employs climate responsive design.
Urban form and Connectivity
The site and surrounding area currently feels disjointed and lacks connectivity with more established areas and the core of the ISV. The townscape is bland and open and structural landscaping sparse. Recent developments close to the site – for example Victoria Wharf and Toys R US
73 – tend to have impermeable boundaries, are inward looking and offer little in the way of interaction with their surroundings. Pedestrian and cycling routes are few in number and poorly defined. Vehicular routes are large scale and dominate in comparison. As a consequence spaces lack definition, structure or purpose and existing developments have little relationship with one another of the spaces which surround them.
To some extent these problems stem from the fact that redevelopment of the area is only partly completed. As further development takes place these problems can be rectified. The urban grain needs to be tightened up to produce spaces with a more human scale and clear functions. A well defined and logical network of foot and cycle paths would provide structure, cohesion and greater accessibility. Built developments need to be outward looking and interact with the spaces which abut them. Handled carefully the scale of built development can be used to promote legibility and add drama and local distinctiveness.
Bayscape can contribute to this process. It offers the opportunity to become a destination, a waymarker and the focus for a sequence of pedestrian and cycle routes and spaces repairing the urban fabric and creating a vibrant piece of the city. This approach could be carried further into the land to the north of Watkiss Way. Here a ‘boulevard’ could link with the core of ISV and, with Bayscape capture Watkiss Way, calm it, enclose it and make it part of a network of attractive, people friendly spaces.
Microclimate
The wind effects of the development were raised as a concern by the Design Commission. An updated wind assessment was undertaken as part of the Environmental statement. The meteorological data for the site indicate that the prevailing winds are from the west. Winds from the northeast are also frequent during the spring and winter seasons. The wind microclimate around the proposed development has been assessed on a worst case basis (i.e. assuming there is no landscaping or planting around the development). On this basis the assessment classified the site as suitable for business walking, leisure walking or better during the windiest season. The wind microclimate is expected to be suitable for standing/entrance use or better during the summer.
While the relatively exposed nature of this site and its proximity to water is expected to make pedestrians more tolerant of windy conditions, the wind microclimate at the entrances around the development will require mitigation. Planting and other landscape enhancements will increase the shelter within the development, particularly when trees and plants are established and in full leaf.
The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the final design:
• Recessing or screening of certain entrances around the site or additional soft-landscaping to provide shelter.
74
• Canopies associated with certain thoroughfares around the tower, to prevent the downdraught reaching ground level.
• Vertical screening or additional soft-landscaping to provide localised shelter.
Subject to measures such as these, microclimatic conditions at the site will be acceptable and, in combination of the public realm improvements, will encourage leisure walking and enjoyment of the locality.
7.7 The full Design and Access Statement is available for inspection, but other key points made by the agent are as follows:
a) Research has shown demand for a “boutique style” hotel in Cardiff. The ‘Bayscape’ Site is well suited to make this provision. The hotel facilities would be available for use by residents living on and near the application site. It would add to the vitality of the CISV peninsula. The retail units are likely to be taken up by related operators and convenience stores.
b) The development could create more than 200 jobs, adding £4 m to £5 m to the local economy jobs, adding £4 m to £5 m to the local economy.
c) The buildings would preserve attractive frontages to all directions, respect the privacy and amenity of neighbours and providing good levels of privacy and amenity to future occupiers. The buildings would not overshadow adjoining sites.
d) The developer would link water and land and incorporate a variety of public, semi-public and private spaces.
e) The tower would give Bayscape a presence, and act as a marker. Their analysis shows that a 30 storey tower is necessary, and that it would help to define and locate the ISV peninsula. The tower would be slender, minimising disruption to long distance views and provide a distinctive and elegant addition to the skyline. The siting of the tower would minimise the overshadowing of other developments, particularly Victoria Wharf.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The application was screened, and the applicant was informed that the characteristics of the development and its potential impact required the application to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). An ES was submitted in May 2009. The ES Non-Technical Summary is reproduced in the appendix at the end of this report. It appears to be thorough and is considered to be satisfactory.
75 8.2 The residential redevelopment of the site is considered to accord, in land use terms, with Policy 21 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan in which it is allocated for proposed housing development. If planning permission is granted for the redevelopment of the site, then it is considered to be imperative that the River Ely riverside walk, which has been constructed through Victoria Wharf, to the west of the application site, and will be provided through the canoe slalom site, to the east, be continued through the application site. Policy 2.7 of the Deposit UDP indicates that new developments, including or adjacent to the Ely Trail and the Cardiff Bay recreational route, would be expected to respect the existence of such routes and to contribute to their development.
8.3 The application site is adjacent to the CISV site, where planning permissions have permitted, and approved policies support, a wide variety of uses, including residential, sports and leisure, food and drink, retailing, hotels, and a casino. The western part of the application site had planning permission to be developed as a pub or restaurant, in connection with the Victoria Wharf development. The proposed hotel and other commercial uses are considered to be as acceptable on the application site, as they would be in other parts of the CISV.
8.4 The current application, like the previous applications for residential development on the Cambrian Marine site, would include the replacement of the present sloping river bank by a revetment which would carry the required riverside walkway. The Pont-y-Werin bridge, whose construction was recently commenced, will cross the River Ely in front of the application site, and the proposed development would have to accommodate the foot and cycle path which would connect the bridge to Watkiss Way. When the bridge is in use, it is expected that there will be significant pedestrian and cycle flows through the application site, which would be added to by users of the proposed development.
8.5 The submitted drawings show how 103 flats could be accommodated on the site in two long narrow blocks, connecting Watkiss Way to the waterfront, and with a landscaped space between them. One block would face across the canoe slalom course. The blocks would be far enough apart to offer future occupiers a satisfactory degree of privacy. The blocks would be lower than the Victoria Wharf development, which is up to 14 storeys high. In this respect, the indicative scale and massing drawings are considered to be an appropriate response to the site context. In sustainability terms, the development would utilise a brownfield site, on a bus route and, potentially, adjacent to a water taxi stop and, when the Pont-y-Werin is open, the development would also be a short walk away from shops and leisure facilities on the opposite side of the river, from Cogan station, and from other bus routes. The site and its vicinity has the potential to become a significant leisure destination, when the Pont-y-Werin is open. The high level restaurant and bar, in the hotel, could offer good views to customers and could become a major attraction.
76 8.6 The proposed 30 storey high hotel, would be the tallest building in Cardiff. The applicant’s justification for developing the tallest building here is not compelling. However, the Local Planning Authority has previously supported the principle of tall buildings, in the eastern part of the CISV site, on what became known as the ‘Bay Pointe’ peninsula (26 and 31 storeys high). In this respect, it could be argued that the current proposal would reinforce a ‘cluster’ of tall buildings in line with the SPG. However, the Bay Pointe development appears unlikely to proceed, so there is the possibility that, if the development proposed by the current application takes place, the proposed hotel could be by far the tallest building in the area for a long time, so it is important to be confident that it would not look out of place. The siting of the tower would provide a centralised focal point where Watkiss Way and the river Ely bend, but it would not readily fulfil a more strategic design objective in the manner that other Bay waterfront schemes would have done. The tower would project above surrounding buildings and have a recognisable form.
8.7 The applicant has submitted a design and access statement, an environmental statement, and a model, to assist understanding. The indicative form of the tower is critical to its acceptability in that it would create a unique and distinctive shape and silhouette, which needs to be followed through into its detailed design and appearance. The massing of the adjacent blocks, whilst ‘bulky’ in form and mass has, from the indicative submissions, the potential to create an architectural treatment which is both varied and distinctive. At street levels each of the blocks would have active ground floor uses with varying degrees of overhang and changes in place to create an interesting frontage and legible form.
The amended plans have significantly reduced the initial concern of the amount of floorspace on the site, evident by the omission of the upper level blocks on Watkiss Way and alongside the main footpath route. The density of development is still high but not inappropriate given its siting at a critical point next to the Pont-y-Werin Bridge and the existing density at Victoria Wharf. The development would facilitate a mix of uses, providing a welcome focus alongside the river.
It is concluded, taking into account all of this information, that, as long as the tall building is slim and well-proportioned, no serious harm to the landscape would result.
8.8 The comments of the Design Commission for Wales in respect of the height and density are not considered to be sound reasons to refuse the application, particularly as amendments to the density have been made since the comments were made. The supporting information presents clear evidence that a quality sustainable development can be served if the principles and exemplars are carried through to the detailed design.
8.9 The Tall Buildings SPG indicates that tall buildings will be considered in Cardiff Bay where direct access to the wider transport network is generally considered to be good. The SPG requires that the development of tall buildings must not have an adverse impact on conservation areas, which
77 would not be an issue in this case. It is considered that the wider transport network, in the area of the application site is not good at present, though it has improved as a result of recent road infrastructure development on the CISV site, and the extension of bus routes into the CISV area but it will improve through the completion of the River Ely Walkway and the development of the Pont-y-Werin. In order to further enhance accessibility and, bearing in mind the significant quantum of the proposed development, it is agreed with the Operational Manager, Transportation, that further access improvements are necessary, and that this should encompass improved bus services, and water bus services, the completion of pedestrian and cycle paths in Dunleavy Drive and Traffic Regulation Orders/telematics. There is considered to be a need for a temporary convenient link across Watkiss Way to Toys’R’Us, which could be required by a condition.
8.10 Although the application was submitted prior to the formal DAS requirements, the application addresses all the main requirements in terms of access, character, environmentally sustainability, movement and community safety. In terms of the building performance the scheme endeavours to meet BREEAM ‘excellent’ and code level 4.
8.11 The proposed development is not considered to result in any serious loss of amenity, light or privacy to residential neighbours. The Victoria Wharf flats are to the north-west of the proposed buildings, so that any overshadowing would be limited to the early morning.
8.12 The applicant has agreed to enter a Section 106 obligation to secure a £400,000 transport contribution, which could be used to support a “Baycar 2” bus service, to permit the completion of the Dunleavy Drive cycle and footpaths, to fund telematics and to support a water taxi service. A water taxi could be provided in association with the hotel development operating as a community service at peak times, and as a leisure service at other times. The applicant advises that he is in discussion with Pedal Power, to support their plans for a cycle service in Cardiff Bay. However, the Operational Manager Transportation is insistent that the contribution must be £450,000, and not £400,000; and that, if there is to be a water taxi requirement, this must be additional. The applicant then indicated that, although the requested transportation is unreasonable, he is willing to agree it, if the second Bay car service stops at the site. The Operational Manager Transportation is unable to guarantee that the bus would stop outside the site, but he anticipates that a Baycar type service would travel to, and through, the Sports Village site, probably using the whole length of Olympian Way, and possibly passing the application site to access Dunleavy Drive. As the Olympian Way/Dunleavy Drive roundabout is only 200m from the application site (the normal walk distance is 400m) no bus passengers are likely to be faced with unacceptable walking distances.
In the circumstances, it is considered that the transportation Section 106 obligation should remain, as recommended, at £450,000.
78 8.13 The proposed development, like the adjacent revetments, would impact upon the River Ely SNCI but, it will be noted, the Strategic Planning Manager has raised no ecological concerns about this. As with adjacent developments, it would be important to ensure that mitigation measures are carried out. The Environment Agency have habitat protection controls through their land drainage role.
8.14 It should be noted that:-
(i) The Vale of Glamorgan Council have no comment on the amended application.
(ii) There is no concern from Cadw over the impact of the development on the setting of the nearby Ancient Monument (the former coal staithe).
8.15 Taking into account the responses of consultees, it is considered that if planning permission is to be granted, then it should be on the basis that a Section 106 obligation is entered into which secures the following:
(i) An off site open space contribution which accords with the formulae in the Council’s Open Space SPG (March 2008). (ii) A community facilities contribution which accords with the formula in the Community Facilities and Residential Development SPG (March 2007). (iii) The equivalent of 20% affordable social rented family accommodation on a site in the Grangetown Ward or, in the event that an appropriate alternative site is not secured and / or delivered within the period during which the proposed development is undertaken, then a financial contribution is to be paid to the Council, in accordance with the formula in the approved Affordable Housing SPG (March 2007). It is also necessary to ensure that, if any serviced apartment on the application site is sold, then the affordable housing contribution would increase in line with the formula in the same SPG. (iv) The sum of £450,000 which shall be used to subsidise bus services to / from the vicinity of application site, to fund cycle and pedestrian path improvements in Dunleavy Drive, and telematics which are related to the proposed development. (v) The delivery of a water bus commuter service and point to point service, as described in the water shuttle service proposal document forwarded by the agent on 1st September 2009 or, failing that, the contribution of money to secure the provision of such a service by others. (vi) A Travel Plan which sets out proposals and targets designed to minimise single occupancy car journeys to and from the site, and to promote sustainable travel behaviour, shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, prior to any part of the proposed development being brought into beneficial use. The plan shall include a timetable, which shall be adhered to, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority
79 8.16 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer’s and the Waste Management Officer’s advice have been forwarded to the agent. It is recommended that the developer be formally requested to take her advice into account.
8.17 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, and to a S106 obligation which satisfactorily deals with affordable housing, secures an off-site open space contribution, a community facilities contribution, and a bus and subsidy, a Dunleavy Drive footpath/cycle path and telematics contribution and the delivery of a water bay service, as indicated in paragraph 8.15 of this report.
8.18 The non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement follows, for information.
80
APPENDIX
Non-Technical Summary
Environmental Statement
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/468/C APPLICATION DATE: 25/03/2009
ED: ADAMSDOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Immam Ali Foundation LOCATION: 54 METAL STREET, ADAMSDOWN, CARDIFF, CF24 0LB PROPOSAL: PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTRE AND FIVE FLATS ______
RECOMMENDATION: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the off-site open space, the public transport infrastructure, and the traffic surveys/traffic management contributions, as indicated in paragraph 8.6 of this report, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The approved refuse store shall have been completed and be available for use before the development, hereby approved, is brought into beneficial use. Full details of its appearance shall first have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. To ensure that well designed refuse storage arrangements are available.
3. D7Z Contaminated materials
4. Prior to the commencement of development, ground permeability tests shall have been undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and a drainage scheme for the disposal of surface water shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed as approved. Reason. In the interests of good and sustainable drainage.
5. Foul water and surface water discharge shall drain separately from the site. Reason. To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
6. Surface water shall not drain either directly or indirectly, to the public foul/combined sewerage system, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
89 Reason. To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.
7. Land drainage run-off shall not discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. Reason. To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.
8. Before the first floor flats hereby permitted are brought into beneficial use, sound insulation works shall have been applied to the floor/first floor ceiling structure beneath them, in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. To protect the occupiers of those flats from noise.
9. H7G Plant Noise
10. No external public address system shall be used to call worshippers to prayer. Reason. To protect the occupiers of nearby residential accommodation from noise, particularly at unsociable times.
11. All fumes from the ground floor kitchen shall be mechanically extracted through an extraction system, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to its installation, and it shall have been installed, and be ready for use, before the commencement of food cooking in this kitchen. It shall not vent through the front roof slope. The equipment shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
12. The car and cycle parking provision shown on the application plans shall be in place before the building hereby permitted is brought into beneficial use and thereafter these facilities shall be retained and used for no other purpose. Reason. To ensure that secure and satisfactory car and cycle parking facilities are available.
13. Prior to the commencement of construction, a scheme of construction management shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall include details of site enclosure and access during development. Reason. In the interests of highway safety and amenity.
14. Full details of the proposed pavement crossovers shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction of the proposed building is commenced. The approved
90 crossovers shall have been completed before the building is brought into beneficial use. Reason. In the interests of highway safety.
15. No development shall take place until a scheme showing the architectural detailing of the buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall accord with the approved scheme. The submission shall include details of the proposed fenestration, the entrance and the railings. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory finished appearance to the development.
16. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure
17. This permission relates to amended drawing nos. A.01.R15, A.02.R15, A.03.R15, A.05.R15, A.06.R15, A.07.R14, A.08.R14, A.09.R14 and A.10.R15. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
RECOMMENDATION 2: This development falls within an area which has a geological predisposition to radon and will require basic radon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations 2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division
RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
RECOMMENDATION 4: That the agent be informed that Welsh Water have noted that the developer intends for surface water, generated by the development, to communicate with the public sewerage system. However, Welsh Water advise that surface water can be suitably controlled on virtually any development via the integration of one of the many forms of SUDS techniques available. A very good justification would be required not to
91 incorporate a sustainable approach in a development. This should be investigated fully and discussed with Welsh Water.
RECOMMENDATION 5: That the developer be invited to contact the Council’s Transportation Service to obtain information to encourage users of the building, prior to it being brought into use, to use sustainable transport methods.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the redevelopment of the former Great Eastern Hotel and adjacent land, on the corner of Metal Street and Sun Street. The application originally proposed a three storey, plus basement, building which would have accommodated a ground floor community centre, a first floor school and, on the second floor, six flats. This application was approved by the Planning Committee on 8th July, subject to no objections being received by 16th July. Objections were received so the application was reported back to the 12th August meeting, for reconsideration, when it was resolved to defer for a Committee site inspection on 7th September. The Committee, on 16th September, deferred the application, with a view to reasons for refusal, relating to the massing and scale of the building, being drafted. Since then, the agent has submitted an amended scheme which significantly reduces the extent of the development by removing the proposed first floor school. The proposed building would, consequently, be two, rather than three, storeys.
1.2 The footprint of the building would be roughly rectangular. The entrance would be from Sun Street, at its north-east corner. The first floors would follow an ‘L’ shape, fronting onto Metal Street and Sun Street, and overlooking the flat sedum green roof of a ground floor community centre hall to the rear. The roof would be enclosed by railings, but would not be directly accessible from the building. Its frontage to Sun Street would be 28m long, and to Metal Street 21m. The proposed building would be lower than the existing Great Eastern pub. The eaves heights are 7.4m (existing), 5.2m (proposed) (previously proposed at 9m) and the ridge heights are 11.5m (existing), 8.5m (proposed) (previously proposed at 12.5m).
1.3 Parking for 9 cars, and 20 cycles, accessed via a gated 1 in 5 gradient, ramp, on the west side of the building, from Sun Street, would be accommodated in a basement. A refuse store, accessed from Metal Street, would be located at the south-east corner side of the building. The ground floor would be at pavement level, offering level access. The first floor and basement car park would be accessible by stairs.
1.4 The plans show the following accommodation:
(i) Ground Floor - main men’s hall, a smaller women’s hall/ playroom, dining room, kitchen and toilets (iii) First Floor - five flats ranging from a 150m2 three bedroom
92 caretaker’s flat to a 38m2 one bed unit.
1.5 The application proposes to face all of the building’s walls in a painted smooth render. The main roof would be of black fibre cement slate, with clay ridge tiles. The rear flat roofs would be fibreglass. Window frames would be of upvc construction.
1.6 The amendment of the application has resulted in a significant redesign of the elevations.
1.7 The cooking area, in the kitchen, would be vented via a flue within the building.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site has an area of 1073m2. The site comprises the disused Great Eastern public house and open land to its west. The former public house building is in two parts – a (high) two storey building fronting onto Metal Street, and a three storey scale building behind it.
2.2 The site is adjoined to the south and west by the grounds of Adamsdown Primary School. To the north of the site on the opposite side of Sun Street, are the Grade II listed St. German’s Vicarage and the Grade I St. German’s Church. To the east of the site on the opposite side of Metal Street, is a two storey residential terrace.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 01/85R – planning permission for a part single/part two storey community centre, on the western half of the current application site, was granted on 18th April 2001.
3.2 99/2088R – outline planning permission was granted for a 5 flat residential development on 10th February 2000. The application site was, again, the western half of the current application site.
3.3 05/2744C – outline planning permission was granted for the residential redevelopment of the current application site, including the former Great Eastern public house, on 19 January 2006. The number of dwellings and the scale of the development were not specified, all matters of detail being reserved for subsequent approval. One of the conditions attached to this permission required the height of the permitted building to be in keeping with, and sympathetic to, the surrounding residential and school buildings.
3.4 08/489C – planning permission was refused for a development of similar scale to the present proposal. This application proposed use as a religious community centre, a school and six flats. It was refused in July 1008 for reasons relating to design, detracting from the setting of a listed building (St. German’s Vicarage), an unsightly extract flue, an unacceptably steep access ramp, and the omission of a satisfactory refuse storage facility.
93
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site lies within an area identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map as being within an existing housing area.
4.2 The relevant City of Cardiff Local Plan Policies are as follows:
Policy 11 - Design and Aesthetic Quality Policy 12 - Energy Efficient Design Policy 17 - Parking and Servicing Facilities Policy 18 - Provision for Cyclists Policy 20 - Provision for Special Needs Groups Policy 31 - Residential Open Space Requirements
4.3 The relevant policies within the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are:
Policy 2.20 - Good Design Policy 2.21 - Change of Use or Redevelopment to Residential Use Policy 2.24 - Residential Amenity Policy 2.26 - Provision of Open Space, Recreation and Leisure Policy 2.51 - Statutory Listed Buildings Policy 2.57 - Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Policy 2.64 - Air, Noise and Light Pollution Policy 2.74 - Provision for Waste Management Facilities
4.4 The following SPG’s are relevant:
Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Waste Collection and Storage Facilities Community Facilities and Residential Development
4.5 Planning Policy Wales – March 2002, and TAN’s 12 (Design) and 18 (Transport) are relevant.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Transportation Officer made the following observations on the application before it was amended.
(a) General Comments The proposed gates, into the grounds, would be adequate.
The access from Sun Street would need to be subject to detail design, and a condition should be imposed to ensure that this is the case.
(b) Travel Plan No travel plan has been submitted. Although not a requirement, he requests that the following points are reviewed by the developer and
94 that consideration be given to the promotion of sustainable travel for the site users.
He recommends that a communal area, within the development, is used as an information point for sustainable transport methods in the area, with details of any prearranged discounts with local taxi firms and bus timetable information for residents and visitors. He can provide leaflets, local advice and bus timetable information upon request.
He points out that there is advice on the promotion of sustainable travel in the English Department of Transport’s “Guidance on Traffic Assessment - Promoting Smarter Choices via Travel Plans”.
(c) Parking There are no visitor parking spaces mentioned within the proposals. Although not a requirement it would be preferred that it is discussed within the “Travel Information Point” contents to limit any potential impact in the surrounding areas. He recommends the imposition of a condition to require the provision and maintenance of car parking on site.
Motorcycle Parking spaces have not been shown on the plans. He wonders if there are to be any provisions for this?
The proposed 48 cycle stands would be adequate, and would help promote sustainable travel. However, the layout should be revised to maximise use of the stands. There is a potential visibility issue between vehicles and cycles at the car park entrance.
(d) Construction Management Plan The construction of the development should not commence until he has considered and approved, a construction management plan.
(e) Public Transport He recommends that a financial contribution of £3,120, to be spent on improving public transport infrastructure in the Metal Street/ Constellation Street area, should be sought.
(f) Travel Plan: He recommends that public transport options be provided to tenants, students and regular building users upon opening, as a welcome pack, as this can set sustainable transport behaviours. Leaflets are available from him about bus and cycle routes in the area, as well as guidance on the kind of information to provide within the pack which would promote sustainable travel behaviours. Liaison with the Council’s Transportation Service should be sought to help achieve this.
Following the recent Committee site visit, he recommends that the applicant should also contribute £3,120 to fund traffic surveys and new/amended Traffic Regulation Orders in the vicinity of the site. He has been consulted on the amended plans and any further observations will be reported at Committee.
95
5.2 The Strategic Planning Manager observes that the site is in a residential area, as defined by the Local Plan. The site accommodates a public house, which has been unused for some years, and unused adjacent land. Paragraph 6.4.3 of the Local Plan establishes the acceptability, in principle of non-commercial community uses in residential areas. As community centres are appropriate uses in residential areas, he has no land use policy concerns.
5.3 The Chief Highways and Waste Management Officer has no objection but recommends the imposition of a sustainable drainage condition.
5.4 The Waste Management Manager Officer observes that the plans for refuse storage are good. She has also offered detailed advice, which has been forwarded to the agent.
5.5 The Environment and Public Protection Manager had no objection to the application as originally submitted. He recommended that an imported soils condition be attached to any permission. He also recommends conditions to require sound insulation works between the first floor school ceiling and the second floor flats, to limit plant noise, and to prevent the use of any external public address system to call worshippers to prayer. He has no concern about the routing of the proposed extract flue or its discharge point, but needs to know more about the system itself. He also makes a radon gas and a contamination recommendation.
He has been reconsulted. Any revised observations received will be reported at Committee.
5.6 The Parks Partnership Manager recommended that an off-site open space contribution of £7,724 would be appropriate, in relation to the original application, and should be achieved through a S106 obligation. He has been reconsulted. Any revised observations will be reported at Committee.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water have no objection, but recommend that drainage conditions be attached to any permission.
6.2 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no comment.
6.3 The Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust has no comment.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Cllr. Dixon believed that the original application proposed an overdevelopment of the site, being far larger in scope than previous applications in 2000 and 2001, and the development would not be sympathetic to its setting.
It was his opinion that the development would have attracted additional traffic in Metal Street, which is a road already seeing increased traffic flow from the
96 new one-way system in Clifton Street, and an increase in parking pressures in an area already at saturation point. All of this cumulative impact would lead to a loss of amenity for local residents with additional noise and the significant additional footfall that the developers anticipate, and consequential disturbance.
The Great Eastern Public House is a building of some local importance, being one of the two original farm houses in the area, and the oldest building in the ward, originally built in 1596. His opinion is that the development will erase the considerable character of this significant building.
Additionally, the neighbour, St German's Clergy House would have suffered a loss of light and privacy as a result of the extra storey and the second-floor flats overlooking the house.
He asked that, in any event, a decision should be deferred (which it was) until the Committee has had an opportunity to see the proposed architectural detailing in full, to ascertain that the design of the development is in character with the surrounding environment.
He understands from local residents, that the applicant has visited them at home without invitation when he learned of their signing of a letter of objection to the application, and that this left them feeling intimidated. In some instances, he has been told, that the applicant was demanding private phone numbers of signatories. He would take a very dim view of any applicant who sought to apply pressure to objectors in this way, and asks that this be reported to the Planning Committee as, he believes, this behaviour to be unacceptable.
He has been consulted on the amended plans. Any further comment will be reported at Committee.
7.2 Nearby residents, and the head teacher of the adjacent school, have been notified, and the original application has been advertised on site and in the press. A letter of objection, signed by the occupiers of no. 18 Eclipse Street, nos. 59 and 71 Metal Street and nos. 33, 41, 43, 44B, 50, and Phoenix House, System Street was received, in relation to the original application. The signatories object to any further development of the site for the following reasons:
• There are already community centres in the locality (in Metal Street and Star Street) as well as Adamsdown Primary School, where there is going to be an integrated drop-in centre. • There are already serious traffic and parking problems in the area. Traffic has been diverted onto Metal Street and System street, away from Clifton Street, which has made things worse • They wonder whether consideration has been given to vetting the occupiers of the proposed flats, as they would be above a school
The occupier of 71 Metal Street was further concerned that persons
97 connected with the application knocked on her door asking why she is opposed to the application. She considers that she is under no obligation to explain. The occupier of no. 18 Eclipse Street has expressed further concern about what they consider to be the applicant’s bombastic approach.
Neighbours have been notified of the amended plans. Any further representations will be reported at Committee.
7.3 The occupier of 51 System Street is concerned about the proposed development because:
• Neighbourhood is already full of cars and rubbish. • The owners of the application site have owned it for years and have not maintained it in a safe or hygienic condition. It is not secure and rubbish has been piled at the back to the point that a rat infestation has grown out of it. • The proposed development may not concern itself with the local community.
They are also concerned at the direct approach made to them by the applicant, because they have expressed concerns about the application. The applicant told her that they have already given the Council £11,000 towards the project and that they intended to move it forward. She found the approach to be intimidating. Her concern that the people behind the application have no concern for people in the neighbourhood was reinforced.
They have further understood that the CRI is set to re-open, which will add greater strain to the community’s ability to handle cars, people, cleanliness, noise and crime. The area cannot cope with the proposed centre.
7.4 Mrs. Sharpe, of 50 System Street, has submitted a petition, signed by 384 local residents. The petitioners objected to the planning application, in its original form, for the following reasons:
• The scheme proposes an overdevelopment which would not be sympathetic to St. German’s Clergy House and Adamsdown School. • The development would add traffic and parking to streets which are already at saturation point. This would result in a loss of amenity for local residents because of extra noise and disturbance. • The Great Eastern is a building of local importance. It is one of two original farm houses, in the area, and is the oldest building in Adamsdown, dating from 1596. Its character would be erased if the development proceeds. • Neighbouring residents would suffer a loss of light and privacy, as a result of the extra storey and second floor flats.
They are concerned that the building has been left to deteriorate and has become the source of a rat infestation. They state that a potentially catastrophic gas leak, from the site, had to be dealt with recently.
98 7.5 In support of the application the agent advised that the background to the application is that, since 1995, Arabic teaching has taken place at 28 The Parade. Approximately 90 students attend classes there. There are 12 teachers. The school governors decided to build a building of their own. In the proposed centre they hope to have a multi-purpose hall, a kitchen able to cater for events, and to supply students with meals. It was originally intended that there would be classrooms, and residential facilities for specialist teachers visiting from other parts of Britain and beyond. The residential facility would enable visitors to stay in the centre. One of the proposed flats would be occupied by a caretaker. The proposal for a school has now been dropped and removed from the scheme. The multi-purpose hall would be used to accommodate events and as a place of worship.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 This application was reported to the Planning Committee on 8th July, when the recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 Obligation was accepted. However, amended plans had been publicised, and the end date for making representations was 16th July. Objections were received before 16th July, so the application was brought back to the Planning Committee, in August, for reconsideration. It was then deferred to enable Committee Members to visit the site on 7th September. The application was again discussed on 16th September, but deferred with a view to refusing planning permission, and to enable reasons for refusal to be drafted.
8.2 Bearing in mind the history of use of part of the site as a public house, the previous planning permissions for the development of a community centre and residential developments, and taking into account the provisions of the development plan and the character of the area, the proposed community, school and residential uses are considered to be acceptable in principle.
8.3 As indicated above, since the application was last considered by the Committee, the extent of the development proposals has been significantly reduced. The first floor school is no longer proposed, the second floor has been removed, the design has been simplified and improved. Level access is now possible. The basement car park has been made smaller, and fewer cycle parking spaces are proposed. It is hoped that Members will accept that their earlier concerns have been overcome by the changes made.
8.4 The application site is prominently located and is in an area of mainly two storey buildings, though St. German’s Church, across the road and to its north, is of a much greater scale, probably the equivalent of five or six storeys. It is necessary not only to consider the design of the proposed building, but also its relationship to its context and its effect on the setting of St. German’s Vicarage, on the opposite side of Sun Street. The design of the proposed building had previously been the subject of considerable change, following negotiations, to overcome earlier concerns, and the more recent changes have made a dramatic difference. The latest amended elevational drawings are considered to be good though, as they lack detail, an architectural detailing condition should be attached to any permission. There were
99 originally significant inclusive access problems, but these have been resolved. The design of the railings, which it is intended to install in various parts of the development, needs to be made the subject of a condition, to ensure that they are of a good standard.
8.5 The proposed flats would be of an acceptable size and layout. The orientation of the building would be such that it should enjoy considerable solar gain. The siting of the building, fronting directly onto the pavement, is typical for the area.
8.6 The agent has confirmed that, in the event of planning permission being granted, the applicant would be willing to agree to pay a £7,724 off-site open space, the £3,120 public transport infrastructure contribution, and the £3,120 Traffic Management contribution.
8.7 It is considered that the elements of the previous application, which resulted in its refusal, have been satisfactorily addressed.
8.8 The objectors’ (pre-amendment) concerns are noted, but it would be difficult to justify a refusal of planning permission on parking or traffic grounds in the absence of an objection from the Operational Manager, Transportation. The need to vet the occupiers of flats above a school (but the school is no longer proposed) is not considered to be a material planning consideration. The rat infestation allegation is being investigated by the Council’s Pest Control team.
8.9 Cllr. Dixon suggests that the buildings on the application site are of some local importance. However, they are not listed, nor are they in a conservation area, therefore their demolition is outside the control of the Local Planning Authority. Planning permission has previously been granted for the redevelopment of the buildings. Cllr. Dixon also raises the matter of the effect on St. German’s Clergy House. The proposed building, now intended, following the submission of the most recent amended plans, would be of a scale which is comparable with most buildings in the locality. The building would be 14m from the Clergy House, which is to the north of the site. There would be no significant overshadowing, even when the sun is low in the winter. The proposed building would have windows, at the rear of pavement, facing towards the Clergy House and towards houses, on the east side of Metal Street, but this is the usual pattern of development in Adamsdown and other inner city areas and total privacy is not to be expected at the front. There would be first floor windows in the existing building, which are almost at the rear of pavement. If the building were to be set back, then it is likely to look out of character with its context. It should be borne in mind that, although the previous application for a similar redevelopment was refused, the reasons did not relate to overshadowing, privacy or parking issues.
8.10 At its 16th September meeting, the Committee requested that potential reasons for refusal, relating to the massing and scale of the proposed building, be drafted. It is hoped that the committee will agree that, now that a floor has been removed from the proposed building, it would be wholly unreasonable to resist its scale. Nevertheless, if Members are minded to
100 refuse, the following reason could be used to justify a refusal:
“The proposed building, by reason of its massing and scale, would dominate the street scene and the vicinity of the application site in an intrusive and incongruous manner. The design is thereby poor, which does not accord with Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policy 2.20 (Good Design) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003), or with the advice in Planning Policy Wales, TAN 12 – Design”.
8.11 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to a S106 obligation to achieve the contributions outlined in paragraph 8.6 and to conditions. Bearing in mind that consultations have been undertaken on the latest amended plans, it is possible that further observations could result in amendments to the recommended conditions.
101 102 103 104 MEMBER SUPPORT
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/00993/C APPLICATION DATE: 09/06/2009
ED: CATHAYS
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: United Welsh Housing Association LOCATION: CUSTOM HOUSE, CUSTOMHOUSE STREET, CITY CENTRE, CARDIFF, CF10 1RF PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE TO DAY CENTRE AND ACCOMODATION FOR HOMELESS PERSONS ______
RECOMMENDATION: That, subject to no additional objections being received which relate to matters not already considered in this report before the 23rd October 2009, that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The temporary use of the building hereby approved shall be discontinued within 18 months of the beneficial use of the building commencing; or before the completion of development permitted by planning permission 09-102-C., whichever is the sooner. Reason: The temporary use permitted have been granted because of the special circumstances presented by the applicant relating to the use of the building during the construction of a purpose built facility at Tresillian Terrace under the terms of planning permission 09-102C; The permanent use of the building for the purposes permitted would be considered contrary to the redevelopment aims for the area; and business, shopping and tourism activities therein.
3. The temporary use hereby permitted shall only be used as a de-cant facility for the purposes specified in the application, to facilitate the building of a purpose built facility at Tresillian Terrace and for no other purpose whatsoever. Reason: Because the permission is granted for that specific purpose and for the avoidance of doubt
4. Prior to the use of the property for the purposes hereby approved, A security fence shall be erected between the adjacent Open University/Unison building and the Custom House; the fence shall accord with a specification / details which shall first have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.
105 Reason: The fence is required to mitigate against the potential for anti- social / illegal activities within an otherwise accessible and concealed area.
5. Prior to the use of the property for the purposes hereby approved, The applicant shall provide for additions / improvements to the CCTV system covering the building / area in accordance with a scheme of detail which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of deterring, monitoring, and evidencing unsociable and criminal activity in the area in the public interest.
6. Prior to the use of the property for the purposes hereby approved, The applicant shall ensure for the securing of the York public house in accordance with a scheme of detail which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, The security shall thereafter be maintained for the period of use of the building for the purposes approved. Reason: The York hotel is currently vacant and will be attractive to those unable to benefit from the facilities offered within the custom house, and likely for other unsociable/illegal activities if not appropriately secured.
7. Prior to the use of the property for the purposes hereby approved, the applicant shall ensure for the redecoration / removal of graffiti from the building and thereafter maintain its appearance for the duration of the use permitted. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and improvement of the perception of safety in the area.
8. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the letter from the applicant and revised plan from the agent, dated 30 September 2009. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
RECOMMENDATION 2: That the applicant be requested to adhere to the management practices outlined in their letter of 30 September 2009, in respect of • Minimum staffing ratios • 24 hour staffing; • CCTV to interior and exterior of building; • The formation of a consultative management performance group and provision of a 24hr telephone contact for use by participating local businesses. • Regular inspections of the local area to manage rough sleeping, loitering, clearance of litter, any drug paraphernalia, and wastes.
RECOMMENDATION 3: That the Chief Housing and Neighbourhood Renewal Officer be asked to ensure that the facilitating works and management protocols indicated in her memo of the 25th August 2009 are provided at the
106 facility in so far as the Council is involved with / able to influence their provision.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Full Planning Permission is sought for the change of use of a currently vacant office building for purposes of a homeless hostel and day centre.
1.2 No external modifications to the building are proposed under the terms of the application.
1.3 Although not indicated in the description of development, the submitted design and access statement confirms that the proposal is for a temporary use of the building for between 16 and 24 months, whilst a purpose-built homeless persons assessment centre and accommodation is constructed at Tresillian Terrace/Dumballs Rd. (Planning Permission 09/102/C granted 20/4/09).
On 30th September 2009, the applicant also provided a Management Statement relating to the operation of the building and confirmation of the intent to provide security enhancements in the area, and to create a consultative management performance group with local businesses and the Police.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The Custom House is located on the corner of St. Mary St. and Customhouse Street, on the former east canal wharf of the Glamorganshire Canal. The present building was likely built circa. 1845 and extended along Custom House Street 1865; but further altered and extended by Lock-Newcrews, Hill & Partners, architects, Circa 1983-5 which included the provision of a modern roof extension and comprehensive internal alterations.
2.2 The building is ‘listed’ as being of Architectural/Historic interest (Grade II), but it is suggested that the building is listed now, more for its importance in the commercial history of Cardiff, than for its remaining architectural merit. The building is finished in painted Stucco render with some Bathstone dressings, with rusticated ground floor / pilasters, and roman arch headed window apertures with non original window frames.
2.3 The buildings lies just outside the St. Mary St. conservation area and is bounded by the Unison/Open University building with which it shares a rear car park to the east, the central railway line to the south and the Marriot hotel car park to the north on the opposite side of Customhouse Street.
2.4 To the rear, the building abuts the York Public House with which it shares a common elevation. The York is vacant and dilapidated and due for demolition under the terms of planning application 08-1724-C (mixed use
107 office/restaurant development) which was resolved to be granted by planning committee in December 2008 [S106 yet to be signed]).
2.5 To the west the building (along with the frontage of the York Hotel) is bounded by a footway and low level landscape planting which is tiered to the St Mary St carriageway (at the former canal level) some metres below. The Canal Wharf Railway Bridge is sited a few metres to the south west.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 08-1724-C Demolition of York P.H. and redevelopment/change of use of Custom House for mixed use office/A3 restaurant use. - Resolved to be Granted December 2008 (S106 pending).
3.2 05/2239/C Change of use to hotel - Granted March 2006
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Cardiff Unitary Development Plan Deposit Written Statement 2003
Policy 2.20: Good Design Policy 2.21: Change of Use or Redevelopment to Residential Use Policy 2.31: Central and Waterfront Business Areas Policy 2.32: Change of Use of Offices in the Central and Waterfront Business Areas Policy 2.51: Statutory Listed Buildings Policy 2.62: Flood Risk Policy 2.74: Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
4.2 Adopted Cardiff Local Plan
Policy 9 = Development in areas at risk of flooding. Policy 35 = City Centre Principal Business Area. Policy 36 = Alternative Use of Business, Industrial and Warehousing Land. Policy 45 = Sport, Recreation and Leisure Facilities. Policy 46 = Hotel development.
4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance
Waste Collection and Storage Facilities March 2007
4.4 Other Planning Policies/Strategies
City Centre Strategy 2007-2010
PPG Wales TAN 12 – Design
108 Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement 01/2008 - Planning for Good Design
Welsh Office Circular 61:96 - Planning and the Historic Environment. Welsh Office Circular 16:94 - Planning Out Crime
4.5 Other Documentary Material Considerations
Cardiff Homelessness Strategy
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Housing
The Chief Housing and Neighbourhood renewal Officer confirms the following: The Strategy, Advice & Support team from Housing & Neighbourhood Renewal have been working closely with the applicant and the charity, Huggard, to develop the proposals for this scheme and so are completely supportive of the plans submitted.
Temporary Use:
The building is only needed for between 16 and 24 months. It will be replaced by a new complex on Tresillian Way which already has planning permission and has secure finance in place.
The proposal is that the Custom House will provide hostel accommodation and a Day Centre for single homeless people on a temporary basis while a scheme to develop modern replacement services is constructed at Tresillian Way. Planning Committee granted approval for the development of a Single Assessment Centre, 2 replacement hostels and a Day Centre on the site of existing services at Tresillian Way in April 2009 (Application ref: 09/00102/C). This temporary provision will be required for a maximum period of 2 years.
No new service is proposed, simply the temporary relocation of vital community services.
The existing services provided at Tresillian Way are essential for the Council to address its statutory duties to homeless people and to assist and support vulnerable people who would otherwise be sleeping rough. Continuation of these services is crucial for this client group while the modern, purpose-built Single Assessment Centre scheme is being built. However, there will be no increase in services at this temporary location.
Alternative Sites:
We have worked with other parts of the Council and the Welsh Assembly Government to identify alternative sites. This really is the only option.
109 The Custom House is suitable and appropriate for this purpose because of its close proximity to Tresillian Way. Its city centre location makes it easily accessible and ensures that other key services, including housing advice and outreach services, are within easy reach for vulnerable and homeless people at Marland House. In addition, essential health services based in the city centre are also within easy reach of the Custom House. A city centre location is absolutely essential to enable vulnerable people to access the services that are critical to preventing an increase in street homelessness. It also supports the ease with which service users can be resettled into accommodation provided by a range of organisations that meets their needs.
Management Arrangements:
It will be managed by two agencies who, between them, have over 20 years experience of providing these services in Cardiff.
The building and services provided will be managed to a very high standard. The facility will be staffed on a 24 hour basis with the Day Centre closing at 8pm each day. The staffing levels will effectively be higher than those at the existing services due to the increased cover arrangements that will result from operating out of one building. CCTV will operate within the building with options to extend this to the external areas currently being explored. An electronic door entry system will be in place to control access.
Partnership Working:
The service will continue to work with the Police and, in partnership with them, arrange regular meetings with local businesses to instantly address any concerns which may arise.
The Council and Huggard have worked proactively with the Police and the neighbouring community to ensure that the existing services at Tresillian Way operate effectively and have a low impact. This proactive approach will continue if services are transferred to the Custom House. Robust and effective management arrangements will be adopted to ensure that service users do not congregate outside, and in the immediate vicinity of, the building. Links will be established with local businesses, including regular meetings with staff at the Custom House, to ensure effective communication is maintained and that any issues or concerns are highlighted and addressed.
A protocol has been established with the Police to further embed a strong multi-agency partnership approach involving organisations that provide services to vulnerable and homeless people. This formalises arrangements for strategic working as well as operational practices. The structured and collaborative approach that has been established with the Police at Tresillian Way would be transferred to the Custom House. Any issues or concerns will be reported and addressed through the Vulnerable Persons Steering Group. This is a high-level multi-agency forum that is chaired by the Council’s Executive Member for Communities, Housing and Social Justice.
110 Contributions to the Area/Economy:
The service will increase support by arranging increased CCTV in the area, will establish regular inspections in the immediate vicinity and will actually enhance the local environment. An example of this would be securing and protecting the neighbouring Open University/ Unison car park.
Failure to support this temporary service puts in jeopardy an £8.5million construction scheme in the city centre which will support employment and assist the city to respond positively to the economic downturn.
5.2 The City Centre Manager originally objected to the proposals but has subsequently withdrawn his opposition in the light of proposed mitigating measures.
5.3 Strategic Planning Policy
The proposal is not objected to for a temporary period,
5.4 Transportation
The Proposal is seen as unobjectionable on transportation grounds as the proposed change of use within the city centre is not seen to have a significant effect on the large vehicle trip attraction of the city centre.
5.5 Highways [Drainage]
No objection, but recommend consultation with Welsh Water.
5.6 Highways [Waste]
Details of refuse storage will need to be provided. • Waste must not be stored on the highway
• Commercial and domestic waste must not be mixed
• The agent/applicant should be advised that a commercial contract is required for the collection and disposal of all commercial waste
5.7 Pollution Control
Noise - No Comment Air - No Comment Contamination - No Comment
5.8 Cardiff Harbour Authority - City Centre and Bay Neighbourhood Management Group
The group are very supportive of the development on the Dumballs Road site and the conversion of the Custom House.
111
Subject to their being no adverse comments from the Police, the group would unanimously support the proposal.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
The Police originally objected to the proposal (12 Aug 2009) , but have subsequently withdrawn their objection and offer the following comments:
• The Police Have discussed the proposed planning application with a number of Council departments and have the following comments to make:-
• It is recognised that a temporary facility is required to allow the redevelopment of the existing homeless hostel and day care accommodation at nearby Dumballs Road. The Police Designing Out Crime Advisors have been closely involved with the new project and given the deficiencies of the current buildings are keen to ensure that the purpose built unit is completed as soon as possible.
• Having considered the area of the city as a whole, this location appears to provide the best opportunity to minimise the cost to the police and partners, as well as minimising the impact on the communities within Cardiff.
• The proposal to temporarily relocate the day centre and homeless persons hostel to the Custom House building, Custom Street, offers a number of features that other areas in the city do not possess, which potentially makes it the best temporary location for the day centre and hostel :-
• Having been built over a hundred years ago the fabric of the building is robust, and can be adapted to provide security which exceeds that of the more recent prefabricated or breeze block structures.
• This building is located in a non residential area. Had the provision been moved to an alternative site in a residential area, then partner agencies would likely receive a large increase in the number of calls associated with day centres, but more especially homeless hostels. This should not be the case with the proposed site, where people within the area will be used to seeing users of the day centre in the area, and whilst there may be an increase in calls they are likely to be considerably less than the calls that would be received if the centre is moved to an area of the city where the local community is not used to the users.
• The building is well serviced by CCTV, with the Council arranging for a comprehensive CCTV system within the building, which will be agreed with the Crime Prevention design Advisor.
112
• The Council are also arranging for a dedicated CCTV camera to be linked to the main CCTV control centre that is monitored by the police, and capable of delivering a rapid police response
• The building is within several hundred metres of the existing building and as such current users of the provision are unlikely to be deterred from continuing to use the facility. To move the facility any greater distance is likely to mean that any increased problems within the area the facility are moved to the city centre where many of the users frequent.
• Local professionals such as the Police and Council are familiar with the regular users of the centre and will need little adjustment in dealing with the issues that the move to the temporary centre presents.
South Wales Police and Cardiff Council have discussed a number of concerns regarding the plans submitted for the proposed temporary day centre and homeless person’s hostel and the Council have dealt with and addressed each of these concerns.
• The ground floor windows in all areas accessible to the public will be fixed shut.
• The windows of the building are original and it is difficult to replace the glass with laminate glass. A security film will be fitted on the window to prevent it being shattered if broken.
• The front doors will be examined by an accredited locksmith and appropriate locks fitted that will provide an appropriate level of security.
• Access and egress control to the building through the front, side and rear doors will be monitored by staff so that no persons can enter the secure and private areas of the building without staff knowledge.
• A security fence with a vehicular access controlled gate will be placed between the building and the adjacent University building. The gate will be monitored by staff viewing CCTV minimising the risk of unauthorised entry.
• All staff will use a location identifying panic button.
• The staff at the centre will carry out regular patrols in the vicinity of the building to ensure that no rubbish is left by centre users within the area.
• Staff will consider the affect of power cuts on the centre and in particular the effect on CCTV and Mag-locks on the entrance doors
• Council staff will ensure that the two nearby underpasses are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they do not become fear of crime generators. This will include removing graffiti, pruning of shrubbery and
113 ensuring that lighting is of an acceptable Lux level (to be agreed with the Crime Prevention Design Advisor).
• Cardiff Council will seek to remove /gain permission from the owners to remove granite benches from the front of the custom house for the duration that the hostel is situated at the custom house
• Cardiff Council will carry out outreach work in the area of the custom house if there are signs that loitering of hostel and day centre users is taking place. This will be intelligence led linking in to calls to partners and in respect of issues identified by hostel staff and CCTV
South Wales Police and Cardiff Council have agreed that regular formalised meetings will take place for the duration that the day centre / hostel remains at the custom house, and that ad-hoc meetings will be called should circumstances warrant.
6.2 Glamorgan and Gwent Archaeological Trust
This is a significantly altered building. No Objection to the positive determination of the application.
6.3 Network Rail
Raise no objection to the change of use but would wish to be further consulted on any construction works. (There are none associated with this proposal).
6.4 Vinci Construction (Formerly Norwest Holst) – Having Maintenance Responsibilities for Bute Avenue PFI
As the maintenance contractor for the Bute Avenue PFI our only observation relates to the removal and disposal of hypodermic needles.
With the existing hostel at the Huggard Centre off Tresillian Terrace we regularly removed needles from the Penarth Road/Tresillian Terrace areas.
With the proposed location now moved nearer to the city centre then we would assume that the problem will become more apparent in the Custom House Street, St. Mary Street and East and West Canal Wharf areas.
6.5 Welsh Water
Request that if Planning Permission is granted, then conditions be applied in respect of surface, foul and land drainage discharges and grease trap provision for any new building works (There are none associated with this proposal).
114 6.6 Environment Agency
The application site lies within zone C1, as defined by the development advice map (dam) referred to under TAN 15 Development and Flood Risk (July 2004).
In this instance, however, the Environment Agency completed a flood mapping exercise in September 2007. The results from this study demonstrate that the proposed site lies outside the extreme flood outline (0.1%) and we therefore have no objection to the proposed development.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been advertised in accordance with statutory requirements and neighbouring occupiers have been notified.
7.2 Cllr Montemaggi would like to express her support for the application:
As I understand it, the proposal is for the Custom House building to be used as a decant for the Council’s homelessness unit. This will only be temporarily located at Custom House while the new centre in Dumballs Road is being built. The facility in Custom House will be providing support to vulnerable people. It is not likely to cause any disturbance as the facility would allow people to get the service inside rather than congregate outside. Further, refusal of this planning application would put in jeopardy the project for the new unit of the value of £8.5 million pounds. I would be grateful if you could take into consideration.
7.3 Cllr Wakefield is supportive of the application if it is considered the best site presently available and if it is adequately managed.
7.4 Reverend Kimber of St Johns Church considers that the failure of this project could have some really problematic unintended consequences in the mid- to long-term.
7.3 Open University
Staff based at the at the OU in Wales centre at Custom House Street were consulted internally by e-mail, followed by an open meeting for all staff, which was addressed by Mike Friel of Cardiff Council, at which the proposed change of use was discussed. The position outlined below reflects views and points raised by colleagues during this consultation process.
The Open University in Wales recognises the need for this accommodation, and the fact that the change of use will enable improved facilities of this kind to be developed on another site nearby. We therefore wish to support the proposal, but this support is conditional upon the following points being dealt with to our satisfaction.
115 1. That the development is a temporary one for around 18 months, as outlined by Mr Friel. 2. A secure fence should be installed between the OU in Wales building and Custom House prior to the facility accepting clients and residents. This construction to provide secure access to the shared car park, to include more secure car park access if necessary. The design and material choice of this to be agreed with the OU. 3. External lighting to be installed which will illuminate the immediate East, South and West facing areas. 4. Further clarity is required on what staff will be available to patrol, secure and safeguard the surrounding area of the premises on a twenty-four hour basis. This is with regards to refuse, asking unwelcome people to move-on, perhaps even disposed syringes etc. I also need an assurance that due effort will be made to keep the immediate surrounding area clean. We draw the Council's attention to the fact that both students and staff members who use our building for tutorials until around 9.30pm on winter evenings, and that they then have to make their way to the various public car parks or to the rail and bus stations (as there is very limited car parking on our site). The University has to be mindful of their safety and security. 5. The hotel behind the Custom House to be made secure, and that no access is possible from that site to the car park at the rear of the University building. A secure wall may be the solution to this problem. 6. We would wish to discuss with the Council and/or those who will be managing the Custom House development an arrangement which allows University staff to use Custom House car park spaces during non-busy periods. 7. We understand that the Custom House building may be 'listed', but in order that our 'passing trade' business and the appearance of the immediate vicinity to visitors and staff are maintained, we would wish to see the front (northern aspect) of the Custom House visually improved if possible (perhaps by either cleaning and/or painting).
7.3 Contract House Builders (Developers of the Former Central Hotel Site):
Contract House Builders (Cardiff) Ltd formally objects to the above planning application. The reasons for objecting are summarised below:
1. Impact on the regeneration of the Central Hotel site. As you are aware, my client has recently secured planning committee support for a high quality redevelopment of this key site (application reference 09/00757/C) to include extensive public realm works, ground floor A3 retail uses and a 216 bedroom hotel. The prospective hotel operator has confirmed that they would not be prepared to commit to the scheme if an incompatible use such as a day care centre and associated hostel accommodation is introduced to the Custom House. Therefore, this application seriously prejudices the potential to implement the much needed regeneration of this key site.
116 2. Impact on the wider area A key issue of concern to your officers in considering the Central Hotel proposal was the existing character of the area. The change and intensification of the use will put additional strain on the public realm and given the location / special character of the building the relationship to the immediate environment is key. Previous consents on the Custom House have treated the site and adjoining York Hotel on a comprehensive basis. This approach is not proposed in this application and in our view, it is wholly inappropriate to progress on a piecemeal basis given the importance of the building and sensitivity of the site. Such an approach would also directly impact on the visual perspective from the Central Hotel site.
Further to this, development plan policy requires new schemes to contribute to improving the public realm. There is no evidence that this application will achieve this aim.
3. Impact of development on the Custom House site The Custom House is a highly prominent and attractive listed building that could come forward for a range of suitable uses such as restaurant / offices in line with consents already granted and the City Centre policy framework objectives. The use as a day centre and hostel is not in accordance with policy objectives for the City Centre Principal Business Area or the nearby City Centre Principal Shopping Area
As a result of the proximity of the railway and the associated implications in terms of noise and vibration on residential uses such as hotels / any other forms of overnight accommodation, the Central Hotel site consent requires a range of mitigation to be provided including high specification glazing and insulation against vibration. Given that the Custom House is a listed building, it is difficult to understand how these necessary measures can be included to provide an appropriate level of mitigation against the surrounding environment without compromising the integrity of the building.
4. Relationship to the City Centre Strategy. The strategy is a key consideration in determining development proposals in this area. The strategy aims of upgrading the quality of the environment and securing a cohesive framework will not be achieved by supporting opportunistic and inappropriate uses at key sites. The site is within the Commercial Core where the strategy confirms that continued commercial success is critical to the success of Cardiff as a whole. Therefore, anything that prejudices this for short term gain should be resisted.
5. Temporary use of the building Whilst reference is made to this only being a temporary use, there is nothing in the planning application description to confirm this to be the case. This, coupled with the significant capital expenditure that will need to be incurred to make the property appropriate for residential uses, makes it unlikely that the use is temporary in nature. This means that an inappropriate use would be permanently established in this key regeneration area.
117 6. Management Issues Given the sensitive uses proposed and the sensitivity of the location, it is critical to consider how the proposal will be managed. This is a particular concern as in other applications in the area, the City Centre Management Team has commented on the problematic character of the area due to rough sleepers, substance misuse, sexual related debris and assaults. As a result of this, the lower end of St Mary Street has the highest number of incidents of crime and disorder in Cardiff. On this basis, very careful consideration should be given to whether facilities for vulnerable people should be located here or in more appropriate locations elsewhere.
For all of these reasons, the proposed development is not an acceptable re- use of this key building and therefore should be resisted.
7.4 Sleeperz Hotel
We would like to register our formal objection to the proposal. The reasons for our concerns are as follows:
• The proposed location being central to the existing hotel, tourist, shopping and leisure area would be wholly unsuitable.
• The area around Mill Lane, the bottom of St Mary's Street, and the whole of the St David's2 shopping centre has benefited from £ multi million development to improve and enhance the city centre facilities. Such a redevelopment would not be in line with the investments and decisions taken by both the City Council and private companies over the past years to strengthen the facilities offered within the city centre.
• Within the past few weeks the Council has granted permission for an almost £20m development of the adjacent site as a 216 bedroom 3/4 star hotel with retail premises; A site which itself is an eyesore in its current state. The entrance to this would be a mere 20 yards from the proposed homeless centre. Clearly this proposal is at odds with the balance of the area.
• The application albeit proposed on the basis of "Temporary Accommodation" is presented in terms of the refurbishment of a permanent structure and leaves the opportunity for permanent future use in addition to the replacement purpose built centre off Dumballs Road.
• We consider that a temporary measure in the form of "Portakabin" or similar temporary accommodation on vacant land closer to the existing facility would be a more suitable solution.
7.5 John Lewis Partnership
The John Lewis Partnership would like to formally submit an objection to the change of use of Custom House for a homeless shelter and day centre.
118 The application proposes to make minor internal alternations in order to provide 44 temporary bed spaces.
While we recognise the need for homeless facilities in Cardiff, and that the change of use will only be temporary, we feel that due to the fast pace of investment and improvements to the surrounding area, the proposed use is inappropriate for the immediate area.
The City Centre Strategy 2007-2010 highlights the Cardiff ‘central core’ as critical for economic prosperity of the region. Clearly the area has attracted a significant level of investment, but in order for this level of investment to continue and for industries such as tourism to increase in the area, it is important to create an attractive and inviting city.
The development of St. David’s 2 has been a significant step towards increasing Cardiff’s appeal. Further proposed regeneration of St. Mary’s Street and Central Square will create a strong identity of vitality and vibrancy, which will draw large numbers of people to the area. Under policy SP 3 (C) of the Local Development Plan any new development should strengthen this identity and we believe that the proposed development wouldn’t deliver this.
In reference to the City Centre Strategy’s key strategic plan, the Custom House site is at the heart of this area of regeneration. It is close the Millennium Stadium and Cardiff Central train station, raising the concern that a homeless shelter would be one of the first sites to greet a visitor.
As well as these sentiments about the appropriateness of location for the proposed development, we feel it is important for any development on the site to positively contribute to the buildings that surround it.
The City Centre Strategy highlights that any proposed development would have a mutually supportive role with other businesses in the area. We feel that the proposed use will not be able to provide that positive contribution to the surrounding area. In the Local Development Plan, policy Econ 6 states that any change of use from office space should be complementary to surrounding developments. We feel note should me made to paragraph 5.260 where it suggests what are the preferred changes of use from office space. Presently surrounding the offices are complementary service such as hotels and education facilities. With paragraph 5.260 in mind, we feel that due to its prominent position and strong architectural features the site would be more suitable for the use of a hotel, for which it currently has planning permission. This idea is supported by paragraph 4.52, where it is noted that developments should respond to local distinctiveness and context of the built and landscape setting.
We are also concerned about the associated issues that arise with a facility of the proposed use. It may lead to an increased presence of homeless people on the street, which would in turn have an impact on how inviting the area feels, and how secure it feels. It may also lead to security concerns.
119 Whilst the impact on crime and sense of security can only be speculated, we feel that a homeless shelter will have far reaching impacts. On a very local level the proposed use does not complement existing businesses in the way a hotel would. More broadly it does not fit the high quality of the area and the new identity that Cardiff is establishing through the regeneration projects. The impact of having the proposed development on the site would limit the success of the reinvigoration of Cardiff. We feel this may affect the ability to attract investment and tourists to the city centre and Bay area.
For these reasons the John Lewis Partnership would like to reiterate their objection to this proposal and do not believe that the negative issues could be outweighed by possible benefits the development could bring.
7.6 Marriot Hotel
With regard to the above application I would like to formally register our very strong concerns and objection to the proposal to locate a 214 bed homeless facility at the above location which is within 50 yards of the Cardiff Marriott Hotel.
1. This location is not only opposite a Four Star Hotel which receives many visitors to the city. We do not feel that if this proposal went ahead it would give the right impression to our guests, indeed I strongly believe this may well impact their impression of not only Cardiff Marriott but also of the City in such a central location
2. The building is also on the pedestrian route to the brand new John Lewis Department Store, opening at the end of September.
3. Mill lane businesses as well as ourselves, are trying to promote a Cafe Quarter giving a more continental feel, to encourage people to use this part of the city
4. I am concerned with the increase of any anti-social behaviour that this proposal may bring to the area such as begging, with Individual's targeting locations such as the new shopping centre as well as increased on street drinking.
5. Whilst the Marriott has a very secure car park, I am also concerned those certain elements of the criminal fraternity may try to break in and cause damage to our guest’s property
The City are about to open a brand new City Centre Shopping Development with an investment of over £700m to include the second largest John Lewis Store in the UK as well as the new Radisson Hotel. As well as this, over the last year we have invested over £2m in the Cardiff Marriott to tie in with the opening of the new City Centre. This proposed application in my view will give the wrong message, certainly to our guests and to anyone visiting Cardiff City Centre.
120 7.7 Unison
Objected originally to the application but have confirmed the withdrawl of their objection, subject to the applicant/the Council’s adherence to management protocols and the provision of additional security measures as advised by the Council’s Housing Manager.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Overview
The provision of a homeless hostel, albeit on a temporary basis, within a city centre regeneration area and adjacent to the primary shopping area, which has stimulated multi-million pound investment in recent years, including the opening of a prestigious new department store, has understandably raised concern from commercial quarters in the locality.
The area concerned is currently being substantially upgraded in terms of its public realm, has attracted significant investment in the form of new and forthcoming hotel and office accommodation, both as a result and in support of SD2, the new library and enhancements of the principal shopping area.
However, The Chief Officer for Housing and Neighbourhood Renewal advises that the accommodation is essential in realising a new purpose built assessment centre and hostel accommodation proposed in the Dumballs Rd/Tresillian Terrace area (A project with an estimated value of £8.5m), and that the accommodation is ideally located for purpose and could be effectively managed to mitigate against any undesirable impacts.
8.2 Land Uses
The application site is located within the City Centre Principal Business Area (PBA) but outside of the City Centre Principal Shopping Area (PSA) as defined in the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan. The application site is also located within the Central Core Area (CCA) of the approved City Centre Strategy 2007-2010
In purely land use terms, POLICY 35, 45 and 46 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, and Policy 2.32 of the Deposit Written Statement of the UDP, in consideration of issues relating to the Central Business Area, would seek to protect and support office uses within that area, together with leisure and hotel uses complimentary to the central shopping and tourism role.
However it is accepted that neither plan makes provision for proposed temporary uses, and it is acknowledged that although the building in question has both planning permission for hotel and office/A3 mixed use, that the building remains vacant in the current economic downturn.
121 It is also accepted that neither the objectives, or policies contained within the plans are necessarily complimentary. As an example, the following are some of the Objectives contained in the Cardiff Local Plan
• to preserve and enhance the quality of life and environment of the city…
• to sustain and enhance the vitality, viability and environment of the city centre, and district and local centres…
• to assist, wherever possible, in reducing the relative disadvantage experienced by particular groups…
Whilst the City Centre Strategy seeks to
• To create a better “sense of arrival” from the central railway and bus stations.
• To develop Cardiff as a tourism destination and the gateway to Wales
• To ensure that new housing development helps to meet Cardiff’s housing needs, including affordable housing, family accommodation and provision for vulnerable people
• To focus on homeless prevention in the city centre
It is recognised, however, that policies within development plans are not necessarily mutually supportive, but reflect the choices that have to be made about a wide range of economic, social and environmental aspirations.
As there are no policies with the development plan that specifically direct the location of facilities which attempt to address provision for the homeless, each proposal must be judged on its merits in terms of likely impact on the environment and on amenity.
POLICY 36 of the Local Plan (ALTERNATIVE USE OF BUSINESS LAND); and Policy 2.21 of the UDP (CHANGE OF USE OR RE-DEVELOPMENT TO RESIDENTIAL USE) provide for this, and seek to assess such new uses against the demand for / need to preserve a range and choice and quality of sites for business users, whilst seeking to ensure that any resulting residential accommodation and amenity will be satisfactory and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the operating conditions of existing businesses.
The following gives consideration to such issues:
8.3 Demand for / need to preserve a range and choice and quality of sites for business users
Custom House has been vacant now for some time, however this may in part be due to the current economic recession, and planning permission for the A3
122 restaurant conversion of the building along with the provision of new office accommodation adjacent has been resolved to be granted quite recently.
In any event there is no reason why the building could not be used for office purposes with very minimal repair and currently provides a contained and independent office floorspace which may be attractive to a user not wishing to let accommodation in a shared building.
8.4 Design and Context
There are no physical modifications to the exterior of the building proposed under the terms of this application, however the recent MIPPS – (para 2.9.1) states that ‘design must go beyond aesthetics and include the social, environmental and economic aspects of the development, including its construction, operation and management, and its relationship to its surroundings’.
A number of objections relate to potential increases in crime levels and anti- social behaviour.
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the Council to have regard to the crime and disorder implications of its decisions and the need to do all it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area.
Circular 16:94 (Para 5) states that ‘local authorities should bear in mind the need to avoid the juxtaposition of incompatible land uses that could potentially give rise to conflict.’
Crime and Disorder are therefore legitimate planning concerns, however these are most often considered (TAN 12 / Circular 16:94) in terms of the design and layout of new buildings as opposed to the change of use of existing ones, However it would seem appropriate to consider the potential implications of the development in terms of its location.
It is acknowledged that this impact is speculative, however the impact of the operation of the existing accommodation at Tresillian Way can be reasonably assumed to be indicative of the likely impact in the immediate area of the Customhouse.
Principal concerns relate to the attraction of those who would prey on vulnerable persons to the area, dealers in drugs, those involved in the buying and selling of stolen goods, begging, and other incidents of anti-social behaviour brought about as a result of drug or alcohol problems. It is understood that recent crime data suggests that crime in the area is disproportionately high compared with the rest of South Wales Police area. Crime statistics indicate that there were 2007 occurrences reported to the police in the St Mary Street, Custom House Street and Bute Terrace area with 74 being for anti-social behaviour, 55 relating to criminal damage, 26 relating to drugs, 12 to vagrancy and 276 to assaults and violence against the person.
123 It could be argued that as the proposed facility would simply transfer current provision from one area to another on a temporary basis, and that given the proximity of the two sites, that there would be no specific impact in respect of crime in the city overall. However the proposed location of the building and its immediate context has to be considered.
The proximity of Custom house to the railway bridge and drinking establishments in St Mary St is of concern in terms of the potential for overspill rough sleeping in an area already populated by those under the influence of alcohol and where reported instances of crime are already high. During daylight hours there is also concern that the area of the railway bridge which is currently a primary route between St Mary St and Callaghan Square / the Bay might become an avoided or ‘no-go’ area. It is also recognised that in addition to the bridge, that the security of the York Hotel is poor, and that the site is located amidst a variety of other ‘hidden’ areas where anti-social activities might take place, and which would be attractive to those not eligible to occupy the managed accommodation (Persistent problematic service users) and which even with additional agency support may be problematic to move on. Concerns have also been expressed that the proposed bus waiting area on Custom House Street, would attract begging and busking activities and that passengers and resident occupants of the nearby hotel accommodation / office workers may be unduly bothered by unwanted approaches.
In response both the applicant and the Head of service for Housing and Neighbourhood Renewal have indicated that there would be management arrangements put in place to inspect the area and discourage loitering by service users, supported by a close working relationship with the Police. Given the cited experience of staff who will be working at the premises, and ongoing multi-agency working arrangements, this may well mitigate against potential and actual criminal /anti-social activity. It should be recognised however that such arrangements are effectively outside of land use planning powers to control.
As the York hotel is understood to be in the same freehold ownership as the Custom House, and within the application site boundary, physical improvements to its security could be required by means of condition.
8.5 Historic Environment
The Custom House is a grade II Listed Building, however as stated there are no external changes proposed as part of this application, and the interior of the building is of no historic or architectural merit. The interior modifications proposed as part of the works have been determined not to require listed building consent.
However, the comments of the Police / request of the Open University relating to the provision of a security enclosure between the Open University building and the Customhouse would certainly impact on the setting of the listed
124 building, and may require Listed Building Consent if attached to the listed fabric.
The design of such an enclosure therefore needs careful consideration, both in terms of aesthetic and practical operation as such an enclosure would need to balance fitness for purpose against negative impact on the aesthetic of the building and its surrounding environment.
The applicant and the Operational Manager for Housing has indicated that a new security fence could be provided, This could be secured by planning condition for most of the area concerned, however there is some concern over the aesthetic of fencing onto the street frontage, and the applicant’s agent has been asked to provide details for committee’s consideration.
8.6 Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements
The ‘no objection’ comments of the Transportation Officer, related to the likely trip generation of the proposal, are noted.
Practically however, the building shares a currently open car park with two other users, The Open University and Unison, as a facility in support of their use as offices and for the provision of day and evening classes to students of all ages up to 22:00hrs. Both parties now agree to the provision of the facility, subject to a number of provisos, including the installation of a secure boundary enclosure as referenced above and as also indicated by the police.
8.7 Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
The comments of Vinci Construction and Waste Management are noted. The mangers of the building are considered capable of accommodating and presenting general waste for collection, however the potential for an increase in contaminated wastes, such as needles / syringes and sexual debris, as highlighted by a number of third parties, is acknowledged, and is of concern in such a public location.
The Chief Housing Officer and the applicant have stated that this could be mitigated against by regular inspection, but this may not prevent the occurrence of the waste, and realistically could only be undertaken in the immediate vicinity unless additional cleaning contracts were entered into; again these would be management undertakings beyond land use planning control.
8.8 Impact on Businesses, Shopping and Tourism
Pedestrian access to entrances to the building are situated on key ‘desire lines’ to and from adjoining hotels and offices and the central station and principle shopping area.
It is considered likely that if inadequately managed, the proposal could have a negative impact on businesses in the locality; on the perception of the city by
125 visitors; and in terms of actual and perceived safety and security of those present in the area.
In response the applicant has suggested that they would undertake at least 4 inspections of the area daily, and the Chief Housing Officer has stated that this could enhanced by partnership working with the Police and other agencies. The applicant has also offered the setting up of a consultative forum where business interests in the area would be invited to highlight any concerns and would also be able to telephone a contact at the facility directly to respond to any immediate problems or occurrences. Again however, although potentially effective, these would be management undertakings beyond land use planning control.
The provision/augmentation of CCTV to the specification suggested by the Police would be likely to discourage at least some of those with criminal intent. But where this is not the case, the viewing and recording of anti-social behaviour does not prevent it, and without a commitment to increased policing or security would not improve any response to it, its only useful benefit therefore being evidential in assistance of prosecution proceedings.
However the police observations on the application indicate that with the provision of a dedicated CCTV camera, that they would be capable of offering a rapid response, and that the proposed location offers the best opportunity to minimise costs to the police and partners who regularly have a strong presence in the area already, further commenting that officers are experienced in dealing with issues at the current facility in Tresillian Terrace and will require little adjustment in dealing with matters at this nearby temporary location.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 It is considered that the applicant and the Head of Service For Housing and Neighbourhood Renewal (as partner to the scheme) have done all that they are reasonably able to do to address concerns highlighted by commercial and other interested parties in respect of what will always be perceived as an undesirable neighbouring use.
It is accepted that many of these mitigating measures offered by the applicant and the Council’s Housing service are beyond the remit of land use planning control, and that the impact and safe operation of the facility will be predominantly down to those agencies involved in its management
If proposed as a permanent use, the development would be considered contrary to planning policy in respect of the protection of office accommodation, and an inappropriate use within the Central Business and adjacent Principal Shopping Area; but over a temporary period, and with appropriate management, that the uses have the potential to be introduced into the locality with limited adverse impact on public amenity and the environment.
126 Given the Council’s commitment to provide a permanent facility elsewhere; that there are limited options in respect of the location and availability of suitable premises for such a facility; and critically, that there is no longer an objection raised by the Police, who have indicated their support of the scheme and commitment to multi-agency working, then for a temporary period only, a positive, conditional recommendation is made.
127 128 129 130 131 LOCAL MEMBER SUPPORT
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01084/C APPLICATION DATE: 23/06/2009
ED: PLASNEWYDD
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mooneeram Solicitors LOCATION: 36 RICHMOND ROAD, ROATH, CARDIFF, CF24 3AS PROPOSAL: CONTINUATION OF OFFICE USE IN THE FRONT GROUND FLOOR ROOM, IN THE FIRST FLOOR TWO FRONT ROOMS AND ON THE SECOND FLOOR, AND A PROPOSED ACCESS RAMP ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The use of the house as offices is contrary to Policy 26(ii) and (iii) (Conversion of Residential Accommodation) of the City of Cardiff Local Plan and Policy 2.25 (Change of Use of Residential Properties) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003), and Policy HSC3 (Change of Use of Residential Land or Properties) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan, which aim to retain dwellings in residential use and to protect residential amenity. The use has resulted in the loss of residential accommodation and the related activity could detract from the amenity of local residents.
2. To permit the proposed office use would not accord with Policy 2.29 (a) and (b) (Office Development) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
RECOMMENDATION 2: That enforcement action be taken to secure the cessation of the unauthorised office use.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application is retrospective, and seeks planning permission for the continued use of one ground floor and two first floor rooms and of all three second floor rooms, as offices. The application was reported to the Committee on 12th August, when it was resolved to defer for a site visit on 7th September. It was reconsidered on 16th September but was again deferred. The application premises are partly in residential use. The applicant advises that part of the building is used, and will continue to be used, as his main residence, and that he, and his staff, use the remainder of the house as the offices of his legal practice. Eight staff work in the building.
132 1.2 The total office floor space is around 106m2. The remaining residential floor space is approximately 83m2.
1.3 The application is accompanied by an access statement. An access ramp and handrail are proposed to overcome the difference in levels between the front garden and the ground floor of the building. There is a ground floor toilet.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
2.1 The application site accommodates a three storey semi-detached building, formerly a house, with front and back gardens. The area is primarily residential in character. Car parking is available within the front site curtilage, and in a garage, for up to four cars. The front door is accessed via four steps.
3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 Application no. 08/2217C, sought planning permission for the same office use as the current application. It was refused on 6 January 2009 for reasons relating to:
(i) the loss of residential accommodation and the potential for a loss of amenity to local residents (relying on policy no. 26 of the Local Plan and 2.25 of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan);
(ii) the office use did not accord with Policy 2.29(a) and (b) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and
(iii) poor access.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 City of Cardiff Local Plan
17 - Car Parking 18 - Cyclists 20 - Provision for Special Needs Groups 26 - Conversion or Redevelopment of Residential Accommodation.
4.2 Deposit Unitary Development Plan (Oct 2003)
2.20 - Good Design 2.24 - Residential Amenity 2.25 - Change of Use of Residential Land or Properties 2.29 - Office Development 2.57 - Access and Parking 2.74 - Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development.
4.3 Deposit Local Development Plan
Policy HSC3 – Change of Use of Residential Land or Properties
133
4.3 SPG’s relating to Waste and to Access, Parking and Circulation.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation, has no objection and requests the imposition of no conditions, in the event of planning permission being granted.
5.2 The Waste Management Officer observes that two refuse storage areas should be found; one for domestic and the other for commercial waste.
5.3 The Strategic Planning Manager observes that Policy 26 of the Local Plan applies. Policy 2.25 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Policy HSC3 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) are also material planning considerations.
The Adopted Local Plan states that office uses of the nature proposed in this application are favoured in Cardiff’s Principal Business Areas or above ground floor locations in district and local centres. The proposal site falls within an existing residential area.
Policy 26 of the Local Plan states that residential uses outside shopping centres should be safeguarded from changes of use to non-residential uses, including B1 (Paragraph 6.4.3). This policy is specifically designed to retain existing dwellings in residential use in order to help meet city-wide housing needs and to safeguard the amenity of residential areas from commercial encroachment. The policy is particularly aimed at controlling the spread of offices into residential areas surrounding district and local shopping centres.
Policy 26 states that planning permission for the conversion or redevelopment of viable residential accommodation, occupied or vacant, to retail office, or other commercial uses will be permitted only where... ii) the characteristics of the premises and their location are unsuitable for residential use.
Given this policy context, the main issue for this application is whether criterion U) of Local Plan Policy 26 can be satisfied ie. whether the property’s ‘characteristics’ and/ or ‘location’ make it unsuitable as a dwelling. Meanwhile, it is also important to appreciate the potential cumulative impact of encroachment of employment uses into residential areas. This includes the erosion of housing stock and the gradual affect on the character of the area.
He reminds that he provided land use policy comments on planning application 08/2217C in December 2008. The proposals in the current application appear to be very similar. There have been no significant changes in land use policy since the determination of O8/2217C and for these reasons, the following land-use policy comments still apply.
Purely from a land-use policy perspective, there appears to be nothing to indicate that the characteristics and location of this particular property render it unsuitable as a residential dwelling. It therefore appears that approval of this
134 application would result in the loss of viable residential accommodation and would therefore be considered contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy 26, Policy 2.25 of the Deposit UDP and Policy HSC3 of the Deposit LDP.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Nil
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Neighbours were notified of, and Local Members were consulted on, the application. Cllr. Berman supports this application on the basis that it will ensure that the property is well-maintained and looked after, compared to other alternative potential uses of the property (such as a potential future conversion to flats or bedsits if the owner felt he had no choice but to sell the property on, most likely to an absentee landlord, if the application was to be refused.)
Whilst there may be a policy objective seeking to protect the predominantly residential nature of Richmond Road, he does not think that allowing this use to continue will be in any way detrimental to the street and the use would not be out of keeping with other existing commercial uses along Richmond Road. Surely a precedent has already long since been set that it is acceptable to have properties in use as offices along Richmond Road amongst other properties retained in residential use? There are plenty of existing examples of such office uses in previously residential properties along Richmond Road and he can't see why this property should be judged any differently.
He urges the Planning Committee to agree that the change of use should be permitted.
It may well be helpful for the Committee to see the site, to gain a better understanding of why granting this application would not, in his view, be detrimental to the surrounding area. For this reason, he requested that the application be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.
7.2 In support of the application, the agent advises that 42m2 of the first floor has been used as offices for some time without, he believes, needing planning permission. The practice has grown, needing to expand into the ground and second floors. He advises that the intention is that the office use would continue to operate during normal office hours, using an appointment only system for clients. The applicant specialises in claims related work, which often involves visiting them at home. He says that there should not, therefore, be many visitors. There is no intention to display advertisements on the site and the building would maintain its character as an owner-occupied dwelling. There would be no increase in waste. Paper waste is confidentially disposed of using a licensed handler.
7.3 The agent asks that due consideration be given to national and local planning policies, as follows:
135
(a) National Policy
(i) Paragraph 7.2.5 of Planning Policy Wales states (agent’s underlining):
“Many businesses can be located in and around small settlements and in residential areas in larger settlements, without causing unacceptable disturbance. This can provide employment opportunities for those who cannot readily access major employment sites and can help to tackle social exclusion. In primarily residential areas, policies should not unreasonably seek to restrict commercial and industrial activities of an appropriate scale, particularly in existing buildings, provided that there are not likely to be adverse effects on residential amenity, landscape quality and the environment.”
(ii) Paragraph 7.2.6 seeks to encourage mixed use development in, or adjoining settlements where this is appropriate. Policies and supplementary planning guidance should support flexible workspace/dwellings and commercial premises where appropriate.
(iii) Paragraph 7.6.6. of the document refers to change of use, it states:-
“A flexible attitude is required with regard to change of use to enable suitable re-use or new use to be instituted in under-used space where this might contribute to the preservation of the building or enhancement of the townscape or landscape.”
(iv) Technical Advice Note 12: Design, which supports Planning Policy Wales gives support to the principles of inclusive design. It also states in paragraph 5.61 of the “Employment and Commercial Areas” section.
“Where situated in proximity to other uses, smaller employment premises, especially will need to be more closely related in terms of scale and appearance to their context. This should not mean concealing their purpose but expressing it in a way which reflects or complements the setting. In some circumstances, especially in regeneration and rural areas, the conversion of existing buildings for employment purposes will be appropriate.” (It should be noted that the TAN12, quoted by the agent, has been superseded by a new edition, but the above wording is retained, in paragraph 5.12.4 of the new TAN 12 – June 2009 – Development Manager).
136 (b) Development Plan Policy
(i) Policy 26 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (Conversion or redevelopment of residential accommodation) states that:
Planning permission for the conversion or redevelopment of viable residential accommodation, occupied or vacant, to retail, office or other commercial uses will be permitted only where:
(1) it is at ground floor level within shopping centres identified on the proposals map (subject to policy 49(ii)); or
(2) the characteristics of the premises and their location are unsuitable for residential use; and (iii) subject to considerations of scale, location, design, amenity and transportation”.
(ii) Part 1 of Policy 1A of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) provides general principles for the location of new development. It states that development proposals should be located:-
a. so as to enhance the environment where possible, or otherwise to minimise harm to it; b. to make use of redundant, previously developed land; c. to minimise travel demand and dependence on the car; d. to minimise risk of property from flooding, ground conditions or pollution; e. where adequate community facilities and infrastructure exists or can economically be provided; f. where neighbouring uses are compatible.
(iii) Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) states that development that would cause unacceptable harm to residential amenity will not be permitted. The supporting text states that ‘unacceptable harm’ may be caused as a result of:
• the incompatible nature of the proposed use; • intensification of use or activity; • vehicular or pedestrian generation; • restricted daylight or overlooking.
(iv) Policy 2.25 (Change of Use of Residential Land or Properties) states that:
“Outside the Central and Waterfront Business Areas and district centres, identified on the Proposals Map, conversion or redevelopment of residential properties to other use will only be permitted where:
137 (a) the premises or their location are no longer suitable for residential use; or (b) the proposal is for a community use necessary within a residential area.”
(v) Policy 2.29: Office Development states that;
“Business class office development will only be permitted outside the Central and Waterfront Business Areas and district centres, identified on the Proposals Map, if:
(a) there is a need for the proposed floorspace; (b) that need cannot satisfactorily be accommodated within the Central or Waterfront Business Areas or a district centre: (c) the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the vitality, attractiveness or viability of the Central or Waterfront Business area or a district centre, or a proposal or strategy for the protection or enhancement of these centres; and (d) the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport.”
(vi) The Cardiff Residential Design Guide was approved by the Council as supplementary planning guidance in March 2008. As with TAN 12 and MIPPS 01/08 much emphasis is placed on the context for development. It is acknowledged in the guidance that the quality of the built environment varies greatly across the city. Where the context is limited, it is recommended that exemplars could provide a model for future residential areas. In particular, it is stated that:-
“Development from the Victorian and Edwardian periods display many characteristics found in successful contemporary developments in the form of compactness, density, scale, legibility, relationships of streets to spaces, landscaping models, diversity and adaptability.”
Although the emphasis in the guidance is on new-build schemes, Figure 50 in the document illustrates traditional Victorian properties in the Pontcanna area. It is stated in the accompanying caption that:
“Buildings can change use several times over their lifetime and should be designed to be flexible and adaptable as many of these large Victorian houses.”
(c) Discussion
(i) He concludes by pointing out that the supporting text to Cardiff Unitary Development Plan Policy 2.25 states that offices, retail,
138 entertainment and other uses which attract a significant number of visitors, whether by vehicle or foot, are generally best located in centres where they are most widely accessible. Outside these areas, it is stated that proposals for the conversion or redevelopment of residential properties to other use will only be permitted in line with Policy 2.25 and if no unacceptable harm will be caused to the amenity of remaining residences, in line with Policy 2.24.
(ii) It can also be argued that the premises and their location are not suitable for a single residential use and is, therefore, compliant with Policy 2.25 (a). This is evidenced by the few remaining single dwellings in Richmond Road. The conversion of the building to flats or its subdivision would result in more pronounced change of character and impact on residential amenity that that associated with the partial change of use to offices.
(d) Justification
(i) The development, which is the subject of the application, would not attract a significant number of visitors and no unacceptable harm will be caused to residential amenity. As such, the proposed change of use is wholly compatible with the provisions of Planning Policy Wales which seeks to avoid unreasonable restrictions on commercial activities of an appropriate scale in residential areas.
(ii) The third reason for refusal relates to the lack of an inclusive access design. It is acknowledged that the front door of the property lies above several steps. A plan submitted as part of this planning application demonstrates how a new, ramped access can overcome this potential impediment to wheelchair users and the mobility impaired. This can be achieved without significant changes to the boundary frontage of the property, although an ornamental conifer tree will need to be removed. The provision of a new access ramp will therefore improve accessibility to the building without compromising its retained residential character.
(iii) Much of the work undertaken by the Solicitors’ practice, in progressing personal injury claims for clients, involves visiting them in their homes, as frequently they are unable to travel. As such, the use can be regarded as a service which is not provided principally to visiting members of the public and, therefore, falls within Use Class B1 rather than A2.
(iv) Consequently, movements to and from the premises are low in comparison with a typical ‘high street’ solicitors practice where businesses may rely on ‘passing trade’ and visually prominent
139 signage to attract customers for services such as conveyances and general legal advice. No signage is, therefore, proposed as part of the development. If the practice were to relocate to premises in a commercial centre the associated costs would prejudice training contracts to new solicitors which currently apply.
(v) The above factors, together with the daytime nature of the use, the need for a small practice to be close to the community it services, and to provide for small scale local employment opportunities results in a minimal impact on local residential amenity. The applicant would accept a condition which restricts the use to a B1 Solicitor’s office. As such the proposal is compatible with national guidance contained in Planning Policy Wales (paragraph 7.2.5) i.e.:
“In primarily residential areas, policies should not unreasonably seek to restrict commercial and industrial activities of an appropriate scale, particularly in existing buildings, provided that there are not likely to be adverse effects on residential amenity, landscape quality and the environment.”
(vi) He points out that the original residential character of the area has been eroded. The conversion of the majority of properties to flats, hostel and multiple-occupancy accommodation has resulted in the following adverse impacts:-
• Parking • Bin Storage • Signage • Rear extensions • Drainage
These issues are discussed in turn below. Photographs have been submitted to illustrate the points made.
(vii) Parking
The need to accommodate car parking, as a result of the subdivision and extension of properties, has resulted in the erosion of the residential character of the area.
This is particularly apparent in the case of properties where the original front garden features, including walls, hedges, gates and gateposts have been removed and replaced by a single area of bare concrete or tarmac. This practice has implications for increasing drainage run-off. In many cases dropped kerbs have not been constructed and often conflict arises with pedestrians and commuters parking along the street frontage.
140 Large areas of rear garden space are also taken up with parking, significantly eroding amenities of neighbouring properties and properties to the rear where the enjoyment of private residential gardens is affected. In some cases security gates have also been installed at the entrances of rear parking areas together with CCTV cameras.
The South Wales Baptist College Building has extended its parking areas, and a one-way gyratory access/egress system adopted where the exit route actually utilises the driveway of an adjacent residential property.
(viii) Bin Storage
The sub-division of dwellings has resulted in a proliferation of bins outside the front of buildings which are a permanent feature in the townscape and which detract from both the residential amenity and character of the area.
(ix) Signage
No signage is proposed by the applicant. Signs would alter the character of the property. Nevertheless, signage is prevalent along Richmond Road on existing business and office uses, the Baptist College and adjacent buildings, and numerous ‘To Let’ notices, many of which are permanent features.
(x) Rear Extensions
A number of former semi-detached dwellings have been substantially altered and wholly or partly rebuilt. This trend is continuing in other parts of Richmond Road. Opposite the application site, substantial rear extensions are currently under construction which lie close to a footpath link between Richmond Road and Richmond Crescent. These extensions represent a substantial increase in the scale and massing of buildings to the detriment of the original character of the area.
(xi) It is, therefore, concluded that the continued office use of part of the building, as proposed by the application, would not result in any material harm to residential amenity and the character of the area, which has already been significantly eroded as a result of the factors described above. The proposal would maintain local amenities and the character of the building more than an alternative sub-division of the residential unit to flats or bed-sits.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The application is retrospective, seeking planning permission for the continuation of an office use, in a former house, in the ground floor front room,
141 two first floor rooms and the whole of the second floor. The total office floorspace is around 106m2. An access ramp is also proposed. The applicant has considered the reasons which resulted in the refusal of a previous similar application, and has put forward arguments which he considers should result in this application being approved.
8.2 The key issue is the change of use from residential to office use. There appears to be no reason why 36 Richmond Road is unsuitable for residential use, nor that the office use could not operate in a business area.
8.3 It is considered that a refusal of planning permission would be consistent with the refusal of application no. 08/2217C, in January 2009, for the same use, and with appeals which have been dismissed, on loss of residential grounds, (e.g. 06/2105W – “Marlay”, Sneyd Street, and 04/1475W – 57 Merthyr Road), and with the recent refusal of a change of use from residential to offices at 6 East Grove (08/1642C), and with the following policies:
(a) City of Cardiff Local Plan Policy 26 which indicates that planning permission will only be granted for the conversion of viable residential accommodation to office use:
(i) at ground level in shopping centres; (ii) where the characteristics of the premises and the location are unsuitable for residential use; (iii) subject to consideration of scale, location, design, amenity and transportation.
The application proposal is considered to be clearly in conflict with (ii) above, as the building and its location appear to be suitable for residential use; indeed the applicant lives in part of the building and says that he will continue to. It is possible that the proposed use and consequent comings and goings could detract from the amenity of neighbours. Furthermore, an approval could set a precedent for similar applications in the street further eroding its residential character.
(b) Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) Policy 2.25 relates to the change of use of residential land or properties. It indicates that,
“outside the Central and Waterfront Business Areas and district centres, identified on the Proposals Map, conversion or redevelopment of residential properties to other use will only be permitted where:
(a) the premises or their location are no longer suitable for residential use;
or
(b) the proposal is for a community use necessary within a residential area.”
142
The application proposal is considered to be contrary to (a) and (b) above, in that the premises and its location are suitable for residential use, and the application does not relate to a community use which is necessary in a residential area.
The above policy is repeated in Policy HSC3 of the Deposit Local Development Plan. The supporting text emphasises (para 5.142) that changes of use from residential to other use will only be permitted in business areas, local and district centres.
(c) Policy 2.29 of the same Plan, relates to office development. It reads:
“Business class office development will only be permitted outside the Central and Waterfront Business Areas and district centres, identified on the Proposals Map, if:
(a) there is a need for the proposed floorspace; (b) that need cannot satisfactorily be accommodated within the Central or Waterfront Business Areas or a district centre: (c) the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the vitality, attractiveness or viability of the Central or Waterfront Business Areas or a district centre, or a proposal or strategy for the protection or enhancement of these centres; and (d) the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport.”
The current application is for an office development which appears to be in Use Class B1 (the business office Use Class), and it is considered that no evidence accompanies the application which satisfies criteria (a) or (b) of this policy.
8.4 The premises are not, at present, readily accessible, as it is necessary to negotiate four steps to access the front door. However, by proposing the construction of a ramp, the application has overcome the previous access concern which resulted in a reason for refusal.
8.5 The applicant’s policy arguments have been considered. Although there are some long-established non-residential uses in this part of Richmond Road, the character of the street is overwhelmingly residential. It is accepted that the character of the street has been spoilt by the hard surfacing of forecourts and their use of a site. Efforts have been made in recent years to discourage insensitive forecourt parking and revised parking guidelines have removed much of the pressure upon developers to provide it. For instance, nos. 93- 109 Richmond Road are in the course of redevelopment but the former hard surfaced front car park will become a grassed front garden.
8.6 There is nothing unique about the application site. It was a dwelling in a primarily residential area and if planning permission were to be granted for office use it would be difficult to resist applications for a similar change of use from residential to offices, not only in Richmond Road, but throughout the
143 City, which would result in a significant loss of residential accommodation and greater changes in the character of residential areas.
8.7 If the building is too big for use as a single dwelling, then there is no reason why it could not be converted into flats and continue to offer much needed residential accommodation.
8.8 Section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that “in making a determination under Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.
8.9 With regard to Cllr. Berman’s comments, it must be emphasised that the application site is in a predominantly residential part of Richmond Road, where there are few office uses, and there are considered to be no special circumstances which warrant departing from Council policies. Members should note that, as recently as 20th July, an Inspector dismissed an appeal against the Council’s refusal to allow the use of no. 60 Plasturton Avenue as an advice centre for young persons, with offices for supervisors, by the Church Army. The Inspector commented:
“It is not disputed that the existing building is a viable unit of residential accommodation which is suitable for such use. The effect of the proposed development would therefore be to reduce the supply of houses in Cardiff, thus putting pressure on the supply of land for new houses elsewhere. It would conflict in this respect with the aims of Policy 26 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (LP) and Policy 2.25 of the draft Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (UDP).
The proposed accommodation would include offices for persons undertaking projects in the area and the resettlement of residents of a Church Army managed hostel next door. It would also include a room set aside for counselling and an area described as an activities room and kitchen. However, those uses could equally well be carried out in a non-residential building.
The location of this facility next to the hostel would therefore not appear to be critical to its function. There are non-residential buildings in the area which appear to be capable of meeting the identified needs. I conclude, for these reasons, that it has not been shown that the proposed use is a community use necessary within a residential area. The appeal does not relate to a ground floor property within an identified shopping centre. I further conclude that the proposed development does not fall into any of the categories of exceptions to the policy of retaining existing dwellings in residential use set out in LP Policy 26 or UDP Policy 2.25.”
The Inspector’s assessment of the above case is considered to have close parallels with the application for office use at 36 Richmond Road, where the same policies are pertinent. It is considered that it would be inconsistent to grant planning permission.
144 8.10 The consideration of the application was deferred, for the second time, at the Committee’s 16th September meeting with a view to considering conditions that might be appropriate in the event of granting planning permission. It is open to the Committee to grant the application subject to the following condition – “The office use hereby permitted shall be carried out only by Moonerans Solicitors. Should the use by Moonerans Solicitors cease, then the office use shall cease and the application premises shall revert to residential use”. A reason would have to be given for the condition. The reason could perhaps read “Planning permission has only been granted because of the special circumstances of the case”.
8.11 It is not obvious what the special circumstances for granting planning permission, contrary to the Development Plan, might be. If planning permission is to be granted, then it would be difficult to refuse future applications to reverse previous refusals, such as those referred to in paragraphs 8.3 and 8.9 above, or to refuse changes of use from residential to offices in, say, Cathedral Road, Newport Road, or any residential area.
8.12 A member, at the previous meeting, raised the issue of an existing office use, nearby, at no. 30 Richmond Road. Records show that this property had a non-residential use as a maternity, child welfare, ante-natal and dental clinic, as long ago as 1950. In 1963 there was a resolution that the building could be used as a hostel. In 1981 the Council refused planning permission for no. 30 to be used as offices (on the first and second floors) and for doctor’s / dentist’s clinics on the ground floor. The objection was to the proposed office use in a residential area, which was contrary to the Council’s then office policy. The report explained that, since 1965, the building had been used by the Area Health Authority as a clinic with ancillary offices. In light of the long history of ancillary office use on the upper floors the then planning officer recommended that planning permission be granted. However, the recommendation was overturned by the Planning Committee, taking into account objections which had been received. An appeal was lodged against the refusal, but was not decided, because a repeat application was approved by the Planning Committee. In 1984 South Glamorgan County Council resolved to approve the use of no. 30 as a base for a community mental health team.
8.13 Welsh Office Circular 35/95 – “The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions” offers the following guidance to local planning authorities:
Para 92 “ Since planning controls are concerned with the use of land rather than the identity of the user, the question of who is to occupy premises for which permission is to be granted will normally be irrelevant. Conditions restricting occupancy to a particular occupier or class of occupier should only be used when special planning grounds can be demonstrated, and where the alternative would normally be refusal of permission.”
Para 93
145 Unless the permission otherwise provides, planning permission runs with the land and it is seldom desirable to provide otherwise. There are occasions, however, where it is proposed exceptionally to grant permission for the use of a building or land for some purpose which would not normally be allowed at the site, simply because there are strong compassionate or other personal grounds for doing so. In such a case the permission should normally be made subject to a condition that it shall ensure only for the benefit of a named person – usually the applicant: a permission personal to a company is inappropriate because its shares can be transferred to other persons without affecting the legal personality of the company.”
8.14 It is considered that to grant a personal permission would be contrary to the advice in Circular 35/95 as there is no evidence to show that Moonerans Solicitors are an exceptional case where there are strong compassionate grounds or other personal grounds. Also, it should be borne in mind that any personal permission granted by the Committee would be for a company employing several people, and not for a person.
8.15 It is recommended that planning permission should be refused because the development has resulted in a loss of viable residential accommodation, setting an unfortunate precedent, which does not accord with the above policies, and because of the non-inclusive access. It is also recommended that enforcement action be taken to secure the cessation of the unauthorised office use. A personal permission is not recommended because this would not accord with the advice in Welsh Office Circular 35/95.
146 147 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/1103/C APPLICATION DATE: 24/06/2009
ED: CATHAYS
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Sherman Cymru LOCATION: SHERMAN THEATRE, SENGHENNYDD ROAD, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF24 4YE PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS TO AND EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING SHERMAN THEATRE ______
RECOMMENDATION 2 : That, subject to no objections being received by 21st October 2009, and subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council, under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, encompassing the public transport infrastructure contribution specified in paragraph 8.8 of the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer's report planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered *** attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. Foul and surface water discharges shall drain separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
4. Surface water shall not drain, directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, in the interests of health and safety, and the environment.
5. Land drainage run-off shall not discharge, directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, in the interests of health and safety, and the environment.
6. Refuse shall be stored in the condition shown on the application plans. Reason: To ensure that good provision for refuse storage is made.
7. Details of secure and under cover parking facilities for 15 cycles shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The approved facility
148 shall be complete and available for use before the additional floor space, hereby permitted, is brought into beneficial use. Reason : To ensure that an appropriate level of cycle parking provision is available.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme of construction management shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of construction traffic routes, the site means of enclosure, the site access and wheel- washing facilities. The approved scheme shall be adhered to. Reason: In the interests of safety and amenity.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a scheme of environmental improvements to Senghennydd Road's carriageway and footway, broadly in accordance with the details shown on application drawing no. ST-CA-ZZZ-000-DSP-AR-090000-P02, shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the reconstruction / resurfacing / widening / narrowing of the footway and carriageway, and include details of surfacing, kerbs, edging, drainage, lining and signing; the provision of street lighting, street trees, street furniture, uncontrolled pedestrian crossings and public transport facilities. The scheme shall include works across the vehicular access from Senghennydd Road, linking up with the pavement to the south-east of this junction. Reason: To ensure that the adjacent public highway is satisfactorily enhanced and improved and to facilitate improved access to the proposed development.
10. This permission does not relate to the provision of a cycle store or any other works in Llanbleddian Gardens. Reason : For the avoidance of doubt, as these proposals were withdrawn from consideration.
11. The rating level of the noise emitted from fixed plant and equipment on the site shall not exceed the existing background noise level at any time by more than 5dB(A) at any residential property when measured and corrected in accordance with BS 4142: 1997. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.
12. Prior to the fixing in place of any of the metal cladding proposed by this application, a scheme showing the architectural detailing and the underside of the arch above the theatre entrance, the arch above the loading bay, and of the new windows which would be set into the cladding, shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the finished development has a satisfactory appearance.
149 13. Before the aluminium cladding is applied to the theatre walls, a sample shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved cladding shall be used. Reason: To ensure that the finished development has a satisfactory appearance.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
RECOMMENDATION 3: That the developer be requested to take into account the advice in the Police Architectural Liaison Officer's letter, dated 10th August 2009, which has previously been forwarded to the agent.
RECOMMENDATION 4: That the developer be reminded of the need to liaise with the Council's Parks Services before commencing work which might affect street trees.
RECOMMENDATION 5 : That the applicant be reminded that Advertisement Consent is likely to be required for the display of advertisements outside the theatre building.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This proposed development is associated with an intended major upgrade of the Sherman Theatre.
1.2 The application proposes the extension of the theatre building by around 2m (more in places) towards Senghennydd Road, so that it would abut the rear of pavement, enabling the foyer, and the first and second floors to be enlarged. At the same time, the foyer floor level would be lowered, becoming flush with the pavement, and facilitating level access. The building would be extended by 16m at its south-east end to accommodate an under-cover loading bay and rehearsal rooms. The main extension would be 12m high, the same height as a substantial part, but not the highest part, of the existing building. Other
150 smaller extensions would accommodate additional accommodation for performers, staff and patrons.
1.3 It is proposed to face the whole of the extended front and side elevations, and part of the rear elevation, in metal cladding. The main, glazed, entrance would be framed by a 27m wide by 6m high arch. Its underside would incorporate public art work. All windows, in the metal cladding, would be square and fitted diagonally. The existing felt roof would be replaced by a single ply membrane. The tallest part of the existing complex, above the main auditorium, would be faced in aluminium cladding, intended to lighten its colour and reduce its visual intrusion.
1.4 The application originally proposed galvanised metal cladding but, following discussion, the agent has promised to submit amended plans showing a stainless steel finish. Each steel shingle would be 0.5m square but, because of overlaps, they would appear as 0.4m square tiles. The stainless steel would be similar to the material used on the Wales Millennium Centre. It would have a matt finish and would be patinated with the same light bronze colour as the WMC. The panels would be textured to form ripples, which would be polished to reveal the underlying silver of the metal. The cladding would thus respond to changing light conditions.
1.5 The pavement would be widened (and Senghennydd Road’s carriageway, as a consequence, would be narrowed) by 2m for a length of 40m outside the theatre’s entrance, where sites for the display of posters would be identified. The application originally proposed a covered 15 space cycle stand (on the grass at the west end of Llanbleddian Gardens, on the opposite side of Senghenydd Road) with integrated poster sites but this has now been withdrawn from consideration. The application proposes 3 parking spaces for maintenance and staff and 2 disabled spaces, and outside seating at the south-west corner of the building.
1.6 The proposed development, and related internal works, are intended to significantly expand the theatre’s rehearsal, administrative and back-of-house facilities, and to transform, and make more spacious, the front of house facilities. Accessibility to both auditoria and most parts of the building would be enhanced.
1.7 The application envisages that all existing Senghennydd Road street trees would be retained. Some trees would be planted at the south-west corner of the site, next to the proposed staff/performers’ seating area.
1.7 The application is accompanied by a DAS which demonstrates a commitment to sustainable building standards.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The Sherman Theatre is located on the south-west side of Senghennydd Road. It is adjoined by University buildings. To its rear is a railway line, and to its east the locality is of a residential character.
151
2.2 Senghennydd Road is exceptionally wide, with mature trees in both pavements.
2.3 The existing theatre building is a somewhat austere building, faced in a dark brick. It is connected to university buildings, which were developed at the same time as the theatre.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 The theatre was developed in the early 1970’s.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The following policies of the City of Cardiff Local Plan are relevant to the consideration of this application:-
11 Design or aesthetic quality 12 Energy efficient design 17 Parking and servicing facilities 18 Provision for cyclists 19 Provision for pedestrians 20 Provision for special needs groups
4.2 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant to the consideration of this application:-
2.20 Good Design 2.57 Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements 2.63 Contaminated and Unstable Land 2.74 Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
4.3 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant to the consideration of this application:
Access, Circulation and Parking Public Art Waste collection and storage facilities
4.4 TAN 12 – Design
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation comments that the development is under the threshold requirement to provide a Transport Statement or Travel Plan.
The previous use of the site had 7 parking spaces with no disabled spaces. The proposed parking for the site includes 4 less parking spaces, but includes
152 2 disabled parking spaces. This provision is sufficient to satisfy the SPG requirements of a minimum of 1 commercial parking bay.
The SPG cycle parking requirement for such a development is 1 cycle stand per 10 employees and 1 stand per 30 seats for visitors. The provision of 15 cycle spaces is seen to be sufficient to satisfy the guidance requirements. These stands are stated to be covered and secured within the grounds; however no details have been submitted to demonstrate the layout and means of cover or security.
There is no requirement for a Travel Plan for such a development, due to the sustainable central location and the lack of acceptance by the visitors.
The construction of the development should not commence until a construction management plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
In the light of this application, he recommends seeking through a Section 106 obligation a financial contribution of £6,240, towards the provision of bus boarders to existing bus stops on Park Place, or of future stops in Senghenydd Road.
He welcomes the proposed highway works but requests a condition to control their detail.
5.2 The Waste Management Officer considers the refuse storage arrangements to be good.
5.3 The Parks Manager observes that his arboricultural officer met with the agent to discuss whether it would be feasible to retain the lime trees outside the site and to explore various footway layout options to minimise disturbance to their root systems.
He was pleased that the agent has expressed a desire to retain the existing street trees, if at all possible, bearing in mind that the proposed extension would result in the building line being brought forward to the back edge of the public footway. This could adversely affect the stability of one or more of the trees if structural (ie: supporting) roots have to be cut through during construction.
At the site meeting there was agreement that, being part of a generally mature avenue, these three trees are an important component of the visual amenity the street trees afford to Senghennydd Road, as well as helping to soften the somewhat ‘hard’ appearance of the more modern buildings along the west side of the road. The street trees are in scale with the surrounding architecture and also help to mask what would otherwise be a stark contrast between the more modern brick structures on the west side and the older traditional stone-built residential houses opposite. It was considered that these 3 trees would compliment the proposed extension to the Sherman.
153 In respect of the above-ground parts of the three trees in question, there appears little problem in retaining them, subject to a certain amount of judicious pruning to raise and / or cut back their crowns clear of the proposed extension on the Senghenydd Road elevation.
There is however uncertainty as to what extent the construction process would impact on the root system of the larger and more mature middle tree. The root plate of this tree has caused considerable localised disturbance to the existing footway and carriageway, both of which will require remediation and modification if the tree is retained. He notes that a localised ‘build-out’ into the carriageway is shown on the application drawing. He is happy with this suggested modification which would have to be considered and approved by Council’s Highways Manager. He understands that it may also incorporate a slight localised level increase to the footway.
In summary, he has no fundamental objection to this application. However, he does have concerns over the potential loss of one large mature existing street tree, if it subsequently turns out that major roots have to be cut during the construction process. Capita Architecture have indicated a willingness to work with Parks Services to hopefully achieve a positive outcome to this issue and he confirms that he will do all he can to try and retain this important tree.
If it should transpire that this tree has to be removed, due to safety concerns, Capita have confirmed that a semi-mature replacement would be provided by the developer.
5.4 The Strategic Planning Manager has no concerns about the additional proposed floor space. He welcomes the intention to undertake public realm enhancements in the vicinity of the site. A condition should be imposed to require full details of the enhancements to be submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
5.5 The Environment and Public Protection Manager recommends a condition relating to plant noise and makes a contaminants recommendation.
5.6 The Highways and Waste Management Officer has no drainage concerns.
5.7 The Council’s Access Officer has been consulted. Any response will be reported at Committee.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water have no objection. They request that drainage conditions be attached to any permission, and recommend that a sustainable approach to drainage should be taken, if possible.
6.2 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objection but has made recommendations which she would like to be incorporated into the scheme.
154 Recent crime data suggests that crime in the area is high compared with the rest of South Wales Police area with a total of 354 crimes recorded in April, May and June of 2009. The levels of burglary, robbery and anti-social behaviour, are high.
There is visible evidence of criminal damage at Sherman Theatre and, in order to minimise problems, she suggests that certain key features are built into the design of the development.
The frontage, with an entrance canopy consisting of a shallow recess, is designed to allow some protection to visitors, but not to be so deep as to prove an attraction for persons to loiter for the purpose of anti social behaviour, e.g. homeless sleeping rough.
Theatres offer terrorists and organised criminals a range of potentially significant targets and therefore sufficient measures should be taken into consideration with regard to glazing. She recommends that the glazing is laminated and fitted in a robust frame with deep rebates.
The loading bay gates should be lockable, of a solid construction, and with no footholds. The gates should remain locked when not in use.
The parking spaces located off a side access would enjoy little surveillance. Even though the office windows of the neighbouring building would overlook the parking spaces she recommends that the lighting be improved at this location, and that CCTV should also cover the area.
Gates should be installed to the building line of the proposed development extending to the boundary fence of Network Rail. The gate should be designed to avoid footholds and installed in such a way as to avoid gaps.
The proposed external seating area could prove an attraction to unauthorised persons, such as the local homeless and also persons with intent of criminal activity, especially as there are currently no security measures in place. The installation of gates at this location would help to eliminate this problem.
The cycle stand would be in an ideal position for maximum natural and passive surveillance.
She recommends that the applicant be made aware of the document ‘Counter Terrorism Protective Security Advice for Cinemas and Theatres’.
6.3 Network Rail have no objection but comment as follows:
FENCING This development would create a trespass and vandalism risk on the railway. In the interests of promoting public safety, it is recommended that a 1.8 metre high trespass resistant fence be erected parallel to but separate from the railway fence.
155 DRAINAGE Additional or increased flows of surface water should not be discharged onto Network Rail land or onto Network Rail’s culvert or drains. In the interest of the long-term stability of the railway, it is recommended that soakways should not be constructed within 10 metres of Network Rail’s boundary.
SAFETY No work should be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway or the stability of Network Rail’s structures and adjoining land. The developer should contact Network Rail before works begin.
GROUND LEVELS Network Rail needs to be consulted on any alterations to ground levels. No excavations should be carried out near railway embankments, retaining walls or bridges.
SITE LAYOUT All buildings should be situated at least 2 metres from the boundary fence, to allow construction and any future maintenance work to be carried out without involving entry onto Network onto Network Rail’s infrastructure. Where trees exist on Network Rail land the design of foundations close to the boundary must take into account the effects of root penetration in accordance with the building Research Establishment’s guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The design and siting of buildings should take into account the possible effects of noise and vibration and the generation of airborne dust resulting from the operation of the railway.
LANDSCAPING In the interests of safety, all new trees to be plated near Network Rail’s land should be located at a distance of not less than their mature height from the boundary fence. Details of planting schemes should be submitted to them for prior approval.
6.4 The Design Commission for Wales was consulted. Any observations which are received will be reported at Committee.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been publicised. No representations have resulted.
7.2 In support of the application the agent comments, in the Design and Access Statement, that the existing building, when constructed in the 1970s, was considered a modern and contemporary design for a theatre. Apart from works to the main entrance and foyer undertaken in the late 1980s the Sherman has remained unchanged. The massing of the building is a reflection of its function and, as such, the large panels of dull brown brickwork are the predominant elevational treatments. There is little or no connection
156 between the inside and outside on the elevation along Senghenydd Road, apart from the main entrance which is in a poor state of repair and is not fit for purpose. The entire length of the road is architecturally non-descript and is largely featureless. As it stands, the Sherman simply blends into the monotony of the brown brick streetscape. As a response to these factors, it has been a key design driver to create a façade that is distinct, lively, and one that will provide interest and a rhythm along Senghennydd Road.
The application proposals are focused upon the installation of a bespoke cladding system which has been developed in response to the existing streetscape and the brief provided by Sherman Cymru. This system has been carefully designed to break up the mass and length of the existing façade into smaller visually interesting elements, creating a texture and rhythm to enhance the street level experience of the building. The system proposed is a diagonally hung shingle of size 500mm x 500mm. These shingles would be robust in terms of maintenance and will be carefully articulated.
The material selected for these shingles is stainless steel, following concerns about the originally proposed galvanised cladding.
The stainless steel cladding would run along the length of the Senghenydd Road elevation, along the south-east elevation and will cover a proportion of the south-west elevation facing the railway line. The façade would be broken up by a series of punched windows at ground floor and second floor. These windows will also be orientated diagonally to co-ordinate with the cladding modules. Located on Senghenydd Road is the main entrance. At this location would be an entrance canopy, also formed from stainless steel and also a two storey glazed screen.
The main entrance of the building has been designed to allow maximum transparency to the external public areas. The entrance canopy would be well lit and has been designed to offer protection whilst also discouraging anti- social behaviour.
The provision of additional glazing to Senghennydd Road will also allow for more natural surveillance, in addition to this CCTV will be used in areas of reduced vision. All existing single glazed windows are to be replaced with new double glazed units which are specified ‘secure by design’.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The updating of the Sherman Theatre, and the facilities which it offers, is to be welcomed.
8.2 The key issue is considered to be the design and appearance of the extended building. The application originally proposed cladding the front and side walls, and part of the rear wall, of the building in 0.6m square galvanised metal shingles. Samples of the material were inspected on site, and it was concluded that such a finish would not be acceptable in design terms. Discussions with the agent resulted in an alternative finish – rippled reflective
157 stainless steel cladding shingle. This finish is considered to be a vast improvement on the galvanised metal shingle. It should significantly enliven the appearance of the building, and reflect light, and adjacent trees and buildings.
8.3 The application of aluminium cladding to the upper parts of the theatre building would brighten it up, reduce its dominance, and contrast with the stainless steel cladding.
8.4 The rear faces of the theatre are less obvious and important. The application originally proposed extensive use of galvanised metal cladding here. The agent has agreed to clad part of the south-west side elevation of the proposed extension entirely in glavanised metal shingles, but has agreed to use stainless steel, at least close to Senghennydd Road. This is considered to be a good compromise ensuring that principal elections would be clad in stainless steel.
8.5 The exteriors would make good provision for loading / unloading and for refuse storage.
8.6 The agent has agreed to plant additional trees at the rear of the building to soften the elevation facing the railway.
8.7 The application originally proposed a cycle parking storage building on the grass island in Llanbleddian Gardens, and to alter the shape of the island’s south-west end. It was considered that this would have looked intrusive and detracted from the appearance of the grassed island. The Operational Manager Transportation also had a concern about this proposal being on highway land. This element of the application was withdrawn by the agent. Cycle parking to serve the proposed extension will have to be located elsewhere, but this can be controlled by a condition.
8.8 The proposed public realm works, creating a wider and better quality area for pedestrians outside the theatre’s entrance are welcomed, though the detailed design of this area, and related highway works, will need to be controlled by condition. The 35 bus route now operates via Senghennydd Road, rather than Salisbury Road, during the evening, on Sundays and on public holidays. The £6,240 bus stop improvement contribution, recommended by the Operational Manager Transportation, could perhaps be put towards the provision, or enhancement, of stops in Senghennydd Road (possibly in connection with the proposed public realm works), or if not, towards the improvement of stops in Park Place. This issue would need to be looked at in detail at a later stage, in consultation with the Operational Manager Transportation.
8.9 It is not considered that the proposed extensions would have any adverse impact on the privacy or amenity of neighbours.
158 8.10 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer’s advice has been forwarded to the agent. It is recommended that the agent be formally invited to take this security advice into account (Recommendation 4).
8.11 Network Rail’s observations are not considered to give rise to any problem, as proposed works at the back of the theatre are limited.
8.12 It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the amended application, subject to conditions and a section 106 obligation to secure a £6,240 public transport infrastructure improvement contribution.
8.13 At the time of writing, requested amended plans have not been received, because of staff holidays and sickness problems at the agent’s architectural practice. Bearing in mind the desirability of securing the enhancement of the Sherman Theatre this report is tabled, in advance of the receipt of amended details. The agent has guaranteed that the provided amended plans and related information will be submitted by 7th October. Neighbours will need to be notified of the change in the type of metal cladding. The recommendation is therefore subject to no objections being received by a date which will allow for publicity and representations to be made.
159 160 161 162 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/1133/C APPLICATION DATE: 24/07/2009
ED: BUTETOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Moore Knight Ltd LOCATION: LAND OFF CELERITY DRIVE, ATLANTIC WHARF, CARDIFF PROPOSAL: 3 NO. 2 BEDROOM HOUSES, WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, AMENITY SPACE AND SPECIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development, a construction site management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall contain, but not be limited to, details including projected construction vehicle movements, site enclosure and access during construction works and measures to ensure the safe access to the existing footpaths surrounding the site. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development and to protect the amenities of adjacent occupiers.
3. F7Y Ground Gas Protection
4. C7Z Contaminated Land Measures
5. D7Z Contaminated materials
6. Prior to the commencement of development ground permeability tests shall be undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and a drainage scheme for the disposal of surface water to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be competed as approved. Reason: In order to encourage the use of sustainable drainage techniques.
7. C2N Drainage details
163 8. Foul water and Surface Water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System.
9. No surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and to ensure no detrimental impact to the environment.
10. Land drainage shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the environment.
11. E3D Retain Parking Within Site
12. C3R No Access Gates
13. C2H No Structures Within Curtilage
14. The first floor bedroom and stairwell windows to the south-west elevation and bathroom rooflights shall be non opening below a height of 1.8 metres above internal floor level and glazed with obscure glass and thereafter be so maintained. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected.
15. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure
16. E4A Implementation of Landscape Scheme
17. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 5th August 2009 and 2nd October 2009, attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
18. E1B Samples of Materials
RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours
164 Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Construction of three modern detached 2 bed dwellings, with provision for 6 off-street parking spaces, external amenity space and landscaping.
The dwellings would be sited in an off-set arrangement, the front/rear elevation of dwelling 1 being forward of dwelling 2 by approx. 0.6m and dwelling 2 being set forward of dwelling 3 by approx. 1.2m.
The proposed dwellings have accommodation to the ground and first floors, with the flat roof area accommodating a small sunken roof terrace. The stairways from ground to first floor and roof project from the side elevations (south) of the main buildings and have glazed walls to the south west and north east elevations.
The rear elevations (facing the canal) benefit from ground floor patio doors and full height windows to the upper floor, set within a portico feature having a recess of approx. 2.0m depth.
The dwellings are to be finished in vertical and horizontal timber cladding, with grey aluminium window frames. There are to be solar panels fitted to the flat roof surface.
165 The bedroom windows set in the south-west elevation are to be obscurely glazed, as are the stairway windows to this elevation.
1.2 The application includes a comprehensive landscaping scheme, including tree and shrub planting to the borders of the site with the existing footpaths.
1.3 The amended plans dated 5th August do not alter the originally submitted scheme, but show the ground level and building height data in a readable form. The amended plans dated 2nd October show high level windows inserted into the side elevation of ‘Dwelling 1’ facing the parking area and Celerity Drive.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site is an area of land situated between the dock feeder canal to the east and properties forming Newby Court to the west, with properties forming Moorby Court to the south and the Celerity Drive canal bridge to the north. The site has been previously completely cleared, but the passage of time has seen it become overgrown. There are no trees/shrubs of any significance.
2.2 The site slopes downwards from the west towards the canal and was historically residual landscaped space as part of the original consent for the redevelopment of the Atlantic Wharf residential area.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 04/2408C: An application for 4 three storey dwellings with parking. Withdrawn by applicant
06/1862C: An application for 4 dwellings with parking. Withdrawn by applicant
07/1426C: An application for 3 dormer style dwellings with parking. Granted
09/621C: An application for 3 dormer style dwellings and specification of landscaping. Granted
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Local Plan Policies: 7 – Protection of open space 11 – Design and aesthetic quality 17 – Parking and servicing facilities
4.2 Deposit Unitary Development Plan Policies:
166 2.20 – Good design 2.24 – Residential amenity 2.49 – Protection of open space 2.57 – Access, circulation and parking requirements 2.74 – Provision for waste management facilities in development
4.3 Planning Policy Wales (March 2002) TAN 12: Design
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Pollution Control Manager has no objection, subject to the imposition of conditions and recommendations in respect of contaminated land and noise.
5.2 The Operational Manager Transportation has been consulted and no comments have been received.
5.3 The Highways and Waste Manager (Drainage) requests that sustainable drainage techniques be investigated. 5.4 The Operational Manager Waste Management has no comment on the proposals.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Environment Agency have no objection.
6.2 Welsh Water have been consulted and no comments have been received.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Local Members have been consulted and no comments have been received.
7.2 Lorraine Barrett AM has been consulted and no comments have been received.
7.3 Adjacent occupiers have been consulted and letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 19 Haxby Court and 38 Llansannor Drive. The following points have been raised as grounds for objection:
• The proposals will result in unacceptable noise and disturbance during construction works; • The proposals will exacerbate the existing parking and highway safety problems that existing in the Celerity Drive area; • The proposals result in the loss of informal green space that should be retained as a wildlife haven;
167 • The proposals will result in loss of light/view to adjacent flats; • If the site is suitable for housing it should have been developed as part of the original housing estate scheme.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 This application, although for three 2 bed dwellings differs significantly form the proposals approved under planning permission 07/1426C dated 7th August 2007 in that the design of the dwellings is ultra modern, with a flat roof design replacing the dormer style, having a significant degree of glazing and providing detached dwellings instead of linked. Amended plans have been received which insert high level windows to the Celerity Drive elevation of dwelling no. 1 only in order to provide some relief from the relatively large expanse of timber cladding that was being presented to this elevation.
The proposals under consideration differ further from previously withdrawn submissions. The scale and number of units has been reduced from four three storey townhouses to three modern houses with an average 2 storey height. The standard of accommodation to be provided, including the available amenity space for future occupiers is considered acceptable.
8.2 The site was left as open space as part of the overall redevelopment of the area into residential use in the late 80’s/early 90’s. There is no record of the area being incorporated into any formal landscaping scheme, and even if this was the case, the period of time required for the retention as such has long expired. The site has been in private ownership for some time, with the land being fenced off from public use and cleared of all but a few larger trees during 2006. (The remaining trees, that were shown as being retained in the previous consent, have now been removed from the site) It is considered that the land in question does not hold any ‘significant’ amenity value in terms of the consideration of this application in light of LP policy 7 or UDP policy 2.49.
8.3 Policy 11 of the Local Plan and policy 2.20 of the deposit UDP require all new development to be of a good design, to pay proper regard to the scale and character of the surrounding environment and to not adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the area. The proposed dwellings are of an alternative design to the existing adjacent properties. However, the existing properties are themselves of differing scale, finishes and purpose, with a mixture of townhouses, detached & semi-detached dwellings and flats, finished in brick and render, offering little in terms of architectural quality or significance. In this case, whilst it is acknowledged that the design of the proposed dwellings is radical in context of the surroundings, it is considered that the design of the new dwellings do not result in significant harm to the visual amenity of the area which would warrant refusal of consent.
168 8.4 The application includes a comprehensive landscaping scheme which includes the provision of 24 trees with garden hedging and shrub planting to the site boundaries, in comparison to the 11 previously retained/planned trees. In this case, it is considered that the proposals under consideration here are a significant enhancement of the previously approved landscaping scheme.
8.5 With regard to the objections presented by local residents, the following comments are made:
• Although The Operational Manager Transportation has not commented on this application, there were no objections to the previously approved proposals (07/1426C & 09/621C) on parking or highway safety grounds. As the parking provision now proposed is identical to that previously approved it is reasonable to assume that the Operational Manager Transportation would make the same comment. In this case, there are no sustainable grounds to refuse consent in terms of parking or highway safety; • It is acknowledged that development can create noise and other disturbances, and can lead to increased traffic. However these occurrences would not warrant or justify refusal of consent. The applicant is to be advised of his obligations in respect of construction site noise, which is controlled under separate legislation; • The design and siting of the proposals, their impact on light and views to adjacent dwellings, these issues were considered previously and were found acceptable. In the case of this application, the amended design, replacing linked dwellings with detached, increases the amount of light penetration to the existing flats to the south west of the site. In addition, as there is no right to a view in planning legislation there would be no reasonable or sustainable grounds to refuse consent in respect of these issues; • The site is in private ownership and the trees/planting that were previously on the site did not benefit from any statutory protection. In this case, the site clearance was outside the control of the Local Planning Authority. There is no record that the land was part of the formal landscaping for the development of the area as a whole. Notwithstanding this, the relevant time period for the retention of the planting (5 years) has long expired. In addition, the Council’s Ecologist, in his comments relating to planning application 07/1426C indicated that the site had little to offer in terms of wildlife habitat and providing clearance works took place outside of nesting periods, there would be no sustainable grounds to refuse consent in terms of harm to the ecology of the area. (It should be noted that although the site is currently overgrown, it has previously been completely cleared).
8.6 Given that the proposed design of the dwellings is considered acceptable and that the current landscaping proposals represent an enhancement of the
169 previously approved scheme, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.
170 171 172 173 174 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01185/C APPLICATION DATE: 21/07/2009
ED: CATHAYS
APP: TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Cardiff Business Technology Centre Ltd LOCATION: CARDIFF BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, SENGHENNYDD ROAD, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF24 4AY PROPOSAL: REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING SITE TO CONSTRUCT NEW INNOVATION CENTRE FOR CARDIFF ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation with the Council under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, encompassing the matters referred to in paragraph 8.8 of the report, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. A. Details of the appearance, landscaping and layout, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.
B. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
C. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
Reasons: A. In accordance with the provisions of Article (3)1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Procedure) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2008. B, C and D. In accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The rating level of the noise emitted from fixed plant and equipment on the site shall not exceed the existing background noise level at any time by more than 5dB(A) at any residential property when measured and corrected in accordance with BS 4142: 1997. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.
175 3. The extraction of all fumes from the food preparation areas in any ancillary café or restaurant, shall be mechanically extracted to a point to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and the extraction system shall be provided with a de-odorising filter. Details of the above equipment shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority in writing and the equipment installed prior to the commencement of use for the cooking of food. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' guidelines, such guidelines having previously been agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.
4. C7Z Contaminated Land Measures
5. Any topsoil [natural or manufactured],or subsoil, to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced
6. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced.
7. Foul and surface water discharges shall drain separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
8. Surface water shall not drain, directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
176 Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, in the interests of health and safety, and the environment.
9. Land drainage run-off shall not discharge, directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, in the interests of health and safety, and the environment.
10. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site, showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with, shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Ground permeability tests shall be undertaken to ascertain if sustainable drainage techniques can be employed. The approved scheme shall be implemented. Reason. In the interests of effective and sustainable drainage.
11. C7S Details of Refuse Storage
12. No development shall take place until details of the provision within the site for loading, unloading and parking of vehicles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into beneficial use and be thereafter maintained and retained at all times for those purposes in association with the development. Reason: To ensure that an appropriate level of parking is provided and retained.
13. Details of provision for the secure and under cover parking of 41 cycles, or such lesser number as may have been accepted by the Local Planning Authority, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved provision shall be in place before the development hereby permitted is brought into beneficial use. Reason: To ensure that appropriate and adequate cycle parking provision is made.
14. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme of construction management shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of construction traffic routes, the site means of enclosure, the site access and wheel- washing facilities. The approved scheme shall be adhered to. Reason. In the interests of safety and amenity.
15. The buildings shall be constructed to achieve a minimum BREEAM (or subsequent equivalent quality assured scheme) overall 'Excellent' rating, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. To ensure that the building is sustainable.
16. The details which are submitted in discharge of condition 1B shall include the retention of the existing landscaping along the boundary
177 between the application site and the adjacent railway, some of the trees, and the stone boundary wall at the northern end of the site, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. These are attractive and effective elements of the existing site which should be worked around, rather than destroyed, in the interests of good design and visual amenity.
17. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme of environmental improvements to Senghenydd Road's footway, adjacent to the entire length of the application site, shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the resurfacing of the footway, kerbs, edging, draining, lining and signing, street lighting and street furniture. The scheme shall be complete before any part of the development hereby permitted, or shall be completed in accordance with a timetable which has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. To ensure that the adjacent public realm is appropriately upgraded and to accord with Policy 2.55 (Public Realm Improvements) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
18. The design of the suggested arch, at the north end of the application site, should pay regard to the design and scale of surrounding buildings and the site context. Reason. The illustrative drawings imply an arch which could be massive, look out-of-scale and dominate the locality.
19. Before the vehicular access is put in place, full details of its width, geometry and construction shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. To ensure that the design is appropriate for vehicles and pedestrians.
20. The development hereby approved shall be used for business purposes within Use Class B1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Reason. For the avoidance of doubt and to prevent other industrial uses which could cause a nuisance to nearby residents.
RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
178 RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
RECOMMENDATION 4: That the developer be requested to take into account the security advice of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer, the advice of the Waste Management Officer and of Network Rail, which has previously been forwarded to their agent.
RECOMMENDATION 5: That the developer be requested to liaise with the Council's Parks Service before commencing work which might affect street trees.
RECOMMENDATION 6: That the developer be informed that works to the public highway would be subject to agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This outline application proposes the redevelopment of the existing Cardiff Business Technology Centre (CBTC) and its replacement by a new, and larger, CBTC, housing small and medium enterprises (SME’s). The facility would adjoin, and be linked operationally, to Cardiff University. Appearance, landscaping and layout are reserved for later approval, but access and scale are to be considered now.
1.2 The application proposes two double fronted, and linked, buildings of similar length, both parallel to, and fronting onto, Senghenydd Road. The blocks would be separated, at ground level only, by a vehicular access from Senghenydd Road, opposite the north-west corner of Cogan Terrace Gardens. The main pedestrian entrance would be at the north end of the development from Cathays Terrace/Corbett Road, near a recently installed pelican crossing. A café/shop could be accommodated, within the building, near the main entrance. Because the pavement is considerably higher than
179 the application site here, the entrance would be at first floor height. The application envisages that a large free-standing arch would be developed at the north end of the site. The arch is intended to symbolise that the site is also a gateway to the City Centre. It would be of a similar scale do the proposed buildings. Its materials and colour have not yet been decided upon.
1.3 Each building would be sub-divided lengthwise either side of a central glazed corridor, which would bridge across the vehicular access, providing the connection between the buildings. The total lettable space would be 6700m2. The sub-division into smaller units will depend upon the need. It is envisaged that the rear units would overlook a 65 space car park between the proposed building and a railway line. Around 110 people would be employed in the centre.
1.4 The Senghenydd Road frontage of the southern-most building would be mainly three storey/partly two storey, and the northern-most block would be four storeys high towards Cathays Terrace, reducing to two storeys at the southern end. Because Senghenydd Road’s pavement rises towards Cathays Terrace, the four storey element of the building would appear to be of three storey scale from the street.
1.5 The application envisages a BREEAM excellent rating for the development.
1.6 It is intended to phase the development into two stages, so that existing tenants need not be displaced from the site. The northern-most block would be developed first.
1.7 The application is accompanied by a design and access statement.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is occupied by the existing Cardiff Business Technology Centre, which is accommodated in a two storey building and an adjacent single storey building. These buildings have aspects towards Senghenydd Road on one side, and to a railway on the other, with a 63 space car park behind them. The buildings are partially hidden from Senghenydd Road by a substantial stone wall, at the rear of pavement. They are divided into 36 units which range from 26m2 to 93m2; with a total floor space of 1860m2.
2.2 The environs of the site are, to its north-east, residential, and to its south-east and south-west, by University buildings. The site adjoins Cathays Station.
2.3 Mature street trees in Senghenydd Road overhang the site curtilage.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 The existing CBTC was developed on the application site in the 1980s.
180 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The following policies of the City of Cardiff Local Plan are relevant to the consideration of this application:-
10 Contaminated or unstable land 11 Design or aesthetic quality 12 Energy efficient design 17 Parking and servicing facilities 18 Provision for cyclists 19 Provision for pedestrians 20 Provision for special needs groups
4.2 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant to the consideration of this application:-
2.20 Good Design 2.47 Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation 2.55 Public Realm Improvements 2.57 Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements 2.63 Contaminated and Unstable Land 2.74 Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
4.3 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant to the consideration of this application:
Access, Circulation and Parking Restaurants, Takeaways and Other Food and Drink Uses Waste collection and storage facilities
4.4 Planning Policy Wales; March 2002 favours the redevelopment of previously developed land.
4.5 The City Centre Strategy envisages the development of a new technology innovation centre in Senghenydd Road.
4.6 TAN’s 12 – Design, and 18 – Transport
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation has been consulted. He observes that there is a requirement for a Travel Plan for such a development under the Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements SPG and recommends a condition.
The Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements SPG indicates that a development of the proposed scale should provide a maximum of 1 space per 40m² of GFA. The number of parking spaces for building users is in the range of 1 to 169. The 65 proposed spaces are acceptable.
181 The proposed development would result in a significant increase in local pedestrian traffic, between the site and adjacent residential and commercial areas, public transport facilities, and other local facilities. He therefore requests that the footway adjacent to the site be improved and resurfaced, and that a S106 contribution of £31,200 be sought towards the construction of a zebra crossing on the corner of Senghenydd Road.
The proposed development requires the following cycle stand provision:-
Employees Long Stay – 1 Stand per 200 m² - 34 stands Visitors Short Stay – 1 Stand per 1000 m² - 7 stands
The cycle parking requirement is therefore a total of 41 stands.
He recommends the imposition of conditions relating to construction management, cycle parking (41 spaces), car parking, loading and unloading, details of the vehicular access, and the upgrading of Senghenydd Road’s footway.
He requests a recommendation to inform the developer that the access and highway works, and any other works to the existing or adopted public highway would be subject to an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
5.2 The Waste Management Officer considers that the current refuse storage intentions are good. Her detailed advice on storage and collection arrangements has been forwarded to the agent.
5.3 The Parks Manager would be concerned if the new buildings, and their construction, were to impact adversely on the health and/or stability of adjacent street trees in Senghenydd Road’s footway. He suggests that a meeting with the agent might be helpful to discuss tree issues.
5.4 The Strategic Planning Manager points out that Action 7 of the Cathays Park chapter of the City Centre Strategy is “the development of a new technology innovation centre at Senghenydd Road. He has no concerns about the application.
5.6 The Operational Manager, Cardiff Harbour Authority, was consulted. No response was received.
5.7 The Environment and Public Protection Manager recommends conditions relating to plant noise, kitchen fumes, ground gas, contamination and imported soils/aggregates. He also makes contaminants and construction hours recommendations.
5.8 The Highways and Waste Management Officer recommends a condition to encourage the use of sustainable drainage techniques.
182 5.9 The Council’s Access Officer suggests that there should be two passenger lifts, in the proposed buildings, due to their nature and high occupancy.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water have no objection. They request that drainage conditions be attached to any permission. They observe that a sustainable drainage approach should be taken.
6.2 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer observes that crime is a problem in the area and is high compared with the rest of South Wales, with 607 recorded crimes occurring in the Cathays area. The incidents of robbery, vehicle crime, violence, anti–social behaviour are high, whilst the levels of burglary are above average.
The existing building has a very secure perimeter wall to the front, gated access control and CCTV. There is little evidence of damage or problems at the site. This contrasts with the Sherman Theatre a short distance away which has no perimeter security or defensible space around the building and displays evidence of damage, graffiti and litter from people drinking on the property.
Whilst it is appreciated that this is a mixed residential and commercial area, developers and local authorities are required to consider levels of crime and disorder in respect of any new developments and at the same time, promote the inclusion of architectural crime prevention measures into new projects.
The proposed development should provide site users with adequate parking facilities. Parking should be designed so that vehicles are provided with a safe and secure area to leave their vehicles as specified in the Association of Chief Police Officers ‘Secured by Design’ guidelines. This is particularly relevant in relation to high levels of vehicle crime in the area.
The application proposes 65 car parking spaces. It is important that this provides for adequate car parking provision to serve the proposed development as there is very limited on street parking in the Senghenydd Road area. He also offers further detailed advice about lighting, doors and windows, access and car park security.
He recommends the provision of a secure bike stand and bin enclosure, secured by means of a lockable gate, away from the building’s elevations or overhang.
He also recommends that the rear parking area and side elevations of the development should be protected by a robust perimeter boundary wall or fence to a height at least 2.1 metres high, to provide a secure rear parking area. No gaps should be present, and particular attention should be paid to the adjoining boundary with the railway line.
183 The front elevation of the building could be left open with defensible space being created with low level boundary fence or defensive shrubbery to the front elevation. This would have the advantage of improving casual surveillance of both the street and property and improving visual impact of the development.
He has offered advice about the installation and use of CCTV and alarms.
6.3 Network Rail has no objection in principle They do not envisage that rail patronage would increase as a direct result of this development and impact upon waiting capacity.
Although there is no allocation for S.106 contributions within the existing local plan, they note that the proposed Local Development Plan suggests transport protection, which they support and they therefore suggest S.106 contributions, from the developer to improve and upgrade the existing waiting, parking and disabled facilities at Cathays railway station.
They make detailed recommendations about fencing, demolition, drainage, building near their boundary, lighting, dust and vibration, and safety. Their advice has been supplied to the agent.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been publicised. No representations have been received.
7.2 In support of the application the agent states that the existing CBTC no longer meets the optimal requirements of knowledge based small and medium enterprises (SME’s). The proposal is to provide a fit for purpose facility which would enable Cardiff to compete, on a national basis, in the highly competitive Knowledge Economy.
7.5 In the Design and Access Statement the agent advises that the main drivers for the development are:
• Economic regeneration • Knowledge economy development • University engagement • Poor public realm quality • Lack of landmark • Fit for purpose building • Increased density for site efficiency
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The application is not of a scale or type which warrants an Environmental Statement.
8.2 The redevelopment of the site for the same use as is existing is appropriate, and accords with a City Centre Strategy action.
184
8.3 The submitted drawings show an intention to construct buildings which are substantially bigger and higher than the existing building. Scale is to be considered at the outline stage. The proposed buildings would not, it is considered, be seriously out of scale with their context, bearing in mind the substantial nearby university buildings. The highest parts of the proposed development would be set back from the nearest dwellings, and Senghenydd Road is particularly wide, reducing the possibility of the building being overbearing.
8.4 The application envisages a large arch at the north end of the site, but it has not been detailed to a degree that enables its impact to be assessed. It is considered that the applicant’s attention should be drawn to the need to ensure that any arch takes serious account of the scale of surrounding buildings and the site context. A condition could achieve this end.
8.5 The applicant has submitted a design and access statement which addresses all the main requirements in terms of access, character, environmentally sustainability, movement and community safety. In terms of the building performance the scheme endeavours to meet a BREEAM ‘excellent’ rating.
8.6 The proposed development is not considered to result in any serious loss of amenity, light or privacy to residential neighbours.
8.7 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer’s, the Waste Management Officer’s advice, and Network Rail’s and Welsh Water’s observations, have been forwarded to the agent. It is recommended that the developer be formally requested to take their advice into account.
8.8 Network Rail and the Operational Manager Transportation both recommend that the applicant should enter a S106 obligation to secure improvements to Cathays Station and the provision of a pedestrian crossing at the junction of Senghenydd Road and Woodville Road. Given that the application proposes a substantial increase in floor space, from 1860m2 to 6700m2, and that pedestrian traffic is, as a result, likely to increase, it is considered reasonable that the developer should contribute towards these facilities. Additional information is being sought from Network Rail about their needs, as no sum of money has been identified. It is recommended that the sum of £10,000 should be secured to fund improvements to waiting and/or disabled facilities at Cathays Station, and that £31,200 be contributed to fund the zebra crossing. It should be noted that the applicant does not consider it appropriate that the applicant should be expected to fund infrastructure improvements for a private company. However, Welsh Office Circular 13/97 ‘Planning Obligations’ is clear that S106 contributions can be properly used in connection with transport related matters.
8.9 Given the central and highly accessible location of the site, it is not considered that a Travel Plan condition is necessary.
185 8.10 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, and subject to a S106 obligation to secure a £10,000 Cathays Station contribution, and a £31,200 zebra crossing contribution.
186 187 188 189 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01191/C APPLICATION DATE: 14/07/2009
ED: BUTETOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Rightacres Property Company Limited LOCATION: LAND AT DUMBALLS ROAD (FORMER CONSTRUCTION HOUSE AND LAND TO THE NORTH), BUTETOWN, CARDIFF, CF10 5FE PROPOSAL: APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY (3 YEAR) CONSENT FOR A CAR PARK ON AN UNDEVELOPED SITE EARMARKED FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
1. The proposal fails to accord with paragraph 8.4.5 of Planning Policy Wales, Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 18: Transport, Policy 17 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, Policies 1.N and 1.K of the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (to 2016) Deposited Written Statement, the Council’s adopted “Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements” supplementary planning guidance note, and the Council’s adopted Local Transport Plan as it seeks to provide a level of non-operational car parking in the central area of Cardiff (as defined by the “Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements” SPG) that is inconsistent with the Council’s parking standards, and which would therefore undermine objectives in the Council’s development plan and Local Transport Plan, which encourage increased use of public transport services and reduced dependency on the private car as a mode of transport.
RECOMMENDATION 2 : That the Chief Legal and Democratic Services Officer be authorised to issue an Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the cessation of the unauthorised use of the site as a car park.
190 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application proposes the continued use of land off Dumballs Road – the former Lloyds Beal site - as a public car park. The applicant indicates that the current use as of the site as a car park started on 1/01/09, and that the land accommodates 237no. standard car parking spaces, 10no. motorcycle spaces, and 13 disabled spaces. The opening hours of the car park are stated as: 0700 to 1900 hours, each day. The land is described, in the application form, as “earmarked for future commercial development”.
1.2 The application is supported by a design and access statement, Transport Statement, and Transport Summary Note.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is the former Lloyds Beal site, located on the eastern side of Dumballs Road, south of Canal Parade, approximately 0.5km from the city-centre. The site is currently in use as a car park but previously accommodated industrial units.
2.2 The Canal Park recreation ground adjoins the application site on its eastern elevation with industrial uses to the north and south. There is existing office development at the northern end of Dumballs Road, where it meets Penarth Road, approximately 300m from the application site.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 N/A
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Planning Policy Wales (2002) Planning Policy Wales TAN 12: Design Planning Policy Wales TAN 18: Transport
4.2 Adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996): Policy 17: Parking and Servicing Facilities Policy 19: Provision for pedestrians Policy 20: Provision for special needs groups Policy 36: Alternative use of business, industrial and warehousing land
4.3 South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991-2011: Policy MV11: Parking Policy MV13: Equality of access
4.4 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003):
191 Policy 1.N : Car parking Policy 1.K: Movement and transport priorities Policy 2.37: Change of use of industrial and warehousing land Policy 2.57: Access, circulation and parking requirements Policy 2.58: Impact on transport networks
4.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance Safeguarding land for business and industry, June 2006 Access, circulation and parking requirements, June 2006 Local Transport Plan, August 2000. City Centre Strategy, 2007-2010
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Strategy and Enterprise (Transportation Policy and Development) Object to the application in principle on the basis that the development of standalone parking facilities is contrary to the principles, aims, and objectives of national and local policy.
5.2 Strategic Planning and Environment (Pollution Control) No comments.
5.3 Strategic Planning and Environment (Regeneration Group)
The site is located within an area identified for comprehensive regeneration within the approved Dumballs Road Area Planning Brief (SPG June 2006). As such, it is important that any proposed development supports the Council’s aspirations for the area as defined within the approved SPG. Any new development within the Dumballs Road area would be expected to satisfy the Masterplan Principles of the SPG. The proposed use as a surface car park does not accord with the principles of the SPG. Notwithstanding the above, the acceptability of the site as a temporary car park is primarily an issue for the Transport Policy and Development Section.
5.4 Strategic Planning and Environment (Waste Management) The site plans make no reference to the storage and collection of waste and recycling. The applicant/agent should note that a commercial contract is required for the collection and disposal of all commercial waste.
5.5 Highways and Waste Management (Drainage) No objection in principle but the applicant refers to the disposal of surface water via sustainable drainage techniques. In light of this, and to minimise any risk of flooding and pollution, the following condition is requested: “No development shall take place until ground permeability tests have been undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be
192 utilised and a drainage scheme is submitted and approved by the Planning Authority”.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Environment Agency The application site lies entirely within zone C1 as defined by the development advice map referred to in Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN 15). However the EA completed a flood mapping exercise in September 2007 and the results of this study demonstrate that the proposed site lies outside the extreme flood outline (0.1%). Therefore the EA have no objection.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Neighbours have been notified. The application has been advertised on site and in the press.
7.2 The Cardiff and Vale Coalition of Disabled People (CVCDP) advise that consideration should be given to “satisfactory access, circulation and spaces”.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Transportation Policy and Development raise an objection to the scheme as it would fail to accord with the strategic transport objectives, as detailed in national policy, the Local Plan and Local Transport Plan.
8.2 The objection raised by Transportation Policy and Development accords with the approach taken on other parking proposals on vacant land in Dumballs Road. For example, application 01/2090/C: an application for temporary parking on land west of Dumballs Road, pending redevelopment of the site for residential purposes, was refused planning permission on 22/02/2002. The application was refused as the proposal would have provided a level of non- operational parking that would be inconsistent with the Council’s parking standards and strategy, therefore undermining an objective of the development plan: to encourage greater use of public transport facilities.
8.3 The applicant has submitted a “Transport Summary Note”, which provides a supporting statement for the use of the site as a temporary car park. The statement notes that the applicant, “Rightacres Property Company Limited (RPCL)”, have delivered a significant level of investment and jobs in the city- centre over the last 20 years, providing wealth and increasing the spending profile of the city. But due to the economic situation, RPCL wish to use this vacant land for public car parking.
The statement further notes that RPCL has strengthened the commercial viability of the city-centre and has developed and let these more difficult sites with unwavering success. RPCL consider that the Council, which has
193 benefited from these developments, should allow the site to be used as a temporary car park. RPCL will develop the site in the near future but consider that the proposal would allow the company to consolidate their position during these uncertain economic times.
8.4 The “Transport Summary Note” notes that further justification for the scheme is provided in the submitted Transport Statement. The summary note continues with a presentation of “key facts” about the location of the site. It also reiterates RPCL’s commercial commitment to the Butetown area and city-centre, including a commitment to develop the site in the future in accordance with the City Centre Strategy. RPCL claim that there is a current shortfall in the availability of existing city-centre parking, which would be addressed by this proposal as the site is 500m from the city-centre – accessed by good quality footpaths - and the core of retail activity is migrating further south as a result of SDII and the reopening of John Lewis. The summary note concludes that the provision of temporary facilities at this location is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the local highway network and can be considered as a short-term facility to address the current shortfall in city-centre parking, which is likely to be the case for some time whilst the city-centre is being redeveloped.
8.5 The applicant’s supporting statement is noted. However, an objective of the Council’s adopted Local Transport Plan is to “achieve greater use of public transport, walking and cycling, and less use of the car and truck”. Similarly, the Council’s adopted “Access, circulation and parking requirements” SPG seeks to limit traffic growth, reduce reliance on the private car, and encourage alternative means of travel. The application site is located within a central area – as defined by the SPG – where non-operational parking is not required for new development due to the area’s accessibility by public transport.
8.6 Development plan policy , contained in Policy 17 of the Local Plan and Policy 1.N of the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (to 2016) Deposited Written Statement, requires parking provision to be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted guidelines – these are contained in the “Access, circulation and parking requirements” SPG.
8.7 National planning guidance, as expressed in Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 18: Transport, is clear that planning applications for public car parks should be refused when they fail to meet the strategic aims of the development plan and Local Transport Plan.
8.8 It is noted that some recent applications for temporary public car parks in the city-centre have been granted planning permission. For example, 2no. applications for the use of parcels of land off John Street - applications 09/1148/C and 09/875/C – have recently been granted planning permission. However these planning permissions were allowed due to their location - in the
194 city-centre - and ability to compensate for the temporary loss of public parking spaces in the city-centre as a result of SDII works. Both permissions were subject to a condition which restricted their use as public car park until 1/04/2010. In comparison, the current application proposes use of land for a 3 year period; also, although within 500m of the city-centre, the site is more likely to provide commuter parking facilities for office employees at the northern end of Dumballs Road, rather than city-centre users.
8.9 It is considered that the proposed use of the application site would undermine objectives in the Council’s development plan and Local Transport Plan, which seek to encourage greater use of public transport and a reduction in reliance on the private car, particularly for trips into the city-centre. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.
195 196 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/1293/C APPLICATION DATE: 24/07/2009
ED: ADAMSDOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Z Malik LOCATION: LOCOMOTIVE INN, 62-66 BROADWAY, ADAMSDOWN, CARDIFF, CF24 1NH PROPOSAL: DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDING, CONSTRUCT 3 STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMPRISING 18NO ONE BEDROOM DWELLINGS ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in paragraph 8.10 of this report, planning permission be GRANTED subject to:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The permission relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered: 2113-P02 (dated 25/08/09); 2113-P10COL, 2113-P10 (dated 13/08/09); and plans numbered 2113-P11A, 2113-P11, 2113- P08A, 211-P09A (all dated 12/08/09), attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. C1B Materials Specification Required
4. C20 Architectural Detailing
5. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure
6. Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall take place until details of facilities for the storage of refuse containers have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facilities approved shall be provided before the development is brought into beneficial use. Reason: To secure an orderly form of development and to protect the amenities of the area.
197 7. No development shall take place until details of the secure, enclosed cycle storage area – shown on drawing number 2113-P02 - have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being put into beneficial use. Thereafter the cycle parking spaces shall be maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the construction phasing and construction management of the development shall be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority, to include details of access and egress of construction vehicles, construction operating hours, and construction vehicular routes. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved construction management plan. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to secure an orderly form of development.
9. Any topsoil [natural or manufactured],or subsoil, to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced.
10. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in
198 accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced.
RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The developer is advised to contact Western Power Distribution prior to the commencement of construction works.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Welsh Water Advise that foul and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site, no surface water or land drainage shall be allowed to connect to the public sewerage system, and no part of the building will be permitted within 3 metres of the centreline of the public sewer. If a connection is required to a public sewer, the applicant/developer is requested to contact Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water. A water supply can be made available to serve the proposed development.
199 RECOMMENDATION 6: Bats often roost in houses and other buildings, and work on these buildings may disturb a bat roost. All bats and their roosts are protected against disturbance under UK and European legislation. If works are planned on a building in which bats are roosting, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) must be contacted. They must be given reasonable time to advise as to whether the works should be carried out and, if so, the method to be used. This legislation does not apply to bats in the living area of a dwelling-house.
If work has already commenced and bats are found, or if any evidence that bats are using the site as a roost is found, work should cease and CCW should be contacted immediately.
For buildings other than a dwelling-house, no works of site clearance, demolition or construction should take place unless a licence to disturb these species has been granted in accordance with the relevant legislation.
The Cardiff office of CCW can be contacted at :
Unit 7, Castleton Court Fortran Road St Mellons Cardiff CF3 0LT Tel : 02920 772400 Fax : 02920 772412
For further advice on bats please contact :
The Bat Conservation Trust Unit 2, 15 Cloisters House 8 Battersea Park Road London, SW8 4BG Tel : 02920 7627 2629 Fax : 020 7627 2628
RECOMMENDATION 7: The applicant should note that South Wales Police advise: the site should be well lit with all lighting conforming to BS5489, all communal entrances and the rear courtyard access should be have secure access control, and all glazing in doors and windows should conform to BS and UKAS standards and be laminated to a minimum thickness of 6.4mm.
RECOMMENDATION 8: It is recommended that information about public transport options is provided to future residents. The Council’s Transportation section can provide leaflets and information in relation to bus and cycle routes.
200
RECOMMENDATION 9: The energy saving measures identified in the applicant’s energy statement should be implemented.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This full application proposes a development of 18 apartments on the site of a former pub, the “Locomotive Inn” – the former pub building has been demolished.
1.2 The application indicates that the 18no. one-bedroom apartments proposed would be accommodated within a three storey building. The proposed scheme involves 4no. gables, finished in painted render - 2no. on the Broadway/north-west elevation, and 2no. on the Helen Place/south-west elevation. The rest of the building comprises a flat-roofed structure, finished with timber cladding on the first and second floor with painted render at ground floor level. Amended plans show that the flat-roofed element of the building would be approximately 8.2m in height, with the pitch of the gables approximately 10.3m in height; the original submission contained gables of approximately 10.9m in height.
1.3 On the Broadway elevation, a small front amenity area is proposed, enclosed by steel fencing, which would set the building back by approximately 1m from the existing building line. The proposed building would directly abut the footway on the Helen Place/south-western elevation.
1.4 A rear amenity area is proposed, which would be accessed from an existing side lane that leads from Helen Place. The proposed rear amenity area extends to slightly more than 100sqm and would accommodate 18no. cycle spaces, refuse storage facilities, and a small, informal, recreational area.
1.5 In terms of pedestrian access, the plans, as originally submitted, show 2no. single street doors, set slightly back from the building line - one each on the Broadway and Helen Place elevation – with an additional gated entry on the Helen Place elevation. Amended plans have been submitted, which replace the gated entry on the Helen Place/south-west elevation with a recessed, single street door. No on-site parking would be provided.
1.6 The application is supported by a design and access statement.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application relates to the site of the former Locomotive pub – now vacant and boarded up – on the corner of Broadway and Helen Place. The
201 application site is located within the Cliftton Street/Broadway district centre, as defined on the City of Cardiff Local Plan Proposals Map.
2.2 The former pub building is a 2 storey structure with a dual pitch roof, approximately 8.5m at ridge height and 6m at the eaves; a similar height to other properties in the application site’s frontage.
2.3 Whilst existing buildings in the application site’s frontage are 2 storey, the existing gabled buildings opposite the application site, at numbers 43 and 45 Broadway, utilise the roof space and read as 3 storey structures. Also, there is extant permission (05/2268/C) for a 3 storey structure, to accommodate 13no. flats, on the cleared parcel of land, opposite the site, on the corner of Broadway and Helen Place.
2.4 The ground floor of the adjoining premises at no. 68 Broadway is vacant, a flat is provided at first floor level. The units opposite the site, on the Broadway frontage, generally accommodate ground floor commercial uses with residential accommodation at first floor level.
2.5 An electricity substation, accessed via a side lane off Helen Place, is located at the rear of the site - this would be unaffected by the proposal. The rear lane separates the application site from the back gardens of houses at numbers 1 and 2 Helen Place.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 89/810/R – Small extension to public bar to accommodate pool table, permission granted: 13/06/89
3.2 08/2739/C – Demolish existing building and erection of 18no. apartments, approved by planning committee on 18/02/2009 subject to a S106 agreement – as yet, unsigned.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 National Planning Guidance Planning Policy Wales (2002) Planning Policy Wales TAN 12: Design (June 2009) Planning Policy Wales TAN 18: Transport Planning Policy Wales TAN 21: Waste
4.2 Adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996): Policy 11: Design & Aesthetic Quality Policy 17: Parking & Servicing Facilities Policy 18: Provision for Cyclists Policy 19: Provision for Pedestrians
202 Policy 31: Residential Open Space Requirement Policy 49: District and Local Centres
4.3 South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (1991-2011) H7: Enhancement and Conversion
4.4 Cardiff Unitary Development Plan: Deposited Written Statement (October 2003): Policy 2.20: Good Design Policy 2.21: Change of use or redevelopment to residential use Policy 2.24: Residential Amenity Policy 2.26: Provision of Open Space, Recreation and Leisure Policy 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Policy 2.74: Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
4.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (June 2006) Open Space (March 2008) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007) Cardiff Residential Design Guide (March 2008)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Strategic Planning and Environment (Pollution Control) No objection subject to conditions and advisory notes relating to construction site noise, imported soils, and contaminated land.
5.2 Culture, Leisure and Parks (Parks Services) The proposed development is subject to Policy 31 of the Local Plan (open space). As no recreation/play space is being provided on-site, the developers will be required to make a financial contribution towards the provision of off- site open space or the improvement (including design and maintenance) of existing open space in the locality. The financial contribution being sought is £15,209.
5.3 Highways and Waste Management (Waste Management) The bin storage area shown on the submitted plans is noted but may not be large enough to accommodate the recommended provisions for 18no. flats. Bulk containers are specified for the development and these will need to be accessible by collection vehicles. The bin storage area should be sensitively designed in order to integrate with the existing built environment. The agent should be referred to the Waste Collection and Storage Facilities SPG.
5.4 Highways and Waste Management (Drainage) No objection in principle but details should be forwarded to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water.
203
5.5 Strategy and Enterprise (Transportation Policy and Development) The application is considered to be acceptable subject to the applicant agreeing to provide a sum of £12,360, which would be used to secure improvements to existing bus stops on Broadway. Conditions are also recommended which would secure details of cycle storage facilities, and a construction management plan.
5.6 Strategic Planning & Environment (Natural Environment Group) Request that an advisory note is attached to any grant of planning permission in order to protect bats and their roots.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Western Power Distribution WPD have provided a plan, which shows electricity apparatus within the vicinity of the site. All WPD equipment should be assumed to be Live until WPD prove otherwise. Safe working practices should be adhered to when excavating on site in the vicinity of WPD equipment.
6.2 Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru No objection subject to conditions/advisory notes relating to the public sewerage system.
6.3 South Wales Police The Police note that crime is a problem in the area, particularly vehicle crime and anti-social behaviour. The Police consider that the scheme should accommodate more off-street parking in order to reduce the likelihood of residents becoming victims of crime. A number of other recommendations are made: the site should be well lit, conforming to BS5489, secure access control should be installed on the main pedestrian entrances, the cycle store and bin store should be secure, windows and doors should meet BS standards with windows fitted with laminated glass, door recesses should be no more than 600mm, and the rear courtyard area should be secured by a wall/fence of 1.8 m height with an enclosure installed on the front boundary.
6.4 Cardiff Bus No comments received.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Local Members and neighbours have been notified, and the application has been advertised in the press and on site.
204 7.2 A resident at number 57 Helen Place has written to state that the development of the area is supported but concern is expressed about the lack of car parking facilities and the impact this may have on existing residents.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Outline application 08/2739/C, an application for 18no. apartments, was considered and approved - subject to the signing of a section 106 agreement, to secure financial contributions towards open space and public transport improvements - by planning committee on 18th February 2009. The legal agreement has yet to be signed but the principle of residential development of the site has nevertheless been established.
8.2 The proposed scale of development is considered acceptable and is similar to the previous outline application 08/2739/C. Application 08/2739/C involved a 3 storey building with an eaves height of approximately 8m, with a 10.8m ridge height; the scheme also proposed gable elements on both the Broadway and Helen Place elevations, the gables having with a ridge height of 9.5m. By comparison, the main building proposed in the current application is about 8m in height, with the maximum height of the gables at approximately 10.3m.
8.3 In terms of scale, it should be also noted that a residential development of 3 storey height (7.5m eaves height, 10.8m ridge height) was granted planning permission in July 2006 (permission 05/2268/C) on the cleared parcel of land (numbers 58-60 Broadway) opposite the application site - another end of terrace, “book-end” development.
8.4 It is considered that the proposed design and finish of the scheme - painted render gables interspersed with flat-roofed, timber clad elements - would, whilst representing a contemporary form of architecture and generating a visually interesting form of development, be a sympathetic addition to the existing built environment.
8.5 It is not considered that the proposal would result in any significant adverse amenity impact. On the south-east elevation, the building footprint extends to the existing rear lane but at this point, no window spaces are proposed so there would be no overlooking over the rear garden area of properties on Helen Place. An existing single–storey building extends fully across the rear of number 68 Broadway, which adjoins the site, so there is no concern about potential overlooking from the windows on the proposed north-eastern elevation.
8.6 The proposed scheme involves 4no. different design of 1no. bedroom flats. All the flats would provide an internal floor area of at least 30sqm, this is considered to represent a reasonable level of living area. The proposed
205 layout of the scheme would ensure that each flat would have a reasonable outlook.
8.7 A rear amenity area is proposed, which would accommodate a small, informal, recreation area, cycle storage facilities, and refuse storage area. The rear amenity area provides a basic level of external amenity space but is similar to the level of amenity space proposed in the previous outline application (08/2739/C). The agent has been made aware of Waste Management’s concern about the scale of the waste refuge area a condition has been recommended, which would secure additional waste storage details. The Transportation Policy section have requested that further details of the cycle storage area are secured by condition.
8.8 The comments of South Wales Police are noted. In terms of the lack of off- street parking provision, the Council’s Transportation policy section have reviewed the application and consider that it is acceptable, subject to securing a financial contribution towards public transport facilities. Further details in respect of the design of the bin enclosure and cycle storage area would be secured by condition, if permission is granted. The points made in relation to lighting, secure access and glazing standards would be dealt with by Recommendation 7. Finally, amended plans show a reduction in the depth of the door recesses on the pedestrian entrances on the Broadway and Helen Place elevations in order to accord with the advice of South Wales Police.
8.9 In terms of the comments of the resident at number 57 Helen Place, Transportation Policy note that there is no parking provision within proposed development but consider that, providing improvements to public transport facilities within the vicinity of the site are secured by a financial contribution, the proposal is unobjectionable.
Section 106
8.10 In terms of financial contributions: Parks Services have requested a sum of £15,209 to be put towards the provision of off-site open space or the improvement (including design and maintenance) of existing open space in the locality; Transportation Policy request a financial contribution of £12,360 towards the improvement of existing bus stops on Broadway. The agent has confirmed that the applicant is willing to pay the requested financial contributions prior to beneficial occupation of the scheme, via a Section 106 agreement.
8.11 This application was reported to Planning Committee in September with a recommendation to approve, subject to the conditions above and legal agreement, but subject also to an additional condition (condition 11), which required each dwelling to be designed and constructed in order to meet Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes in accordance with recently released
206 national planning guidance: MIPPS 01/2009. However the applicant has challenged the requirements of this condition as the application was submitted before the energy standards in MIPPS 01/2009 came into effect: 1st September 2009. Nevertheless the applicant has subsequently submitted an energy statement, identifying measures such as insulation and ventilation, which would be implemented in order to secure energy saving.
8.12 It is accepted that the application was registered before the requirements of MIPPS 01/2009 came into effect but the energy saving measures identified in the energy statement are considered to represent a commitment from the applicant to achieving an energy efficient, sustainable development. Recommendation 9 has been added to the report, which would encourage the implementation of these measures.
8.13 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions and subject to the signing of an agreement under Section 106 of the Planning Act.
207 208 209 210 211 LOCAL MEMBER AND MP OBJECTIONS
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01316/C APPLICATION DATE: 24/07/2009
ED: ADAMSDOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Dr Ahmed Darwish LOCATION: THE HALL, CECIL STREET, ADAMSDOWN, CARDIFF, CF24 1NW PROPOSAL: CONVERT MULTI-PURPOSE HALL INTO 3 SELF- CONTAINED FLATS ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to secure the open space contribution referred to in paragraph 8.4 of this report, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The existing door opening, from Cecil Street into the proposed ground floor flat's bedroom shall, before the ground floor flat is brought into beneficial use, be converted into a window opening, to mirror the window on the opposite side of the main central door opening. Reason. In the interests of good design, visual amenity, and the living conditions of the occupier of this flat.
3. Apart from the alterations required by condition 2, the front elevation of the building shall not be altered unless details of alterations have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, in which case the alterations shall accord with the approved details. Reason. To ensure that insensitive alterations are not made.
4. Before the first floor flat is brought into beneficial use, the existing side facing windows shall have been bricked up, using a brick which matches the existing surrounding bricks. The walls of the building shall not be rendered. Reason. To protect the privacy of neighbours and in the interests of visual amenity.
212 5. The cycle store shown on drawing no. A02 R3 shall be omitted, and the bedroom of the ground floor flat shall be enlarged into this space. Reason. In this case, it is preferable to achieve a spacious and light bedroom to the ground floor flat, rather than the alternative of a cramped cycle store and bedroom.
6. Full details of the appearance, including a cross-section, of the glazing over the proposed lightwell shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to its installation. The approved glazing, and the lightwell beneath it, shall have been completed before any flat hereby permitted, is brought into beneficial use. Reason. To ensure that the glazing is well designed, and that future residents enjoy daylight in their flats.
7. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered A02 R3 and A05/4. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
8. D7S Details of Refuse Storage Within Premise
RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 3: That the applicant be requested to liaise with the neighbours at no. 87 Pearl Street, whose outbuilding appears to intrude into the application site.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This application originally proposed alterations to, and the use of, an old hall as six flats. The front wall was to be rendered over and painted white. Most existing detailing, including a decorative gable and two side chimneys, was to be removed. New front windows were to be installed in different locations to the existing windows. The front door opening was to be replaced by a smaller opening, with a recessed front door. The existing first floor windows in the hall’s south-east wall were to be blocked up. 2m x 1.6m light wells were to be cut into each side of the building, allowing the installation of windows to light
213 rooms and corridors, and the provision of two small yards. Existing first floor windows in the south side of the building would be bricked up.
1.2 Following discussion with the agent, the scheme has been amended as follows:
(i) Three flats (one per floor) are proposed, instead of six. (ii) The front elevation of the building, including the window and door openings, would remain as now. (iii) Apart from enjoying light through the existing front windows, the building would be lit by inserting windows into the ridge of the roof towards the rear of the building. Beneath these windows would be a 3m x 1.5m lightwell, serving all three floors. Doors, on the ground floor, would open into a small courtyard beneath the lightwell. The upper floors’ rooms would be lit by windows in the walls of the lightwell. The top flat would also have six rooflights. (iv) It is no longer proposed to render the walls.
1.3 The building is rhombus shaped and, as a result, many of the rooms in the proposed flats would lack right angled corners. The application proposes a central entrance and internal staircase. Each flat would occupy the full length of the building and have a floor space of around 90m2. On the ground floor, the application proposes a cycle store next to the front door.
1.4 The building has no curtilage for the provision of any amenity space.
1.5 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The existing building appears to be of similar age to the houses around it. Indeed, there were openings in the south-east wall of the building connecting its ground floor to the back gardens of adjacent houses in Pearl Street. A shed, behind the takeaway at 87 Pearl Street, actually still projects, through an opening in the wall, into the side wall of the hall.
2.2 The building is not listed but its elevation to Cecil Street incorporates several features which add to its character – for instance, contrasting bricks, ornamentation, arches over windows and doors, a pediment and a chimney above each front corner. The application survey drawings are somewhat vague and do not show many of these details. The other walls are of red brick and of little interest.
2.3 The side and rear walls of the building abut back gardens.
214 2.4 The building, in particular the roof, is not in good repair, but there is no obvious sign of instability. Internally, there is a ground floor, and a high ceilinged first floor which goes into the roof.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 It is understood that the building has a history of community use, most recently as a martial arts teaching centre.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The following policies of the City of Cardiff Local Plan are relevant to the consideration of this application:-
11 Design and aesthetic quality 12 Energy efficient design 17 Parking and servicing facilities 18 Provision for cyclists 19 Provision for pedestrians 31 Residential open space requirement
4.2 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are relevant to the consideration of this application:-
2.20 Good design 2.21 Change of use or redevelopment to residential use 2.24 Residential amenity 2.26 Provision of open space, recreation and leisure 2.57 Access, circulation and parking requirements 2.74 Provision for waste management facilities in development
4.3 TAN 12: Design, and the Council’s SPG’s relating to Waste Collection and Storage, Open Space, and Access, Circulation and Parking are relevant.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Transportation commented, in relation to the originally proposed six flats, that the development is under the threshold requirement to provide a Transport Statement or Travel Plan.
Although there is no requirement for a Travel Plan for such a development, he recommends that residential welcome packs be provided to tenants, upon residency of the dwellings, to encourage sustainable transport behaviour.
215 Successful use of the welcome packs should assist in reducing car journeys to and from the site, and therefore help to mitigate the parking, and moving vehicle impact, of the development on the surrounding streets. He does not consider there to be any need for a construction management plan or a public transport financial contribution.
He notes that there is a demand for on street parking in the area generally. The Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements SPG indicates that this scale of development should provide a minimum of one, to a maximum of two, car spaces per unit. The number of parking spaces required for residents (of the originally proposed six flats) is therefore in a range of six to twelve.
No off street parking is proposed. However, the previous use for this site as a community hall would have created a higher number of vehicle movements and parking than that of the proposed dwellings. Due to the previous permission of this site, it is deemed acceptable in respect of parking.
As stated within the SPG the requirement for such a development is 1 stand (cycle parking space) per bedroom.
The original proposals included 12 stands within the hallway, which was acceptable to him.
He has been consulted on the amended application. Any further observations will be reported at Committee.
5.2 The Highways and Waste Management Officer has no drainage concerns.
5.3 The Strategic Planning Manager observes that the Hall has been unused since 2008, and the proposed residential use is therefore acceptable. The use of the building as a multi-purpose hall is given no protection in land use policy terms in this location. The application raises no land use policy concerns.
5.4 The Parks Manager, taking account of Policy 31 of the Local Plan, sought an off-site open space contribution of £1,560, in relation to the originally proposed six flats, which should be achieved through a S106 agreement.
He has been consulted on the amended application. Any further observations will be reported at Committee.
5.5 The Environment and Public Protection Manager has no comment on the application but makes a construction hours recommendation.
5.6 The Waste Management Officer was originally concerned about the refuse storage proposals, but her concerns were addressed.
216 She has been consulted on the amended application. Any further observations will be reported at Committee.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water initially requested the imposition of some drainage conditions. However, when questioned, Welsh Water indicated that new replacement observations would be issued. These will be reported at Committee.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The original application was publicised on site and in the press, Local Members have been consulted and neighbours were notified. Cllr. Howells objected to the application, in its original form. He considered that the application proposed a total over-development of the site, and that it was intended to cram too many people into the building. He welcomes the conversion of the building, respecting some of the features of the existing hall. He had serious safety concerns (should there be an emergency) and quality of life concerns – both for future occupiers of the flats, and existing neighbours. Cllr Howells also forwarded details of issues, which were troubling neighbours, on their behalf; and most of which are listed below, in 7.2. He asked if the agent would permit neighbours to see a copy of the structural survey, which the agent states has been carried out.
He has been reconsulted on the amended plans. Any further comments will be reported at Committee.
7.2 The occupiers of nos. 10, 65 and 71 Cecil Street, and 87, 89, 91 and 93 Pearl Street raised the following concerns about the application, in its original form:
(i) The application proposes inadequate car parking. Parking is already a problem in the area. Presumably occupiers of the flats would be entitled to parking permits? (ii) Although indoor cycle parking is proposed, it is unlikely that all future occupiers would be cyclists rather than drivers. (iii) There is concern over the agent’s statement, on the application form, that there was consultation with neighbours or the local community before the application was logged. The agent stated, on the form, that “a TV programme was filmed giving details of development, without taking down the building.” Neighbours don’t accept that reference to a TV programme, which they haven’t seen, amounts to consultation. There should have been proper consultation. (iv) the building has not been properly surveyed from adjacent land (back gardens). (v) The proposed flats would have only one entrance/exit. (vi) Cutting voids out of the building is likely to weaken its structure.
217 (vii) They wonder where rain water, falling into the roads, would drain to. (viii) One neighbour worries if the street tree, outside the front of the building, would be retained. (ix) They wonder where bathroom, toilets, boilers and extractors would vent to and where any drainage manholes would be located. (x) To carry out the development would require access via a neighbours’ gardens, which would result in disruption, inconvenience and mess.
All of these households have been notified of the amendments to the application. Any new representations will be reported at Committee.
7.3 Jenny Willott, MP, says that she shares a constituent’s concern that no off- street car parking would be provided, and that the proposed change of use is likely to increase parking demands in Cecil Street and other surrounding roads. Parking is becoming more of a problem in this area, she understands, because of recent flat conversions.
7.4 In response to some of the issues raised by neighbours the agent has advised:
(i) The TV programme is called ‘Under the Hammer’ but he knows no details of the programme. (ii) The agent’s structural engineer has not produced a formal report, but has advised that the building is structurally stable for the envisaged work. (iii) Prior to the commencement of work, Party Wall Notification would be served on neighbours. All related issues would be discussed at that stage.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 It was considered that the originally proposed elevational alterations would have detracted from the character of the building, removing interesting detailing, and resulting in a poor design. The amended application pays more respect to the building by maintaining the front elevation largely as it is (though a redundant door would be converted into a window).
8.2 The originally proposed six flats, and the need for an internal bulk bin and cycle store, would have resulted in a poor quality living space for future residents. Reducing the number of flats from six to three, and introducing a lightwell, towards the rear of the building, would dramatically improve conditions, by enabling all rooms to enjoy some natural lighting, and offering more spacious flats. A bulk bin store is not required for the lesser number of flats.
218 8.3 It is unfortunate that there would be no outdoor amenity space, but this would be impossible to achieve without the demolition of part of the building, which would make the flats smaller and be expensive.
8.4 The agent has agreed to enter a S106 obligation with regard to a £1,560 off- site open space contribution (in accordance with Policy 31 of the Local Plan, and the related SPG) recommended by the Parks Manager. This sum should, however, be reduced to £780, as the Open Space SPG applies a £260 per bedroom contribution, where fewer than 8 dwellings are proposed.
8.5 It will be noted that the Operational Manager Transportation, recommended that a condition be imposed requiring secure and sheltered parking for 12 cycles. The original application plan included an internal cycle and refuse store, but this facility would have been difficult to access, ventilate, and keep clean, and it is considered would not have worked, in practice. The amended application shows a small cycle store just behind the front door. However, this facility would intrude seriously into the ground floor flat’s bedroom, creating a most unattractive room. It is considered that this is a case where to require internal cycle storage would be impractical and unreasonable. A condition is recommended requiring this store to be omitted and the bedroom to be enlarged. It is not considered necessary to invite the developer to contact the Operational Manager Transportation about sustainable transport welcome packs when the scale of the development is so small.
8.6 The concerns expressed by neighbours about lack of consultation by the developer are noted, and understood, and the agent’s claim, on the application form, that consultation has taken place by making a TV programme which he, and neighbours, have not seen, is less than helpful. Nevertheless, there is no requirement for an applicant to consult with neighbours (who have been made aware of the application by the Local Planning Authority). Neighbours have asked to see a report on the structural condition of the building, but there is no obligation upon the developer to supply any such information (though the developer will need to satisfy himself that the building is, or will be, sound). The developer would have to liaise with the neighbour whose shed intrudes into the south side wall.
8.7 It is recommended that, subject to the developer entering a S106 obligation to secure an off-site open space contribution of £780 planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions.
219 220 221 222 LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01368/C APPLICATION DATE: 14/08/2009
ED: GRANGETOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr Mohammed Amin LOCATION: 17 CORPORATION ROAD, GRANGETOWN, CARDIFF, CF11 7AN PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF CONDITION 3 & 4 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 08/00416/C TO ALLOW TAKE AWAY SALES AND EXTENSION OF OPENING HOURS TO 09:00AM- 11:00PM ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED for the use of the ground floor as a restaurant in accordance with planning permission no. 08/416C, without compliance with the previously imposed conditions 3 & 4, but subject to the following new condition:
4. No member of the public shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on the premises between the hours of 23:00 and 09:00 on any day. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity of the site are protected.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The applicant is advised of the need to comply with the other conditions attached to permission 08/416C.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application seeks planning permission to remove condition 3 and vary condition 4 of planning permission 08/416C to allow hot food takeaway sales at a restaurant premises and to extend the opening hours to 09:00 – 23:00.
1.2 The application as originally submitted sought the variation of condition 4 to allow the premises to open between 09:00 and 00:00 each day, however in response to comments from the Council’s Pollution Control service the applicant has amended the proposed closing time to 23:00 each day.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 A restaurant premises which occupies the ground floor of a two storey terraced commercial property, located at the north end of the busy traffic route of Corporation Road, approximately 90m from the junction with Penarth Road. The first floor is in use as a residential flat, accessed separately from the front.
223 2.2 The site is located within the Penarth Road/Clare Road Centre within a terrace of 6 commercial properties, adjoined by a betting shop at no. 13-15 and a wedding service shop at no. 19. The remaining units within this terrace accommodate a Yemenese café at no. 21 and a money transfer shop at no. 23. There is a terrace of residential dwellings on the opposite side of the road.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 08/416C – planning permission granted for change of use of this property from retail to a restaurant.
3.2 09/1048C – planning permission granted for variation of condition 2 of planning permission 07/989C to extend the opening hours of no. 1-3 Corporation Road (Arabian café) to 08:00 – 23:30.
3.3 09/560C - planning permission granted for variation of condition 2 of planning permission 06/507C to extend the opening hours of no. 21 Corporation Road (Yemenese café) to 08:00 – 22:00.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site lies within the Penarth Road/Clare Road District Centre as defined by the proposals maps of the City of Cardiff Local Plan and Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
4.2 The relevant City of Cardiff Local Plan Policies are as follows:
Policy 17: Parking & Servicing Facilities
Policy 20: Provision for Special Needs Groups
Policy 49 (14): District & Local Centres
4.3 The relevant policies within the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are as follows:
Policy 2.24: Residential Amenity
Policy 2.36: District & Local Centres
Policy 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements
Policy 2.64: Air, Noise & Light Pollution
Policy 2.74: Waste Management
4.4 Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance:
“Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food & Drink Uses”
224 “Waste Collection and Storage Facilities”
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation has advised that an objection to removal of condition 3 would be very unlikely to sustain, given the precedent at no. 21 Corporation Road, therefore has no objection.
5.2 The Pollution Control Manager originally objected to the application from a noise and air pollution view point, on the grounds that the increased opening hours and takeaway sales until midnight would increase the likelihood of noise nuisance. However, he has advised that there would be no objection to hours of operation until 23.30 as the premises is located within the Penarth Road/Clare Road District Centre.
5.3 The Chief Waste Management Officer notes that no details of refuse and recycling storage have been provided and advises that an extension in the hours of opening would lead to an increase in the production of waste, this should be reflected with an increase in storage capacity on site or an increase in the frequency of collections from the appointed waste contractor.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 None.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been publicised by letter, site and press notice, the occupiers of nos. 14, 16, 18, 20 & 24 Corporation Road objected to the original proposal for the following reasons:
(a) It would bring a lot of noise and trouble to the residents at night, the take away is opposite a row of resident’s houses where people sleep and have the right to peace at night. (b) There are sufficient late night take aways on Penarth Road and Clare Road and these are not affecting resident’s houses, there is no need for such a late night take away on Corporation Road.
7.2 Local Members were consulted, Cllr Montemaggi objected to the original proposal for loss of amenity to the area. The local area has a number of take- always open until late. An increase in the hours would adversely impact upon the local area and lead to litter problems.
7.3 Neighbours and Local Members have been re-notified of the amended opening hours, any representations will be reported to committee.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Condition 4 of planning permission 08/416C limited opening hours to 10:00 – 20:00 in order “to ensure that the amenities of neighbours are protected” and
225 condition 3 restricted hot food takeaway sales in order “to ensure that the use of the premises does not prejudice the amenities of the area”, so the main issues in terms of this application is whether extending the closing time until 23:00 hours and allowing hot food take away sales would have an adverse impact on residential amenity.
8.2 Policy 49 of the Local Plan and the Council’s adopted “Restaurants, takeaways and other food and drink uses” SPG provides the development plan policy framework against which this proposal is assessed. The SPG notes that when assessing applications for extended opening hours, the main objective is to “restrict any further intensification of the disturbance caused to surrounding residents”.
8.3 Pollution Control have considered the implications of the application in terms of noise and air pollution. An objection would have been raised by Pollution Control on the grounds of increased noise and odour nuisance if the application related to the variation of the condition in order to allow the premises to open until midnight. However the applicant has amended the description of development and the application now seeks a closing time of 23:00. Given that the application site falls within the Penarth Road/Clare Road district centre, Pollution Control are unable to object to any closing time up to 23:30, whilst recognising that a soundproofing condition has been imposed on the previous permission to protect the amenity of residential accommodation at first floor level above both the application site and adjoining premises.
8.4 The advice provided by Pollution Control accords with guidance in the “Restaurants, takeaways and other food and drink uses” SPG, which, in paragraph 4.12, states that in district centres, such as Penarth Road/Clare Road, opening hours will usually be restricted to 11.30pm; although it goes on to state that where residents are nearby, an earlier closing restriction may be imposed. In this case, an earlier closing time of 23:00 is considered reasonable due to the presence of residential dwellings directly opposite this particular part of the District Centre.
8.5 It is not considered that removal of the hot food takeaway restriction would adversely affect the amenity of nearby residential occupiers given the advice of the Pollution Control Manager. It should be noted that this condition was previously imposed at the request of the Transportation Officer due to the potential to generate parking issues, however he now feels that the condition is unsustainable, given the recent precedent set at no. 21 Corporation Road (planning permission 09/560C) to allow hot food take away use.
8.6 It is therefore not considered that the extended opening hours and use as a hot food take away would unreasonably affect the residential amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers on the opposite side of Corporation Road given that the property is located within an established District Centre.
8.7 In terms of other food and drink premises in the vicinity of the application site, only two of the other ten ground floor commercial units in the District Centre
226 frontage between nos. 1 and 23 Corporation Road are in A3 (food and drink) use: nos. 1-3 Corporation Road (Arabian café) and 21 Corporation Road (Yemenese café). These units benefit from extended opening hours through recent planning permissions 09/797C & 09/560C which allowed opening until 23:30 and 22:00 respectively.
8.8 The representations from Cllr Montemaggi and residents of Corporation Road with regard to noise disturbance are not considered to justify refusal of planning permission given that the closing time has been reduced to 23:00 and bearing in mind the lack of objection from the Pollution Control & Transportation Officers.
8.9 It is noted that details have not been submitted by the applicant in order to pursue the discharge of outstanding conditions of permission 08/416C; these conditions relate to refuse storage, soundproofing and kitchen extraction. The development control enforcement section has been notified in order to secure compliance with these conditions.
8.10 It is thus concluded that the amended application is acceptable in terms of the policies listed above, and it is recommended that planning permission be granted for removal of condition 3 and variation of condition 4 of planning permission 08/416C.
227 228 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01424/C APPLICATION DATE: 12/08/2009
ED: BUTETOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Lindstrand Aeroplatforms (Cardiff) Limited LOCATION: Part Waterfront Park, Off Britannia Quay PROPOSAL: THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF WATERFRONT PARK TO ACCOMMODATE THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A 'SKYFLYER' TETHERED AEROSTAT AND VIEWING 'GONDOLA' AND LANDING PLATFORM AND ELECTRICALLY POWERED WINCH RETRIEVAL, (WINCH HOUSED WITHIN THE LANDING PLATFORM STRUCTURE) ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
1. The proposal by reason of its siting, scale, massing and design would constitute an overbearing and incongruous form of development which would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the park and its setting and the neighbouring buildings contrary to policy 11 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan 1996 and policy 2.20 of the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan Deposit Written Statement 2003.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This proposal seeks to site a tethered Aerostat balloon with associated gondola and landing platform on land currently used as open space adjacent to the Waterguard Public House and Cardiff Bay Visitor Centre, off Britannia Quay, Cardiff Bay.
The balloon & associated development would be sited for a period of 5 years, with operation of the balloon ‘flights’ taking place between 08:00 and 23:00 daily.
1.2 The Aerostat (shaped similarly to a Barrage Balloon), would measure approx. 17m in diameter (tapering towards the tail end) and would have a horizontal dimension of approx. 31m nose to tail. There are also three tail fins which increase the overall width of the balloon to approx. 22.8m and the height (balloon only) to approx. 24.4m.
1.3 When not in flight, the Aerostat would have a ‘high moored’ height of approx. 30.0m (to the top of the tail fin) which, in times of adverse weather (wind speeds in excess of 70 knots), would be reduced to the ‘low moored’ height of
229 approx. 27.0m. The mooring facilities include a retractable nose tower, four winch mooring points and the main cable winch, all contained within the platform area.
1.4 When in flight, the mooring tower folds in on itself and is contained within the platform area. The balloon ascends to a maximum height of approx. 150m with the viewing gondola having a height of approx. 120m (to the base of the gondola). The viewing gondola would be capable of taking up to 15 passengers & crew (weather dependant).
1.5 The proposals include the placement of a landing platform of approx. 12.0m diameter, with a decked area approx. 0.85m above ground level. The platform would have a steel handrail of approx. 1.1m in height giving the platform a total height above ground level of approx. 1.95m. Access to the landing deck would be via stairs and a portable disability access platform lift.
1.6 It is intended that the existing ‘Locky's Cottage’ would be utilised as a ticket office for the development.
1.7 The amended plans do not alter any facet of the proposed development. The amendment relates to the representation of the adjacent Atradius building, which was originally not an accurate depiction.
1.8 A powerpoint presentation has been submitted in support of the application, containing supplementary information and computer generated images of the balloon in relationship to its surroundings. The additional information lists numerous benefits of having the proposal in Cardiff e.g.
• This is the first such facility in the World; • Is capable of flying in winds up to 40 knots thereby increasing the availability of the ride throughout the year; • Would provide an iconic landmark for Cardiff; • Providing a key tourist destination; • Can link into other events and promotions in the vicinity.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is an area of grassed and planted open space measuring approx. 1917sqm, with 1802sqm being the open grassed area. The site is to the southern end of Roath Basin and to the north of the lock gates. The site is owned by Associated British Ports, but is accessible to the public.
2.2 The site is bounded to the north by the Waterguard Public House (a Grade II Listed Building). To the south is the Cardiff Bay Visitor Centre and the Norwegian Church. To the east of the site is Locky’s Cottage (also a Grade II Listed Building)
230 3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 90/0479R – Outline Consent for mixed uses: 800,000 sq ft office space plus retailing, residential, hotel, opera house, leisure uses, visitor centre and POS. Renewed under 94/0305R.
07/462C – Planning permission refused for the construction of a themed adventure golf course with entrance and lighthouse feature.
08/1497C – Planning permission granted for the placement of a Ferris Wheel from July to September 2008.
08/2713C – Planning permission granted for a ‘Hiflyer’ tethered balloon, viewing gondola and winch house.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The relevant Local Plan Policies are:
Policy 7 – Protection of Open Space Policy 11 – Design and Aesthetic Quality Policy 34 – Inner Harbour Principle Business Area
4.2 Relevant policies in the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan October 2003 are:
Policy 2.20 – Design Policy 2.31 – Central and Waterfront Business Area Policy 2.49 – Protection of Open Space
4.3 Other relevant Planning Guidance includes:
Planning Policy Wales (March 2002) Planning Policy Wales: Technical Advice Note 12 ‘Design’ (June 2009) The City Centre Strategy 2007 - 2010 Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Open Space’ (June 2000)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Transportation has no objection.
5.2 The Operational Manager Waste Management has no objection, but comments that no refuse details have been submitted. He further comments that waste must not be stored on the highway and that commercial and domestic waste should not be mixed and that a commercial contract is required.
5.3 The Strategic Planning Manager (Policy) comments that there would be no sustainable grounds to object to this proposal given that the principle of the
231 development has been established by planning permission 08/2713C. He further reiterates his comments in respect of that application, which stated:
The policy framework for this advice is as follows:
• Planning Policy Wales (March 2002) • City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996): • Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (Deposit October 2003) • Open Space SPG (June 2000) • City Centre Strategy 2007-2010 • South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (April 1997)
Use
The property is located within the Inner Harbour Principal Business Area of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan and within the Waterfront Business Area of the deposited Unitary Development Plan. The site is also within the ‘Waterfront’ area of the City Centre Strategy (2007-2010).
The site is identified in the City of Cardiff Local Plan as land with planning permission for Open Space. Since the Local Plan designation, the site has been redeveloped into the Britannia Park recreational facility.
Strategic Planning Considerations
The main land use planning policy issues relate to: 1. Whether the proposed Hiflyer Balloon and associated structures (ClassD2) is an appropriate land use within the IHPBA / Waterfront Business Areas. Policy 34 of the Local Plan states that within the Inner Harbour PBA, offices together with leisure facilities, public open space, housing and associated retailing will be favoured subject to considerations of scale, location, design, amenity and transportation. In addition, Policy 2.31 of the UDP permits commercial leisure facilities amongst other uses within the Waterfront Business Area. In view of the above, it would be difficult to sustain a land use planning policy objection to the proposed outdoor leisure facility, subject to detailed considerations. 2. Whether the loss of (part of) Britannia Park is acceptable. Policy 7 of the local plan states that: “Development proposals involving the loss of recreational or amenity open space, whether in public or private ownership, will only be permitted where:
232 (i) They would not cause or exacerbate a local or city-wide deficiency of recreational open space and the open space has no amenity or nature conservation importance; or (ii) The developers provide satisfactory compensatory open space.”
Given that the proposed development would result in the loss of open space, it is suggested that the Council’s Culture, Leisure and Parks Service be consulted regarding the acceptability of this proposal, particularly in relation to satisfying the above Policy criteria.
3. City Centre Strategy Considerations. Strategic Objective 4 of the City Centre Strategy’s ‘Waterfront’ area is “to attract further tourism and leisure facilities to the area” whilst Action 7 is “to secure a major leisure/tourism venue on land adjacent to Roath Basin and waterfront areas of Cardiff Bay”. The proposal is therefore supported by the approved City Centre Strategy. Strategic Planning (Regeneration) Advice: Whilst the principle of the proposed land use is considered acceptable in Policy terms, it is recommended that the Council’s Culture, Leisure and Parks Service be consulted to ascertain the acceptability of the loss of public open space at this location.
5.4 The Operational Manager Harbour Authority has no comments on the proposal.
5.5 The Parks Development Officer has no objection as the Council do not maintain the land. He further comments that as the Parks Service consider this area of open space to be an ‘events’ area, the proposed use as an entertainment/attraction is in keeping with this.
5.6 The Pollution Control Manager has no objection subject to conditions in respect of plant noise. He also recommends that the applicant be advised in respect of contaminated & unstable land.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Environment Agency Wales have no objection.
6.2 Western Power Distribution have no objection.
6.3 The Health & Safety Executive have been consulted and have no objection in terms of the siting of the proposal within their consultation distances of major hazard sites.
6.4 The Civil Aviation Authority have no objection and provide advice on procedures to be undertaken in order to operate the proposed facility. A copy of this advice has been forwarded to the applicant.
233 6.5 Associated British Ports have written in support of the proposal stating that:
“As landlords of the proposed development site, it is considered that the scheme will provide an excellent facility for both tourists and locals alike, making a big statement of intent for Cardiff's credentials as a destination, and befitting of the similarly bold approach taken with the designs of the Senedd and the WMC. Perhaps this could even be the key driver of success for the south side of Roath Basin development. Only a small percentage of the park will be precluded from the public (well below what is required by the outline planning consent for the original development of the park in the early 1990s), and the amenity of adjacent occupiers will not be damaged, with the nearest block of flats a good distance away.”
They further state that ABP (as owner of the land) is in discussions with the developer in respect of the proposed use of the land.
6.6 The South Wales Police Architectural Liaison Officer has been consulted and no comments have been received.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Local Members have been consulted in respect of the original submission, the amended plans and additional information. No comments have been received.
Lorraine Barrett AM has been consulted and no comments have been received.
7.2 Adjacent occupiers have been consulted and letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of no. 14, 18, 52, 71, 74, 115 and 117 Adventurers Quay and two further (unaddressed) representations have been received from 2 occupiers of Adventurers Quay who raise the following objections:
• Inappropriate dominating scale of the balloon in relation to the existing surrounding buildings and land; • Loss of only grassed open space in the bay to the public; • The large balloon will adversely affect the visual amenity of the prestigious waterfront area; • The additional parking demand will exacerbate the existing lack of parking provision; • Trees would be lost to the detriment of the open space; • Noise from the balloon would spoil the existing tranquillity of the area; • The balloon would be an ugly addition, which would not attract more people to the bay which already has thousands of visitors every week; • The balloon would be nothing more that a gigantic advertisement which would adversely affect the character and amenity of the area; • There are safety concerns in respect of the use of the facility by drunks or high spirited people;
234 • Vehicular access to the site raises safety concerns in respect of pedestrians using the open space; • The are safety concerns in respect of the proposal attracting troublemakers trying to gain access to the balloon or to try and deflate it using air weapons. If the balloon deflates, would one of these people become trapped and asphyxiate? • Loss of privacy and amenity due to the rise and fall of the balloon throughout the day/night, with up to 1350 people being able to look into living room and bedroom windows; • The balloon would be better sited at Bute Park, or on waste ground within the docks area; • There is no attraction in just going up and down (not actually flying) at a cost that would be prohibitive for some; • The lock keepers cottage is not currently used as a ticket office as indicated in the application.
In addition to the above the following objections have been received from the occupiers of no. 91 Adventurers Quay:
We wish to object to the proposed change of use on the following grounds:
(i) Size. At 31 metres long and 32 metres high the proposed AEROSTAT is totally out of scale with the current Waterfront Park properties and out of keeping with the foreseen activities for the site. The approved planning brief for Waterfront Park described the use of the site as a '....focus for small scale retail/leisure activity such as pubs and restaurants. Built form on this park would be low profile, compatible with its parkland setting and should not occupy more than 25% of the park area. The park would become a destination for journeys around the Basin". The balloon is most definitely not small scale, low profile or compatible with the parkland setting and an application to construct a building of this size at this location would undoubtedly have been refused. The balloon will dominate the grassed area and will dwarf the current buildings, being at least twice the height of the adjoining Waterfront public house, Lightship and Tourist Information Office and the nearby Norwegian Church. The length of the balloon is such that location on the grassed area wilt only be possible by the removal of 5 trees and even then the sweep of the balloon during windy conditions will border the pathway and entrance to the present children's playground and the playground itself.
(ii) Loss of Open Space use. The proposed activity will seriously restrict the continued use for recreational purposes of the open space at Waterfront Park by the residents of, and visitors to, Cardiff Bay including the use of the present children's playground. A structure equivalent in size to the nearby Atradius building hovering 6 metres above the ground just cannot be ignoredl Such a loss of use of this open space would have a major impact on availability in the local area in contravention of planning proposals. At a time when the obesity statistics in Wales reach record proportions the emphasis should be on increasing the amount of open space available for recreation purposes, not reducing it.
235
(iii) Quality of life. The applicant refers to the previous use of the site for similar attractions (eg the Ferris Wheel). This is misleading. Installations on the site have to date been of a temporary seasonal short term nature and approval has been for a maximum 3 months duration and their operation has been restricted with closure by 21:00 hrs at the latest. The current application is for a permanent change of use and the proposed daily operation from 8.00 am to 23.00 hrs for 365 days of the year will cause a significant intrusion into the daily lives of local residents and staff in the nearby business premises. Other aspects of the proposal which may also have a negative impact but for which no details are included in the application include the proposed location of the mobile container / standby generator, lighting (including intruder lighting) and the projection of advertising onto the main hull of the aerostat. It is hoped that the Planning Office will provide information on these in its report to the Committee. From an operating viewpoint the activity is most definitely not (as described) environmentally friendly.
(iv) Visual amenity. Cardiff Bay with its renowned skyline has deservedly been the recipient of International awards. The bodies responsible for Planning and Development in Cardiff Bay are to be complemented for these achievements. It is however important that such high standards are maintained. The Planning office report relating to the earlier application accepted that the installation would be an intrusion into the current landscape recording that "The visual amenity of the area as a whole is, obviously affected by the proposal". Nevertheless the report recommended approval because of the applicant's acceptance a 5 year approval term and the potential additional tourism that the activity could draw to the Cardiff area. With regard to the former we do not consider that a consent of 5 years to be an imposition for the applicant and that 2 years should be sufficient for the Planning Office to determine the impact of the operation. With regard to tourism appeal, HIFLYER / SKYFLYER activities may indeed increase numbers visiting such sites as Leeds Castle or seaside venues such as Torquay (current HIFLYER locations). Such a presence is unlikely however to prove a major influence on visitors to Cardiff. Tourists are attracted to Cardiff - the capital of Wales - because of the rightful international reputation that it enjoys and international attractions that it provides and to Cardiff Bay because of its own unique maritime history which has been so effectively portrayed in such architectural gems ranging from the Oval Basin / Roald Dahl Plass to beautiful modern sculptures (all hinting at the history of the docks) such as Scott's departure for the Antarctic. It is difficult to find any such link - historic or otherwise - with a tethered hot-air balloon. Where available, leisure activities such as the HIFLYER / SKYFLER provide, at best, an additional outlet for tourists visiting an area to make use of, but their absence does not deter people from visiting. In fact, possibly the opposite could apply in Cardiff Bay given the potential for possible loutish behaviour resulting from the proposed operation of activities so late into the evening (23:00hrs). We consider that any tourism benefits that the balloon might bring to the area are far outweighed by the negative impact that it would have on loss of open space and the visual amenity of the area.
236
(v) Safety concerns. The Design and Access Statement in support of the current application includes the statement "As minor amendments to approved schemes are not permitted in Wales we are advised by the Planning authority that a fresh application is required". On the contrary however, the new application reflects major changes including a completely different balloon design. We are advised by the Planning Office that these changes have been made in response to objections raised in respect of safety and the size of the installation and its impact on the available open space. With regard to safety we are pleased to see that notice has finally been taken of the detailed information on safety issues relating to the winch, moorings etc provided to the Planning Office by local residents. However, we continue to have safety concerns with respect to the siting of the balloon on Waterfront park close to nearby buildings. While the tragic HIFLYER balloon accident in Lucerne which we referred to in our objection to the earlier application was ultimately due to human error, the accident inspector also found that the proximity of the balloon to nearby buildings was "sub optimal" and a significant contributing factor. In other words the tragedy might not have occurred if the balloon location had been in a more open space. (Note that this siting practice applies in the applicant's other balloon operations at Leeds Castle and Torquay).
Our concerns are not reduced by the proposed new balloon which is described by the applicant as "a Unique Project", has been chosen because it can operate in considerably higher wind conditions than the previous balloon and will allow operation in all but storm conditions. Potential flights of the balloon from a congested location in bad weather conditions can only increase the danger risks to others!
With respect to size, the applicant claims, in his list of the reasons why the Waterfront park site was chosen, that "adequate open space is still left for Public enjoyment" This is clearly not the case. Although the platform size is reduced and there is no longer the need for a winch house, the balloon is now 31 metres in length (and 32 metres high) and the new implementation will continue to dominate the open grass area in Waterfront Park. With regard to the choice of site most of the reasons quoted by the applicant would equally apply to a presently unused site on the "Docks-side'1 of the Roath Basin which is, more or less, a "mirror image" of the Waterfront Park area but is a more open unused space without any established buildings (other than another Lock Keepers cottage). The opening of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Coast Path now provides access to this side of the dock. Implementation on this Roath Basin site would not result in any need for disruption or danger to current Waterfront Park activities including the children's play area, or the need for removal of trees. Implementation on this site (or another on the "Docks-side" of the Roath Basin) would also be supported by the statements in the approved City Centre Strategy namely Strategic Objective 4 relating to the 'Waterfront' area which is "to attract further tourism and leisure facilities to the area" and Action 7 is "to secure a major leisure/tourism venue on land adjacent to Roath Basin and waterfront areas of Cardiff Bay". These Strategy
237 statements would appear to be clearly directed at development of the undeveloped areas of the waterfront areas rather than to established sites covered by current "open space" planning conditions. "Waterfront" in the Strategy statements was not making specific reference to Waterfront Park. Further development of the docklands requires some "Pioneering" input. Perhaps Mr Lindstrand would welcome the challenge! Implementation on an alternative open site would clearly greatly reduce our safety concerns.
(vi) In conclusion. The grassed area of Waterfront Park is much used and appreciated by the residents of Cardiff Bay properties, people working locally and visitors alike. The nature of the proposal is such that it will have an impact on many of the varied current entertainment facilities provided in the Bay ranging from the likes of the annual demonstrations by the Royal Navy Search and Rescue teams to firework displays etc. These events play a significant part in the Iife of the bay while in addition drawing in visitors. While notices were provided to a limited number of individual local residents living in the immediate vicinity of the park only one notice was posted close to the site (opposite the Norwegian Church) to inform other users Such developments impact on the quality of live of all who use the Bay and better public consultation on a matter of this nature should be provided. At the very least notices close to the children's playground, Visitor's Centre, Waterfront Public House and Lightship would have alerted more of Waterfront Park users to their potential loss. Public consultation matters.
We request the Planning Committee to take the above comments into consideration.
7.5 The application has been advertised on site (including site notices at the Adventurers Quay and Celestia residential complexes) and in the press.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 An application to site a tethered balloon ride facility within an existing area of open space adjacent to the Waterguard Public House and Cardiff Bay Visitor Centre.
8.2 The proposed Aerostat balloon is considerably different in design and appearance from the previously approved ‘Hiflyer’ balloon. Whereas the ‘Hiflyer’ balloon presented as a traditional balloon shape, the current proposal is more akin to an airship, or barrage balloon in its style. It is noted that the maximum height of the Aerostat sits approx. 5.0m lower (at the highest point of the tail fin) than the previously approved balloon, when in the ‘high moored’ position, which is likely to be the most common position of the Aerostat when on the ground, but in use. However, it is also noted that with a long horizontal dimension of approx. 31m there will be a significant increase in overhead coverage from the previous balloon, which had a diameter of approx. 22m. The submitted plans show that the potential sweep of the Aerostat covers much of the grassed amenity space and would likely present people using the area with a significant sense of overbearing domination. In addition, the indicated sweep could bring the Aerostat into much closer proximity to the
238 nearby Waterguard Public House (approx. 2.5m at nearest point) and Locky’s Cottage (approx. 3.0m), both of which are Listed Buildings, than the previously approved balloon (approx. 21m), to the detriment of their setting.
It is also noted that the submitted plans indicate that a number of existing trees would require removal to prevent obstruction, which would further harm the character and setting of the area.
In light of the above, and having regard for the more aesthetically acceptable balloon design previously approved, it is considered that the design and massing of the balloon is detrimental to the setting of the park and the nearby Listed Buildings.
8.3 The proposals include a 12m diameter landing platform, with all winches and moorings set within this structure. The platform structure is approx. 10sqm larger in area than the previously approved surface deck area and is significantly more obtrusive, having a platform height of approx. 0.85m with a further balustrade atop brining the overall height to approx. 1.95m. When viewed in conjunction with the extended mooring mast, it is considered that this structure would present a discordant feature within the park setting.
8.4 Alternative siting has been raised with the applicant (to the south side of Roath Basin lock), however, the applicant has advised that the current site is seen as the only viable and acceptable option.
8.5 With regard to the proposed change of use of the open space, policy 7 of the adopted Local Plan (supported by policy 2.49 of the deposit UDP) states:
“Development proposals involving the loss of recreational or amenity open space, whether in public or private ownership, will only be permitted where: (i) They would not cause or exacerbate a local or city-wide deficiency of recreational open space and the open space has no amenity or nature conservation importance; or (ii) The developers provide satisfactory compensatory open space.”
Policy 34 of the adopted Local Plan states that within the Inner Harbour PBA, offices together with leisure facilities, public open space, housing and associated retailing will be favoured subject to considerations of scale, location, design, amenity and transportation.
8.6 Paragraph 11.1.10 of Planning Policy Wales 2002 indicates that formal and informal open spaces should be protected from development, particularly in urban areas where they fulfil multiple purposes.
8.7 In addition to the above mentioned policy advice, it is noted that within the original outline planning permission for the redevelopment of this part of the Inner Harbour (90/479R & 94/305R) this area was designated as parkland. The approved planning brief described the use of the site as a ‘….focus for small scale retail/leisure activity such as pubs and restaurants. Built form on this park would be low profile, compatible with its parkland setting and should
239 not occupy more than 25% of the park area. The park would become a destination for journeys around the Basin”.
Condition 5.6 of outline planning permission 90/479R states that:
“The public realm areas will on completion of each part be made available for use by the public for recreation. Reason: To ensure the openness and to maintain the area for leisure and recreation.”
Condition 5.7 states:
“Of the areas laid out for open space and/or recreation grounds and forming Roath Basin Park in accordance with condition 5.4 not more than 25% shall be built upon…Reason: To ensure the openness and to maintain the area for leisure and recreation.”
In the case of the development proposed, the area of grassland where the site is located measures approx. 1800sqm in area, with the area to be occupied by the landing platform measuring approx. 113sqm (approx. 300sqm smaller than the previously approved scheme). In this case, the proposed development is less than 25% of both the grassed area in isolation and the wider total open space area as a whole and therefore does not conflict with the principles set in the original consents (Notwithstanding this, the grant of consent under a subsequent planning application would effectively supersede a previous planning condition). The remainder of the main grassed area is to remain undeveloped and unenclosed.
It is considered therefore that the current proposals differ significantly from the proposed adventure golf facility previously refused in that they would not preclude public use of the majority of the grassed area and subsequently would not result in a deficiency of recreational open space in the vicinity or the development of more than 25% of the available open space.
8.8 With regard to the issues raised in representations:
• The issues of the design, scale and massing of the proposal and its impact on the visual amenity of the area have been considered in para. 8.2 and 8.3 above; • As stated above, the Council is satisfied that the proposals would not represent a significant loss of open space provision. With regard to concerns over the alternative use, or loss of the open space it should be noted that this was one of the main reasons for the refusal of consent in respect of the previously proposed adventure golf facility. However, given the limited ground area affected, and bearing in mind that the applicant has agreed to limit any consent to a five year period, in order for the Council to assess the impact of the development in terms of the amenity of the area, it is considered that no precedent is set; • The Operational Manager Transportation has considered the proposals in terms of highway safety and parking and has no objection. In this
240 case, there are no sustainable grounds to refuse consent in respect of these issues; • Although unlikely the balloon would make noise, it is acknowledged that there may be some noise from the winch motor. However, as this issue could be managed with the imposition of a standard plant noise condition, there would be no justification to refuse consent on these grounds; • There is an advertisement application associated with this application which clearly indicates the relatively restricted advertisement zones on the Aerostat itself, the viewing gondola and the landing platform. Advertisements are considered under separate legislation and are not subject to consideration under this application; • The issue of safety/security in respect of abuse by drunks or ‘high spirited’ people is not material to the consideration of planning applications. These issues are dealt with by other agencies and by the effective management of the facility; • With regard to the privacy of residential occupiers, the nearest resident (the Waterguard landlord) has not commented on the proposal. The next nearest residents would be the occupiers of flats within the Celestia development some 270m from the site, with the next in line being the occupiers of flats within the Adventurers Quay development approx. 360m away, the distance between the residential uses and the application site are such that refusal of consent on these grounds could not be reasonably sustained; • Alternative siting has been considered and is mentioned in para. 8.4 above; • The comment in respect of the attraction of the proposed ride is extremely subjective. Whether the ‘up & down’ ride is appealing to one person and not another is not a material consideration; • The comment in respect of the use of ‘Lock’s Cottage’ is noted. However, as a shop the additional sales of tickets would not represent a material change of use. In this case, the stated use and the actual use are not subject to control. • The incident quoted in respect of the 2004 Lucerne incident is noted. However, on inspection the subsequent investigation found that the crew had taken a decision to undertake two flights in weather conditions that were unsuitable (the incident occurred on the second flight) and that the gondola was also overloaded. In this case, it is considered reasonable to deduce that human error was the root cause of the incident, not the equipment or use itself. In addition, it should be noted that the Aerostat balloon is not the same balloon type that was involved in Lucerne.
8.9 Having regard for the above, it is considered that whilst the principle of the use is acceptable, the design, scale and massing of the proposed scheme is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and the setting of the park and surroundings. In this case, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.
241 242 243 244 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01472/C APPLICATION DATE: 17/08/2009
ED: BUTETOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: J R Smart Limited LOCATION: DRISCOLL WORKSHOPS, ELLEN STREET, ATLANTIC WHARF, CARDIFF, CF10 4BP PROPOSAL: FOUR STOREY OFFICE BUILDING COMPRISING TWO BLOCKS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. C2N Drainage details
3. Foul water and surface water discharges shall drain separately from the site. Reason: To protect the integrity of the Public Sewerage System.
4. No surface water or land drainage shall discharge directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to the environment.
5. Ground permeability tests shall be undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and the results of the tests shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Following this a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site showing how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development, that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system and to minimise the risk of flooding.
6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and
245 constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.
7. The development permitted by this planning permission shall accord with the Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) submitted by RVW Consulting (Report: Rep 03 Dated: December 2008), and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FCA, shall be adhered to:
The development's finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 7.5m above Ordnance Datum.
Reason: To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants.
8. No deliveries, by heavy goods vehicles, shall be made to the development, hereby permitted, between 20.00 hrs and 07.00 hrs. Reason: To prevent nuisance to nearby occupiers.
9. F7Y Ground Gas Protection
10. C7Z Contaminated Land Measures
11. Any topsoil [natural or manufactured],or subsoil, to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes.
Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced”.
12. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes.
Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported
246 aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced”.
13. A scheme of environmental highway improvements to Ellen Street, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to commencement of development. The scheme shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the reconstruction and construction of the footway on Ellen Street, including surfacing kerbs, edging, drainage, lining and signing; the provision, renewal and improvement of street lighting, street trees, street furniture. The scheme shall also include the replacement of the northern most existing crossover, which used to serve the Driscoll Workshops, by landscaping and a pavement. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the beneficial occupation of the development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To ensure the comprehensive enhancement and improvement of the adjacent public highway in accordance with the principles set out in the planning application.
14. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme of construction management shall have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The plan shall include details of construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access, and wheel washing facilities. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity.
15. The cycle parking facility on the application plans shall offer 24 secure and under-cover cycle parking spaces, in accordance with a scheme, which has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that proper secure and under cover cycle parking provision is made.
16. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping (which shall include details of paved areas, verges and other open spaces), which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. The scheme shall include the retention of the trees on the southern site boundary, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain and improve the appearance of the area and in the interests of visual amenity.
17. E4A Implementation of Landscape Scheme
18. D3D Maintenance of Parking Within Site
247
19. C20 Architectural Detailing
20. E1B Samples of Materials
21. D9B Amended Plans (Numbered)
22. The development shall achieve a 'very good' BREEAM rating, or equivalent, unless the Local Planning Authority has agreed otherwise in writing. Reason. In the interests of sustainability.
23. Before the development, hereby permitted, is brought into beneficial use, the gaps between 'Building 1' and 'Building 2' (near to their front walls), and between 'Building 1' and the northern site boundary shall be secured by railings, at least 1.8m high, in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. In the interests of security and crime reduction.
24. Before the development, hereby permitted, is brought into beneficial use, the thirteen space car park shall, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority, be secured behind a railing, at least 1.8m in height, in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. In the interest of security and crime reduction.
RECOMMENDATION 2: That the applicant be requested to take into account the Police Architectural Liaison Officer’s security advice, which is contained in her letter dated 21st September 2009, which has previously been forwarded to the agent.
RECOMMENDATION 3: That the applicant be informed that the Council’s Environment and Public Protection Manager advises that the contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however the appellant is reminded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has considered the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
248
RECOMMENDATION 4: That the applicant's attention be drawn to the need to follow the procedures in Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the stopping up of a highway.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application proposes a four storey, 14m high, 4120m2 office development. The intention is that small, flexible, ‘start-up units’, would be offered in the two blocks, which would be separated by a 3m wide gap.
1.2 The building would be flat roofed (single ply membrane or asphalt) and the walls would be faced, largely in a buff brick, but with significant areas of glazed curtain walling and silver coloured metal rainscreen facades. Window frames would be in ‘gun metal grey’ colour coated aluminium, with grey tinted glazing. A glazed canopy would be applied above both entrances. A rear external staircase would serve both buildings.
1.3 Car parking for 22 cars would be provided – 13 in the 17m wide space between the proposed building and the back gardens of adjacent houses in Tyndall Street and Ellen Street, and 9 in front of the northernmost block, accessed directly from Ellen Street. The existing lay-by, in front of the southernmost block, would be retained, but the application proposes the diversion of the footpath behind it would be diverted behind a 2m wide landscaped strip. North of the lay-by the existing footpath would be relocated 5m to the east, resulting in the need to stop up a highway, to accommodate the bank of car parking spaces. Planting would take place in front of and behind the buildings, and existing trees at the south end of the site would be retained.
1.4 The application proposes a secure 24 space cycle park and a refuse store, on the east side of the proposed car park.
1.5 The proposed buildings would be sited 30m to the north of the adjacent houses in Tyndall Street and Ellen Street, and at least 17m from the end of their back gardens. The separation of the building from the WNO land, to the east, would vary between 0.5m and 7m. The WNO land, near to the application site area is part of a parking and manoeuvring area, where large commercial vehicles/trailers normally park.
1.6 Both buildings would be fully accessible.
1.7 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, and a geo-technical and geo-environmental report. The agent asks that the other reports, which were submitted in support of the recent outline application for the redevelopment of the application site and adjacent land to its east, be taken into account.
1.8 The agent advises that the design has been discussed with the Police
249 Architectural Liaison Officer, and that her advice has been taken into account.
1.9 The application indicates that a ‘very good’ BREEAM rating would be achieved, or exceeded. Materials with a low environmental impact would be used.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site is close to the City Centre and has an area of 0.24h. It was redeveloped in the 1980s as the single storey Driscoll Workshops nursery industrial units. The Driscoll Workshops have recently been demolished and the site is unused.
2.2 The site is bounded, to its east, by a WNO development and, to its north, by the road which accesses the WNO site, beyond which is a railway. To its east is the site of the recently demolished Tyndall Street Industrial Estate. The site shares a boundary with the back gardens of adjacent two storey semi- detached houses in Tyndall Street and Ellen Street. There are trees just inside this boundary. On the opposite side of Ellen Street, and to the south- west is the five storey Peacocks office building. The site is flat.
2.3 The site is linked, by a footpath along the south side of the railway, to the footbridge across the railway, which connects to Pellett Street.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 The site has been used for industrial and storage purposes (the Driscoll Workshops) since the 1980’s. The site is in the same ownership as the open land to its west, all of which, including the application site, was the subject of application no. 08/2740C. In April 2009, it was resolved, subject to a S106 obligation, to approve that application for a mixed use development, including offices (some of which were to be on the current application site), a hotel, a care home, student accommodation, an aparthotel, and A1 and A3 uses. The development is known as the ‘Capital Quarter’. The S106 obligation has not yet been completed so the permission has not been issued. The obligation would secure the sum of £1m to be spent on a footbridge across the adjacent railway and seek the achievement of a ‘very good’ BREEAM rating.
3.2 Planning permission no. 08/2789C allowed the development of a replacement footbridge, across the railway, linking Pellett Street (and the City Centre) with the Capital Quarter development site, of which the application site is a part.
3.3 Previously, application nos. 06/863C and 07/073C had proposed the redevelopment of the application site, and adjacent land to its west, for a mixed office/light industrial/workshop, and residential development, with ancillary retail use. An appeal was lodged against the non-determination of the first application and it was resolved to grant the second application, subject to a S106 obligation (which was never completed). The appeal was withdrawn. Had the S106 obligation been completed it would have agreed 15% affordable housing (plus a £3m affordable housing contribution), a
250 £129,000 schools contribution, a £369,000 off-site open space contribution, a £10,000 employment contribution, and £400,000 towards the cost of a replacement footbridge over the adjacent railway line.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site is identified on the City of Cardiff Local Plan Proposals Map as an existing business, industrial and warehousing area.
4.2 The relevant Local Plan Policies are as follows:
9 – Development in areas of flooding 10 – Contaminated and Unstable Land 11 – Design and Aesthetic Quality 12 – Energy Efficient Design 17 – Parking and Servicing Facilities 18 – Provision for Cyclists 19 – Provision for Pedestrians 20 – Provision for Special Needs Groups 35 – City Centre Principal Business Area 39 – Older Industrial and Commercial Areas
4.3 The relevant Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) policies are:
2.20 - Good Design 2.24 – Residential Amenity 2.64 – Air, Noise and Light Pollution 2.29 – Office Development 2.55 - Public Realm Improvements 2.57 – Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements 2.61 – Protection of Water Resources 2.62 – Flood Risk 2.63 – Contaminated and Unstable Land 2.64 – Air, Noise and Light Pollution 2.74 – Provision for Waste Management in Development
4.4 Relevant National Policy Guidance:
Planning Policy Wales (March 2002)
TAN 12: Design TAN 15: Development and Flood risk TAN 18: Transport
4.5 Relevant Local Policies:-
City Centre Strategy (2007 – 2010) South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan
251
4.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Waste Management Safeguarding Land for Business and Industry Access, Circulation and Parking
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Strategic Planning Manager comments that the following policy framework is relevant:
• Planning Policy Wales (WAG March 2002) • Cardiff Unitary Development Plan to 2016 (Deposit) • South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan • City of Cardiff Local Plan (Adopted Jan 1996) • Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006 – 2021 (Deposit 2009) • Safeguarding Employment Land SPG • City Centre Strategy (2007 – 2010)
B1 office use considerations
Policy 35 of the adopted Cardiff Local Plan favours office development within the City Centre Principal Business Area (PBA). Whilst the site falls outside the PBA, it lies directly adjacent to this boundary and other significant office developments at Waterfront 2000 to the south and the adjacent Atlantic House building. To reflect the changing character of this area, the Central Business Area has been extended to include this site in the Deposit Local Development Plan. The site is also identified as an “Action Area” within the Deposit LDP where the site is identified for “comprehensive, mixed use development”. Paragraph 4.88 of the LDP goes on to say that:
“This area is divided by the main Swansea to London railway line and contains surface car parks, industrial and warehousing uses, many of which are vacant or under-used. Located on the fringe of the city centre, the area has a pivotal role in linking the city centre and Bay areas and providing a strong interface with adjacent uses”.
Considering the above, and accepting both that the land is in existing business, industrial and warehousing use and that application 08/2740C has already established the principle of office use in this location, the level of office use proposed is considered acceptable from a land use planning policy perspective.
City Centre Strategy considerations
Policy 2.55 of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan identifies the need for new developments to make appropriate provision for public realm improvements. In addition, the approved City Centre Strategy (2007-2010) states that new developments will be expected to enhance the appearance, accessibility and the use of the public realm through the choice of materials, street furniture,
252 planting, and the layout and uses proposed. Action 5 of the ‘Urban Design and Public Realm’ Chapter seeks “to secure contributions from new developments for public realm enhancements”. In addition, Action 4 of the Fringe Chapter requires “major public realm improvements together with enhanced pedestrian and cycle links” whilst Action 5 seeks a “New/upgraded pedestrian bridge between Tyndall Street and Pellet Street”.
Although it is understood that the bridge itself does not form part of this application, it is intrinsically linked to the layout and accessibility of the scheme as the intensification of use will place additional demands upon the public realm in the vicinity and upon established links between the development and the city centre.
The provisions of the previous outline application (ref 08/2740C) do not apply to this full application. Whilst it is accepted that this development would not, in itself, facilitate the replacement of the bridge in its entirety (as detailed in application 08/2789C), a contribution is sought towards the cost of the replacement bridge to ensure that, should Tyndall Street Industrial Estate be redeveloped in phases, each phase should make appropriate and reasonable contributions to necessary public realm and transportation infrastructure.
He concludes that the proposal is acceptable, subject to the provision of environmental enhancements and the successful resolution of all other matters noted above.
5.2 The Environment and Public Protection Manager requests the imposition of conditions in respect of ground gas protection, contaminated land measures and imported aggregates. He makes a contaminated land recommendation.
5.3 The Chief Transport, Infrastructure and Waste Officer recommends a condition to encourage the use of sustainable drainage techniques.
5.4 The Waste Management Officer considers the refuse storage arrangements to be satisfactory. She recommends that the store be obscured from view, and under cover, to reduce its visual impact.
5.5 The Operational Manager, Transportation, comments that the development is over the threshold requirement for a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. The Transport Assessment was submitted and approved within the outline planning application; however no Travel Plan has been submitted.
There is a requirement for a Travel Plan for such a development under the Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements.
He recommends that a full Travel Plan (TP) is submitted to address employee and visitor travel to the site. He welcomes this approach and would expect the plan to include the following:
• Identification of targets to reduce the reliance on private cars; • Methods employed to meet these targets;
253 • Mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing; • Mechanisms for reporting the results of the TP to the employees and visitors; • Identified funding source for implementing, monitoring and reporting the Travel Plan.
The above is in line with prevailing planning and transport policy and best practice guidance. He also recommends that the developer appoint a Travel Plan Coordinator to oversee the successful development of the Plan.
The TP must include details of the local bus services, their routes and frequency.
The TP needs to be submitted for approval, prior to the development being brought into beneficial use. It must comprise, but not be limited to, the initiatives mentioned in this note. The approved plan will then need to be implemented.
He suggests that a communal area within the development is used as an information point for sustainable transport methods in the area, with details of local taxi firms and bus timetable information for patrons and visitors. Cardiff Council can provide leaflets, local advice and bus timetable information.
For advice on promoting sustainable travel he points out that there is a useful section within the English Department for Transport’s Guidance on Traffic Assessments – Promoting Smarter Choices via Travel Plans.
The Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements SPG indicates that this scale of development should provide a maximum of 1 space per 175m² (Central - Bridge Area). Therefore the number of parking spaces for building users is in the range of 1 to a maximum of 23. As 23 parking spaces are proposed this provision is deemed acceptable.
Details of the proposed cycle parking provisions have been shown on submitted plans. A development of this size (4,021m²) requires the following cycle stand provisions:
• Employees Long Stay - 1 Stand per 200m² - 20 stands • Visitors Short Stay – 1 Stand per 1000m² - 4 stands
24 stands are proposed - this is deemed acceptable; however the proposed stands are not covered as the SPG requires.
The area of the existing vehicular access north of the proposed parking area in front of the development is to be revised. This access/area is to be stopped up with works to connect the existing footways in a uniform manner and remove any existing hard standing with appropriate landscaping to tie in with the other landscaping.
A construction management plan is recommended.
254
He has no objection to the proposed application. If permission is to be granted, the conditions should be imposed to achieve a 24 space cycle shelter, the provision and retention of vehicle parking, and a construction management plan.
He also recommends a condition to require a scheme of environmental highway improvements, and programme for its implementation, to Ellen Street, which shall include, but not be limited to, the reconstruction and construction of the footway of Ellen Street, including surfacing, kerbs, edging, drainage, lining and signing; the implementation of any Traffic Regulation Orders to accord with the revised layout; the provision/renewal/improvement of street lighting, street trees and street furniture.
He notes that the application shows an area of highway to be stopped up in order to provide parking. The stopping up would necessitate an application under S247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This should be drawn to the applicant’s attention.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Environment Agency has no objections, subject to the imposition of two conditions to secure a minimum floor level of 7.5m AOD, and the installation of an oil interceptor.
6.2 Welsh Water have no objection to the application but request conditions relating to drainage issues. They hope that sustainable drainage techniques will be used.
6.3 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer advises that there have been 339 crimes in the Cardiff Bay area in the last 3 months. The crime rate is high, compared with the rest of the South Wales area.
The application site is a former industrial area which has been demolished and currently occupied by piles of rubble. The access roads on the site are extensively utilised by motorists as on street parking, which is indicative of shortages of affordable parking within the area. There is evidence of rubbish, broken glass, and damage in form of graffiti to a nearby footpath and railway over bridge.
This development would establish ownership of this parcel of land and may displace such activities. It provides evidence for the need for access control and security features to be incorporated into the design.
The site perimeter should be protected by a 2.1 metre high fence or railings, which does not provide footholds with access control to the side car park (south elevation). The side and rear green areas should be protected by fencing to the same standards, and joined to the building to ensure entrance to the site is through main doors, thereby assisting in effective access control systems.
255
Where the building adjoins a public footpath, defensive planting of low lying shrubs should take place between building and footpath to front elevation.
The alleyway between units one and two should be gated at the front, or fitted with an effective form of pedestrian access control, on order to prevent burglary, theft, trespass and damage to building.
She advises that the building should not have any recess in excess of 600mm or any features which would allow climbing. Covered porches, walkways and large overhangs should be avoided.
She believes that the design of the front parking spaces could be improved by changing the surface type, and identifying parking bays for designated offices only. This would help prevent unauthorised parking and problems of possible obstruction, differentiating between public and private and deterring crime, trespass and parking problems.
Further recommendations are made about lighting, the security of the bin store, CCTV and alarms.
Her advice has been forwarded to the agent.
6.4 The Glamorgan and Gwent Archaeological Trust have no objection.
6.5 Western Power Distribution have indicated the location of their equipment and have offered advice in respect of works which may affect it.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been advertised on site and in the press, and neighbouring occupiers have been notified. The occupier of 19 Ellen Street is concerned that existing parking pressures, resulting from the adjacent Peacocks building, would worsen. He is also concerned that he would lose privacy as a result of being overlooked from the proposed development. He has already lost privacy as a result of the Peacocks development.
7.2 In support of the application the applicant makes the following points:
• The development would offer small, flexible, start-up units in a central location and would set the tone for the rest of the Capital Quarter development, of which it would be a part. • Both buildings are intended to offer opportunities for flexible use capable of adaptation by a variety of users and tenants, ideally small ‘creative’. • The development would be lower than the nearby Peacocks and Novotel buildings. • A ‘very good’ BREEAM rating will be achieved or exceeded. • The site is central and highly accessible and is near to the footbridge across the main railway line which, it is hoped, will be replaced, further improving accessibility.
256 • Work is in hand to simplify, and make cost savings on, the replacement footbridge across the railway, which is the subject of planning permission no. 08/2789C. The applicant will submit amended plans for the redesigned bridge, and advise the Council of the new costings.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 This application reflects the intentions of recent outline application no. 08/2740C, which also envisages an office development on the application site. This is the first subsequent application for full planning permission within the ‘Capital Quarter’ redevelopment site on the south side of the main railway, bordered by Ellen Street, Tyndall Street and the Dock Feeder. It was not possible for the current application to be in the form of an application for Approval of Reserved Matters because, at the time of the making of the application, the outline planning permission was not in place.
8.2 The four storey scale of the proposed building is consistent with what was proposed by application no. 08/2740C (see para 3.1). For a building of this scale, it would be unusually close to the eastern site boundary. However, the adjacent site is used by the WNO, whose building is between 32m and 35m from the boundary. The space between the building and the boundary is used for parking trailers and manoeuvring. Taking the case on its merits, it is not considered that siting close to this boundary, with windows overlooking it, gives rise to any concerns which could justify a refusal of planning permission.
8.3 The relationship of the proposed building to houses and gardens in Ellen Street and Tyndall Street must also be considered. It will be noted that a neighbour here is concerned about the impact of the development on his privacy and amenity. However, the proposed building would be to the north, so there would be no overshadowing, and its south facing windows would be 30m from the houses and 17m from the end of their back gardens. Trees along the boundary would be retained. It is considered that, bearing in mind these circumstances, there would not be a loss of privacy or amenity which could justify a refusal of planning permission, or an obscure glazing condition.
8.4 The design of the proposed building, and the use of brick, glass and cladding, is considered to be acceptable. It would be lower than Atlantic House (the Peacocks building).
8.5 The application does not propose any railings or other means of enclosure so that all of the site, apart from the buildings themselves, and the existing fencing on the WNO boundary, would be insecure – an issue identified by the Police Architectural Liaison Officer. It is considered that a condition should be imposed requiring the space between the two buildings, between the northernmost block and the site boundary, and around the front part of the car and cycle park to be secured.
The agent has indicated a reluctance to secure the car park, arguing that the developer is aiming to achieve a development that will need to be controlled and managed by a management company and does not see the need for
257 gated plots. It is considered that, even though the site is near to the City Centre, this does not mean that the car park should not be secure. A condition to require security is recommended.
8.6 The buildings would be fully accessible.
8.7 The application proposes a soft landscaped strip between the lay-by in front of ‘Building 2’ and the diverted footpath (behind it). This soft landscaping is unlikely to be successful or effective because it would be crossed by pedestrian desire lines and is likely to get trampled. It is considered that it would be better to provide good quality hard surfacing and some tree planting as an alternative. The agent has been requested to amend the scheme in this way, but a response is awaited. A condition is recommended to secure this change.
8.8 It is not considered that a Travel Plan condition is necessary, (as with the recommendation on the outline application for the larger site), bearing in mind the site’s central and sustainable location.
8.9 The granting of the outline permission for the larger site, of which the current application site forms a part, is subject to a contribution of £1m being achieve through a S106 obligation which would finance the replacement of the nearby poor quality footbridge across the main railway line. It would be unreasonable to require the contribution of such a sum in connection with the current application for a much smaller development. Nevertheless, following discussion, the applicant has, at his own cost, submitted amended plans of a simpler and cheaper replacement footbridge, than the one which was recently approved, which should increase the chances of the works proceeding. This action is appreciated and is evidence of the applicant’s good faith, in making best endeavours to ensure that the highly desirable goal of achieving a more accessible and attractive footbridge is reached. It is not considered that a further S106 bridge contribution is warranted, in the circumstances.
8.10 The outline permission is subject to a S106 obligation in which the developer will agree that the owner shall use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the development achieves a ‘very good’ BREEAM rating, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. It is not considered that a S106 obligation is necessary for this smaller development proposal, but this issue can be addressed by a condition.
8.11 It is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.
258 259 260 261 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01501/C APPLICATION DATE: 20/08/2009
ED: ADAMSDOWN
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Cardiff Council LOCATION: ADAMSDOWN PRIMARY SCHOOL, SYSTEM STREET, ADAMSDOWN, CARDIFF, CF24 0JF PROPOSAL: SINGLE STOREY NEW BUILD EXTENSION WITH ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject the relevant parties entering into a binding legal agreement with the Council under section 106 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of matters detailed in paragraph 8.5 of the this report, Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. C3F Details of Access Road Junction
3. Before the extension hereby permitted is brought into beneficial use, the cycle parking facility shown on drawing numbered ‘SCHD(P)06’ shall be complete and provided with a roof, ready for use to accommodate at least 4 cycles. Thereafter the cycle parking spaces shall be maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles.
4. D3D Maintenance of Parking Within Site
5. F7Y Ground Gas Protection
6. D7Z Contaminated materials
7. E7Z Imported Aggregates
8. Prior to commencement of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to include details of construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access, and wheel washing facilities. The development construction of the relevant phase shall be managed strictly in accordance with the scheme so approved. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity.
262 RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application seeks planning permission for a single storey extension to an existing primary school, and associated works including a new car park and additional vehicular access.
1.2 The single storey extension would be sited on an existing tarmac yard in the centre of the site to the east of the existing main school building, measuring up to 33m in length by 24m wide. It would be 2.4m high to eaves rising to a maximum of 5.8m, finished in cream render with a grey tile roof. All windows and doors will be powder coated aluminium, fitted with green roller shutters. Solar panels, sun pipes and wind catchers would be fitted to the roof slopes and a pvc-framed translucent roof canopy is proposed to the south and east sides of the extension and to the south elevation of the existing building. Several new window & door openings are also proposed to the south elevation of the existing building.
1.3 The new car park would be sited on a grassed are to the south of the existing school building, accessed via a new vehicular entrance from System Street. It would accommodate 11 new staff car parking spaces, including 1 disabled
263 space.
1.4 An additional hard surfaced play area would be provided on the east side of the site partly encompassing an existing grassed area, with a new tarmac maintenance access road provided from the existing vehicular access at Metal Street. A new school garden area would also be formed within the centre of the site extending south over part of the existing grassed area.
1.5 A new 2.1m steel galvanised fence would be provided along the southern boundary of the new staff car park and hard surface play area to secure the site from the remaining grassed field area, three new trees are also proposed to the south side of the new car park.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 An existing primary school, comprising of a single storey buff-brick building with separate areas of pitched roofs linked by a flat roofed structure. There is an existing car park within the north west of the site and a hard surface play area and demountable classroom to the east. The south of the school site consists of a grassed playing field.
2.2 The north east corner of the site is adjoined by a derelict public house, which is currently subject to an application (09/468C) for a community centre and flats which is being reported back to committee today. The remainder of the site is surrounded by residential streets of two storey terraced dwellings.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 06/254C – permission granted to site steel container on area in nursery of school to provide store for toys, bikes, etc.
3.2 05/2068C - permission granted for provision of security grilles to refuse store area.
3.3 03/1568R – permission granted for installation of new roller shutters
3.4 03/1387R – permission granted for renewal of roof covering.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site lies within an Education area as defined by the proposals map of the City of Cardiff Local Plan and the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
4.2 Relevant National Planning Guidance:
Planning Policy Wales (2002) Planning Policy Wales TAN 12: Design
4.3 Relevant City of Cardiff Local Plan Policies:
264
Policy 11: Design & Aesthetic Quality Policy 17: Parking & Servicing Facilities Policy 18: Provision for Cyclists Policy 20: Provision for Special Needs Groups
4.4 Relevant Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) policies:
Policy 2.20: Good Design Policy 2.24: Residential Amenity Policy 2.57: Access, Circulation & Parking Requirements
4.5 Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance:
“Access, Circulation & Parking Requirements”
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Transportation – the proposed increase in parking spaces from 14 to 28 is deemed satisfactory in accordance with the Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Supplementary Planning Guidance. The proposed 4 new cycle parking spaces also satisfies the requirements, however it is recommended that cycle parking provision for the entire school is reviewed. Conditions are requested to ensure details of the access junction are agreed, to ensure the car and cycle parking spaces are provided and to agree a construction management scheme. In addition a Section 106 Agreement is requested to secure a financial contribution of £2,080 to alter the existing Traffic Regulation Orders.
5.2 Drainage – Whilst there is no objection from a drainage viewpoint, where ground conditions are suitable surface water should be drained via sustainable drainage techniques, such as permeable paving or soakaways etc, as indicated in TAN 15. The submitted plans indicate the presence of a brick culvert in the vicinity of the proposed new build extension. Details of this application must be forwarded to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water for any information regarding the status of the culvert, which authorities records indicate may be a public sewer, for any constraints attaching to it regarding easements and the acceptability of discharges to it.
5.3 Pollution Control – Further to the Geo-environmental report submitted with the application which identifies a lead contamination hotspot on site. Pollution Control note from the proposed site plan that the hotspot area is under the proposed school car park and footpath. Pollution Control will not recommend the requirement for a contaminated land condition under these circumstances. However, should the proposed site plans change, then Pollution Control should be notified and these requirements may be required to be be amended. Gas monitoring is still being undertaken and results are to be forwarded as an appendix to the report, therefore a gas monitoring condition is requested. Additional conditions are requested to control imported soils 7 aggregates and advisory notes are recommended relating to construction site
265 noise and contamination/unstable land.
5.4 Waste Management – plans detailing refuse storage are acceptable.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water - request conditions to ensure foul and surface water is drained separately from the site and to prevent land drainage discharge to the public sewerage system. They also advise that a public foul sewer crosses the site.
6.2 Wales & West Utilities – advise that gas mains are located within the vicinity, this advice has been forwarded to the applicant.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Local Members were consulted, any representations will be reported to committee.
7.2 Neighbours have been notified of the application, the occupiers of nos. 41, 42, 43 System Street and six flats within Phoenix House, (1-10 System Street) object to the application, their reasons are summarized as follows:
a) They have had no consultation from the Council or the school on this development. b) The proposal will develop a car park on a valued area of green open park space, on street parking Sun Street or the existing tarmac area accessed from Metal Street should be considered as alternatives. c) The added use and noise will interfere with their privacy and increase noise after school hours. d) Adding a further exit from the school compromises safety.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 It is not considered that the proposed extension would harm the amenity of adjoining neighbours, it would be sited within the centre of the site linking in with the existing school building. The design and roof form of the extension would largely match the existing building, whilst introducing a more contemporary rendered finish. The proposed canopy is also considered visually acceptable in terms of its design and materials.
8.2 The proposed alterations to the existing buildings are considered acceptable in design terms, the elevation alterations are minimal and the addition of a canopy to the south side would match the proposed extension.
8.3 Although the proposed staff car park, additional hard surface play and new garden area would result in the loss of a small amount of the open space grassed field it is not considered that this would adversely affect the amenity value of the school site. The majority of the area of the proposed staff car park and extended hard surface play area is fenced off from the adjoining playing field as existing, approximately 779 square metres of the playing field would
266 be lost by the car park, extended hard playing surface and new garden. This would be minimal in proportion to the vast area of playing field (5,726 square metres) which would be retained. Three mature trees would be planted to the south of the new car park to act as a landscaping barrier.
8.4 All existing and proposed entrances to the school buildings would be level with the existing, allowing satisfactory access for disabled pupils.
8.5 The request from Transportation for a financial contribution of £2,080 towards traffic regulation orders is considered reasonable as highway modifications would be required as a direct result of the new vehicular access to System Street. This would be secured via a Section 106 agreement.
8.6 The representations received from the adjacent residents of System Street with regard to parking and access arrangements are not considered to justify refusal of planning permission bearing in mind that these arrangements are considered acceptable by the Transportation Officer. The comments regarding loss of open space grass area are addressed with paragraph 8.3 above, and the comments with regard to noise are not considered to justify refusal as the school could reasonably be expected to have out of hours uses as existing. With regard to consultation it should also be noted that there is no statutory planning requirement for consultation to be carried out prior to submission of a planning application.
8.7 It is thus concluded that the application is acceptable in terms of the policies listed above, and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the proposed development, subject to the legal agreement and conditions.
267 268 269 270 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/01554/C APPLICATION DATE: 28/08/2009
ED: PLASNEWYDD
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr Alaa El-aboody LOCATION: 137 CITY ROAD, ROATH, CARDIFF, CF24 3BQ PROPOSAL: CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM RETAIL TO NON-ALCOHOLIC RESTAURANT AND TAKEAWAY, OPENING 8AM TO 8PM AND FUME EXTRACTION SYSTEM ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. No member of the public shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on the premises between the hours of 20:00 and 08:00 on any day. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity of the site are protected.
2. The ground floor shall only be used as a restaurant/takeaway as specified in the application, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class A3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument amending, revoking or re- enacting that Order). Reason: Other A3 uses could prejudice the amenities of the area.
3. A scheme of sound insulation works to the floor/ceiling structure between the ground floor restaurant/take away and the first floor residential premises shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to occupation. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.
4. F7Q Kitchen Extraction
5. H7G Plant Noise
6. The developer must provide a suitable grease trap for the restaurant, 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.
271 RECOMMENDATION 2: The applicant is advised that a commercial contract is required for the collection and disposal of all commercial wastes under sections 46 & 47 of the Environmental Protection Act, therefore is advised to contact the Commercial Services dept. (tel: 029 2077 5339).
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of a ground floor mid terrace commercial unit from a computer shop/internet café (A1) to a non-alcoholic restaurant with takeaway facility (A3) and installation of a fume extraction system to the rear.
1.2 The ground floor would comprise of a dining area (approximately 24 square metres) at the front, a service counter within the centre and a kitchen and toilet towards the rear. Pedestrian access into the premises would be via the existing shop door.
1.3 The proposed hours of opening are 08.00 to 20:00.
1.4 The proposed fume extraction system would consist of a 0.5m diameter aluminium flue attached to the rear annexe, protruding from the ground floor roof by 4.3m to a height of 2m above an existing rear dormer extension.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The property lies within a parade of 14 terraced commercial units along the west side of City Road, adjoined by a financial services shop at no. 135 and a Chinese food takeaway at no. 139. There are additional existing food & drink uses within this terrace at no. 127 (Chinese food takeaway), no. 145-147 (public house/snooker club) and at no. 155 (Liberal Club). There are further ground floor commercial uses on the opposite side of the road.
2.2 The upper floors are occupied by flats accessed separately from the front. There is a small yard at the rear which accommodates refuse storage.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 09/815C – planning permission refused for change of use of from retail to restaurant/take away and rear extraction system as the proposed use would add to the existing concentration of food and drink units in City Road which would be likely to exacerbate problems of late-night anti-social behaviour, and crime and disorder, having a detrimental impact on public safety
3.2 92/361W – planning permission refused for change of use to restaurant to provide extension to Swallow Restaurant at no. 139 City Road with staff accommodation above as off-street car parking could not be provided in accordance with the City Council's Parking Guidelines.
272 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site lies within the City Road area as defined by the proposals map of the City of Cardiff Local Plan, and as a District Centre as defined by the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).
4.2 Relevant National Planning Guidance:
Planning Policy Wales (2002) Planning Policy Wales TAN 12: Design Planning Policy Wales TAN 21: Waste Welsh office Circular 16/94 – Planning Out Crime
4.3 Relevant City of Cardiff Local Plan policies:
Policy 11: Design & Aesthetic Quality Policy 17: Parking & Servicing Facilities Policy 20: Provision for Special Needs Groups Policy 40: Development in City Road
4.4 Relevant Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) policies:
Policy 2.20: Good Design Policy 2.24: Residential Amenity Policy 2.36: District & Local Centres Policy 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Policy 2.64: Air, Noise & Light Pollution Policy 2.74: Waste Management
4.5 Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food & Drink Uses (June 1996) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007) Access, Circulation & Parking Requirements (June 2006)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Strategic Planning (Land Use Policy) - The application site falls within the ‘City Road Area’ as defined by the Adopted Local Plan. The site falls within the ‘City Road District Centre’ in the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Deposit Local Development Plan (LDP). The application proposes the change of use of the ground floor from an internet café (A1 use) to a restaurant and takeaway (A3 use).
Policy Context: Local Plan Policy 40 applies, whilst UDP Policy 2.36 and LDP Policy HSC8 are also material planning considerations. The application should also be assessed against the SPG on ‘Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food and Drink Uses’ (June 2006).
Policy 40 of the Local Plan states that within City Road, business, housing,
273 shops and financial and professional services will be favoured. Food and drink uses (A3) will only be permitted where there would be no unacceptable adverse effect upon residential amenity, taking into account existing concentrations of such uses.
The ‘Restaurant, Takeaway and Other Food and Drink Uses’ SPG states that, within City Road, a more flexible approach is taken, with residential and business uses favoured in addition to shops and financial/ professional services. Due to the existing concentration of hot food takeaways along City Road, applications for new food and drink uses, extensions to existing premises or applications to increase opening hours are assessed specifically in relation to whether the proposal is likely to have a harmful effect upon nearby residents. However the SPG does acknowledge that in view of the existing numbers of food and drink outlets, especially takeaways, the opportunities to set up more or to extend the operations of existing premises are likely to be extremely limited.
Policy 2.36 of the Deposit UDP aims to support the retention and provision of local shopping facilities which remains the primary role of District Centres. The Policy states that A3 uses within District Centres will be permitted where they would not cause unacceptable harm to the primary shopping function of the centre or its vitality, attractiveness or viability.
LDP Policy HSC8 states that within District Centres, proposals for uses other than Class A1 will be permitted at ground floor level if they would not cause unacceptable harm to the predominant shopping role or the amenity of nearby residents. Paragraph 5.180 goes on to state that changes of use from A1 to a non shopping use (other than A1) should be assessed specifically in relation to: (i) The existing level and nature of non-shopping uses within the centre; (ii) The size of the retail unit; and (iii) The distribution and proximity of non-shopping uses within a frontage. (iv) Proposals that result in, or add to a continuous stretch of non shopping uses (3 or more unit) will be less favourably considered.
Analysis: 137 City Road is a single A1 unit operating as an internet cafe. The property forms part of a frontage from 127 to 155 City Road. According to Strategic Planning’s latest monitoring (May 2009), the current uses within this frontage are as follows: 33% A1; 8% A2; 25% A3; 8% D2; 8% Sui Generis; and 17% Vacant.
Land use policy concerns are raised under UDP Policy 2.36 and LDP Policy HSC8 due to the loss of an A1 store and the increasing numbers of non retail uses within the City Road area. Concern has also been identified due to the increasing concentrations of A3 units (especially takeaways) on City Road and their potential effect on the character and viability of the area.
However, purely from a land use policy perspective, it is noted that Policy 40 of the Adopted Local Plan has considerably more weight in determining applications than the Deposit UDP and Deposit LDP. This means that City
274 Road does not have the same level of retail protection as those District and Local Centres identified in the Local Plan. In this regard, the principal land use policy concern for this application is the effect on residential amenity, taking into account existing concentrations of A3 uses.
Given this land use policy context, the application does not raise any land use policy concerns that are significant enough to warrant an objection, providing all issues of amenity are addressed. It is worth noting that another take-away could be an unacceptable addition to the existing concentration within City Road and should therefore be considered thoroughly in the assessment upon residential amenity. However, it is noted that the application does not propose to sell alcohol and the operating hours are proposed as 8am to 8pm.
5.2 Transportation - no objection as adequate on street car parking (limited waiting) exists outside the application site.
5.3 Drainage – no objection.
5.4 Pollution Control – request conditions to restrict opening hours to 08:00 – 23:30 on any day and to secure a scheme of sound insulation works between the proposed ground floor A3 use and the residential property above the application site. Conditions are also requested to control any potential adverse amenity impact resulting from plant noise, to restrict delivery times and to request that details of the extraction system.
5.5 Waste Management – the plans detailing refuse storage are acceptable, however the applicant should be advised that a commercial waste collection contract would be required.
5.6 Licensing – The application states that it will be a non-alcoholic restaurant & takeaway opening between the hours of 8am to 8pm. In these circumstances the premises will not require a Premises License unless it decides to provide regulated Entertainment such as music & dancing. The Special Saturation Policy Zone for the City Road/Crwys Road area would therefore not apply to these premises as the application as stated would not require it to have a premises License.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 South Wales Police have no objection, providing that no alcohol is served on the premises and it closes no later than 8.00pm. Should a license for sale of alcohol be sought and an extension in opening hours, this may result further police objections.
6.2 Welsh Water have requested a condition to ensure that a grease trap is installed.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been publicised by letter, site and press notice, no
275 representations were received.
7.2 Local Members were consulted, and no representations were received.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Land Use Policy
Land use policy advice is outlined in paragraph 5.1 of this report with the conclusion that, providing amenity issues are addressed, including the potential adverse impact arising from the proposed takeaway use, no land use policy concerns are raised.
8.2 Amenity considerations
In terms of impact on residential amenity, it should be noted that Planning Inspectors have not necessarily been supportive of objections raised by the Council based on noise or smell nuisance. For example, the Inspectorate’s decision letter in respect of a change of use from retail to restaurant at no. 42 City Road (04/2762/C) states that residents in such a mixed use area cannot expect the same standards of amenity as those living in a wholly residential area. The Inspectorate has reached similar conclusions on appeals involving new food and drink uses at no. 222 City Road (03/2207/C) and no. 159 City Road (03/1318/C). More recently, the Inspector’s decision letter - dated 16/09/08 - for an appeal involving the change of use of a ground floor retail to restaurant at no. 232 City Road (08/235/C) concluded that City Road contains a mix of commercial and residential uses, and existing residents therefore already experience a degree of disturbance. In this context, the Inspector felt that an additional food and drink use “would not significantly alter the existing concentration of food and drink uses in a way that would materially change the pre-existing situation and consequently it would have little appreciable impact on the living conditions of nearby residents”. It should be noted that that this appeal decision related to a frontage containing 8 units, 5 of which were already used as food and drink (A3) premises prior to the appeal decision; also, residential accommodation was located immediately above and adjoining the appeal site, at first floor level.
8.3 Paragraph 4.7 of the “Restaurants, Takeaways and Other Food and Drink Uses” SPG does states that, “If the level of noise or smell likely to arise from a proposal is such that it would be difficult to resolve through measures outlined in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 (these paragraphs provide details of mitigation measures), and especially if residents live immediately adjacent, planning permission is likely to be refused on the grounds that the proposal would cause unacceptable nuisance to those residents.”
8.4 The Pollution Control Manager has advised that there would be no objection to hours of operation until 23.30, this accords with guidance in the “Restaurants, takeaways and other food and drink uses” SPG, which, in paragraph 4.12, states that in district centres, opening hours will usually be restricted to 11.30pm. Further conditions would secure a scheme of sound
276 insulation works between the proposed ground floor A3 use and the residential property above, control any potential adverse amenity impact resulting from plant noise, and ensure details of the extraction system are agreed. The requested condition to restrict delivery hours is not considered reasonable given that the site lies adjacent to a busy and noisy major traffic route, in any case this condition would be largely unenforceable.
8.5 Crime and Disorder
Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement 01/2008 “Planning for Good Design” notes, in paragraph 2.9.11, that:
“Local authorities are under a legal obligation to consider the need to prevent and reduce crime and disorder in all decisions that they take. Crime prevention and the fear of crime are social considerations to which regard must be given by local planning authorities in the preparation of development plans, should be reflected in supplementary planning guidance, and may be material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The aim should be to produce safe environments through good design”.
8.6 Welsh Office Circular 16/94 “Planning Out Crime” is also relevant and, in paragraph 3 states, “Crime prevention is capable of being a material consideration when planning applications are considered”. The Circular advises that local planning authorities should consult police architectural liaison officers when determining planning applications.
8.7 South Wales Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor objected to a previous application (09/815C) for change of use of this unit to a restaurant/take-away on the basis that the proposed restaurant and takeaway, trading in the evening, would add to the existing number of food and drink premises in City Road - an area where there is already a significant concentration of A3 units. The Police consider that additional late-night food and drink uses are likely to exacerbate the existing problems of crime and anti-social behaviour in City Road, having a negative impact on public safety. However, they have no objection to the current application as it proposes a non-alcoholic restaurant/takeaway which closes at 8:00pm.
8.8 Licensing Saturation Policy
It should be noted that an amendment to the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy was adopted on 24/07/09. The amendment to the Licensing Policy was requested by South Wales Police on 17/05/09 due to their concern about the cumulative impact of licensed premises in the City Road and Crwys Road area. The amendment means that within the Crwys Road/City Road area, the policy of Licensing Committee is a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences, or club premises certificates, or variations that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact in the City Road/Crwys Road area, will normally be refused. However, the Council’s Licensing section have advised that a premises license would not be required in this case as the proposal is for a non-alcoholic restaurant & takeaway opening between the
277 hours of 8:00am and 8:00pm.
8.9 Conclusion
It is not considered that refusal of planning permission could be justified given that the closing time has been reduced to 20:00 since the previous refusal, and bearing in mind the lack of objection from South Wales Police.
It is thus concluded that the application is acceptable in terms of the policies listed above, and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the proposed development, subject to conditions.
278 279 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 04/2535/W APPLICATION DATE: 19/10/2004
ED: FAIRWATER
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: M C Michael LOCATION: 56B-56A, Plasmawr Road, Fairwater, Cardiff PROPOSAL: CREATION OF ONE, THREE STOREY BLOCK OF 9 FLAT ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
1. A planning obligation to secure a payment for improvements to local public transport facilities has not been signed. The development would therefore be contrary to policy MV2 of the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Developer Contributions for Transport.’
REPORT
1. In May 2005 the Planning Committee resolved to grant permission for the demolition of a single storey building containing two shops at 56a and 56b Plasmawr Road, Fairwater and the construction of a new three storey building, with accommodation in the roof space, containing nine flats. The permission was dependant on a Section 106 Agreement (planning obligation) being signed to provide for the payment of £6,120 for the installation of two anti-crime cameras in local bus shelters. The previous report to Committee is reproduced at Appendix A of this report.
2. The applicant has indicated that he does not intend to implement the approved scheme and will seek permission for a smaller development. The planning obligation has not been signed. The applicant has been requested to withdraw the current application but this has not occurred.
3. In light of the above, the 2004 application is reported back to Planning Committee for determination. The Operational Manager Transportation has advised of the need for the anti-crime cameras to be installed at local bus stops in conjunction with the development (see para 5.1 of the report at Appendix A). The non signing of the obligation results in this improvement to transport infrastructure not being provided. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1997 which states at policy MV2:
280 ‘Contributions will be sought from developers towards any necessary improvements to the transport system arising as a result of the proposed development.’ The non completion of the obligation would also be contrary to the draft ‘Developer Contributions for Transport’ Supplementary Planning Guidance, which is currently subject to consultation. Refusal of planning permission is recommended for this reason.
______
APPENDIX A
COMMITTEE DATE: 25/05/2005
APPLICATION No. 04/2535/W DATE RECEIVED: 19/10/2004
ED: FAIRWATER
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: M C Michael LOCATION: 56B-56A, Plasmawr Road, Fairwater, Cardiff PROPOSAL: CREATION OF ONE, THREE STOREY BLOCK OF 9 FLATS ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in paragraphs 5.1 and 8.6 of the Chief Regulatory Services Officer's report, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans numbered 0888/P/30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and the unnumbered plan received on the 8th March 2005 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. E3D Retain Parking Within Site
4. C3S Cycle Parking
5. E7S Details of Refuse Storage
6. C5A Construction of Site Enclosure
281 7. C2N Drainage details
8. E1B Samples of Materials
9. D4A Landscape Scheme
10. E4A Implementation of Landscape Scheme
RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The applicant is advised to contact the Chief Highways and Parks Officer to agree details of the proposed crossover.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This is a full application to demolish two single storey shops at 56a and 56b Plasmawr Road, Fairwater and construct a three storey building with accommodation in the roof space containing nine flats (one no. one bedroom and seven no. two bedroom flats and one no. two bedroom maisonette). The th application was originally reported to committee on 16 March 2005 and th deferred for a site visit which took place on 4 April 2005.
1.2 The development would provide five parking spaces in front of the new building with access from a service road which runs parallel to Plasmawr Road. The original application provided two further spaces at the rear of the flats but has been amended to provide an additional four spaces in the existing garage court situated to the rear of the site (see plan below). A small amenity area containing cycle and bin storage facilities would be located at the rear of the new building.
1.3 Entrances to the flats would be located in the centre of the Plasmawr Road frontage (to six flats) and adjacent to the shop at 58 Plasmawr Road (three flats).
1.4 The building would have a dual pitched roof of 8.0m eaves/10.0m – 11.0m ridge height. The elevation adjacent to 58 Plasmawr Road would have a gable end wall. A separate decorative gable is proposed over the main entrance.
1.5 Following discussions with officers, prior to the March committee, amended plans were submitted which set back the part of the building closest to 56
282 Plasmawr Road by 2.0 metres (see plan below). This results in a lower roof ridge over this part of the building. The amended plans also change the external wall materials from render to render with brick bands and window heads.
1.6 Further amended plans have been submitted following the committee site visit which set back the front elevation of the first and second floors of the new building adjacent to 58 Plasmawr Road by 3.0 metres in order to reduce the impact on the amenities of the maisonette at 58 Plasmawr Road which has windows in its side elevation facing the application site (see paragraph 8.4 below). The amended plans also seek to address the concern of the Pollution Control division regarding the proximity of the fish and chip shop flue at 58 Plasmawr Road to the side of the new flats building by deleting kitchen windows at first and second floor level at this end of the building. The other amendments comprise moving the rear elevation of the southern end of the new building adjoining the access lane to the rear car park back 1.0 metre, and raising the roof ridge by 0.5 metres in the centre of the building to provide a flat with two front dormer windows in the roof space (see elevation below).
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site comprises two small (approximately 100sqm total) shop units and an area of forecourt, which is not adopted highway, situated close to the junction of Plasmawr Road and Pwllmelin Road. To the rear of the shops is a small enclosed yard.
2.2 The site is situated between a three storey building containing a group of shops with maisonettes above (58 – 68 Plasmawr Road) and a terrace of four two storey houses at 50 – 56 Plasmawr Road. An access lane to a large garage courtyard to the rear of the shops separates the site from 56 Plasmawr Road.
2.3 The surrounding area is predominately residential in character, comprising a local authority housing development built in the 1950’s/60’s.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 Nil.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The following Cardiff Local Plan policies are considered relevant:
11 Design and Aesthetic Quality’ 17 Parking and Servicing 18 Provision for Cyclists’ 19 Provision for Pedestrians’ 31 Residential Open Space Requirements
283 4.2 The site is shown as an existing housing area on the local plan proposals map.
4.3 The following Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) policies are considered relevant:
Policy 2.20 - Good Design Policy 2.24 - Residential Amenity Policy 2.26 - Provision of Open Space, Recreation and Leisure Policy 2.57 - Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements
4.4 The site is not shown as a district or local centre on the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) proposals map.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Chief Traffic and Transportation Officer has advised that he has no objection to the application, subject to conditions to ensure the provision and retention of nine car parking and nine cycle parking spaces (secure and under cover). The provision of four of the parking spaces in the rear garage court in the position proposed is acceptable. The development should be subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure a contribution towards improvements to public transport infrastructure. A sum of £6,120 is required to provide two anti-crime cameras in local bus shelters. The developer is advised to contact the Highways and Transportation Service to agree details of the proposed vehicular crossover.
5.2 The Pollution Control division has advised that the applicant be informed of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 powers in relation to construction noise. It did not object to the original proposals with regard to the proximity of the fish and chip shop and flue but wished to receive amended plans which seek to minimise impact on future occupiers. It has subsequently confirmed that it has no objection to the further amended plans.
5.3 The Chief Highways and Parks Officer (Drainage) has no observations.
5.4 The Operational Manager, Parks and Bereavement, has advised that the size of the development does not trigger a requirement for the provision of recreational open space or an equivalent off-site financial contribution.
5.5 The Waste Management Division has advised that insufficient information has been provided on refuse storage.
5.6 The Strategic Estates Manager has stated that the provision of four parking spaces in the rear garage court is potentially acceptable. He will not formally consider a request from the applicant to lease the land proposed for the four parking spaces until after determination of the planning application.
284 6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water has listed it requirements for disposal of drainage from the site.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Neighbouring occupiers have been notified of the original and amended plans and the application has been publicised by a press and site notice (expiry date : 25th November 2004). The comments below relate to the original plans. Any comments on the amendments will be reported at committee.
7.2 The occupier of 58 Plasmawr Road, the adjacent fish and chip shop/ maisonette has objected for the following reasons:
(i) Residential development adjoining the fish and chop shop will prejudice the operation of this business as future changes to the business, e.g. new fume extraction system or signs, may be objected to by residential occupiers. (ii) The new block will obscure an existing sign. (iii) The development is large, would overwhelm the site and is not in keeping. (iv) Extra traffic and parking on the local service road and additional congestion. (v) The proposed forecourt parking spaces will be difficult to access, and access to the rear parking spaces is not available at all times. (vi) The new block will prejudice his premises as a result of its proximity to the site access and obscuring of light and views.
7.3 The business occupier of 56a Plasmawr Road (Crown West Cars) objects as he occupied the premises in January 2002 on the understanding the lease was renewable. In the two years since relocating from Canton, the business has become part of the local community, e.g. it sponsors a local children’s football club. It would cost the company several thousands of pounds to relocate, even if new premises could be found.
7.4 The occupier of 37 Frewer Avenue objects on the basis of bringing the building forward onto the pavement, which will be out of line with adjoining buildings. He states that he has been advised that he would be unable to obtain planning permission for development at other nearby corner plots as a result of spoiling the building line. If the application is allowed, he will assume he can also disregard building lines.
7.5 The occupier of 40 Hirst Crescent objects on the grounds of:
(i) Overlooking of adjoining housing which will be added to the existing overlooking from flats above the adjoining shops. (ii) Existing traffic congestion will worsen. (iii) Increased use of the garage area at the rear of the shops which border houses, and general increased disturbance. (iv) Over development of a small area
285 (v) Safety hazards to pedestrians. (vi) Loss of a valuable local business which supports the community (Crown West Cars) (vii) Loss of the paved area at the front of the site which has been maintained by the Council.
7.6 A petition signed by 85 local residents has been submitted by the occupier of 40 Hirst Crescent. This states there is considered to be enough development in the immediate local area which, contain 22 three bedroom houses, 11 shops with maisonettes above, a three storey block with four flats above, 22 garages and a rugby club. The proposal would mean a gross over development of a small site. The same petitioner has submitted a separate petition against the proposed parking spaces on the rear garage site.
7.7 The Plaid Cymru Fairwater Team objects on the following grounds:
Traffic increase in a busy area, loss of a local business, over development, privacy of neighbours affected, insufficient information re waste disposal. It also asks if it is right for a councillor to profit from a development on land leased from the Council.
7.8 The occupier of 41 Gorse Place has submitted a petition on behalf of Plaid Cymru signed by 60 people. This condemns the applicant for putting his self interest above the needs of the Fairwater community. The application should be rejected in the public interest on grounds of traffic saturation, parking, invasion of privacy and over development.
7.9 Local Members have been consulted. Any replies will be reported at Committee.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The principle of redeveloping the site for residential use is considered acceptable. This conclusion is reached in the context of the Cardiff Local Plan and Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) which do not designate the existing premises as part of a shopping centre. The concerns of the occupier of one of the shops regarding his lease are not a planning consideration. The Pollution Control division has not objected to siting flats adjacent to the fish and chip shop and the amended plans seek to minimise the impact on future occupiers.
8.2 In view of the advice of the Chief Traffic and Transportation Officer, the proposed parking arrangements with five forecourt spaces and four in the courtyard, are considered satisfactory. With regard to the comments of objectors regarding use of the forecourt of the two shops to provide parking spaces, this area is not adopted highway and adequate width footways would remain for pedestrians at the front of the site.
8.3 Building Design : the original proposals were considered to have an unsatisfactory relationship to the four houses on Plasmawr Road to the south
286 of the site as the development would have resulted in a three storey building being located 3.0 metres forward of the front of that group. The amended plans set back the part of the new building closest to the houses by 2.0 metres (i.e. it would be sited 1.0m forward of the houses) and reduce the ridge height of the roof over this section. The repositioning of the rear wall of the flat by 1.0 metre back is not considered to harm the amenities of neighbours as the building would be located 4.0 metres from the side boundary of the nearest house (56 Plasmawr Road). This amendment is considered to provide a satisfactory visual relationship between the new and existing building and acceptable impact on the street scene. The siting and design of the building, as amended, is considered satisfactory in other respects and the development massing will provide a link between the two storey block to the south and three storey building containing the shops to the north east.
8.4 With regard to impact on the amenities of neighbours, no. 56 Plasmawr Road is separated from the site by a 4.0 metre wide lane and has no windows facing the site. No. 58 Plasmawr Road is a fish and chip shop with two storey maisonette above. This has first and second floor windows in its side which would face the side wall of the new flats from 1.5 metres in the original proposals. These windows light a large kitchen on the first floor and bedroom on the second floor. A third window lights a landing area. The amended plans set back the first and second floors of the new building by 3.0 metres which would result in the front corner of the building aligning with the rear of the 2.0m wide kitchen and bedroom windows. This is considered to provide the maisonette with an acceptable standard of amenity and outlook. Although several windows in the rear of the new flats look towards the rear of no. 58 this area is essentially a service yard and no windows in the rear of no. 58 are overlooked.
8.5 The development, as amended to remove two parking spaces from adjacent to the rear of the development in order to provide sufficient space for cycle parking, a bin store and landscaping, is considered to provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers.
8.6 The applicant has confirmed that, should permission be granted, he is willing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to pay £6,120 to be spent on improving facilities at local bus stops. Planning permission is recommended subject to conditions.
287 288 289 290 PETITIONS AND LOCAL COUNCILLOR INTEREST
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/363/W APPLICATION DATE: 06/03/2009
ED: RHIWBINA
APP: TYPE: Variation of conditions
APPLICANT: Snails Delicatessen LOCATION: 6-8 BEULAH ROAD, RHIWBINA, CARDIFF, CF14 6LX PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF CONDITION 2 OF PP 07/2357/W TO ALLOW THE MIXED SHOP/ RESTAURANT/ GALLERY USE (SUI GENERIS) TO EXTEND THROUGHOUT THE GROUND FLOOR OF 6 - 8 BEULAH ROAD. VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 3 AND 4 OF PP 07/2357W: CONDITION 3 – TO EXTEND THE OPENING HOURS FROM 7:30 AM TO 11PM MONDAY TO SATURDAY (TO BE CLOSED ON SUNDAYS) CONDITION 4 – TO ALLOW OUTSIDE DINING WITHIN THE AREA TO THE REAR OF 8 BEULAH ROAD SHOWN ON DRAWING NO A-P-S-001 ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED for the change of use of ground floor to mixed shop/ restaurant/ gallery use (sui generis), approved under consent number 07/2357w dated 18th December 2007, without complying with conditions 2, 3 and 4 of planning permission 07/2357w, subject to the following replacement conditions and new conditions:
3. No member of the public shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on the premises between the hours of 11pm and 7:30am on Monday to Saturday inclusive or at any time on Sundays. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity of the site are protected.
4. The external dining area to the rear of the premises, shown on drawing A-P-S-001, shall not be open to the public between 7:30pm - 7:30am Monday to Saturday or at any time on Sundays. The rest of the external area of the application site shown on the site plan numbered A-P-S-001 shall not be open to any member of the public at any time, other than to enjoy any access rights through the site. Reason: To ensure that the use of the premises does not prejudice the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.
13. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plan numbered A-P-S-001 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plan amends and forms part of the application.
291 14. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the email from the agent dated 12 May 2009. For the avoidance of doubt, this confirms that the area of the external dining area shown on drawing no A-P-S-001, is for the exclusive use of customers. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
15. No amplified music shall be used outside the building. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties are protected.
16. The doors to the external dining area to the rear of the premises, shown on drawing A-P-S-001, shall remain closed between the hours of 7:30pm – 7.30am on Monday to Saturday and at any time on Sundays. Reason: To ensure that the use of the premises does not prejudice the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.
RECOMMENDATION 2: That the applicant be advised that all other conditions imposed on the grant of planning permission 07/2357w remain in force and are unaffected by this application.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This is an application to remove a condition and vary two conditions attached to planning permission 07/2357W, granted 18/12/07, for the ‘change of use of ground floor to mixed use shop/ restaurant/gallery use (sui generis) at 6 – 8 Beulah Road, Rhiwbina, known as Snails Delicatessen. The following changes are proposed:
• Removal of condition 2, to allow the dining area to extend throughout the ground floor of the premises. This would have the effect of permitting tables and chairs for dining, shop produce for sale and gallery items to be positioned flexibly throughout the ground floor, providing the mixed use approved under 07/2357W is retained; • Variation of condition 3, to extend the opening hours to 7:30am to 11pm Monday to Saturday (to remain closed on Sundays); • Variation of condition 4, to allow outside dining within the area to the rear of 8 Beulah Road, shown on drawing A-P-S-001.
1.2 The original conditions are worded as follows:
Condition 2
The dining area shall only extend to the area shown on the revised ‘Floor Plan of Both Shops’ received on 06/11/07 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to the extent of the uses hereby approved.
292 Condition 3
No member of the public shall be admitted to or allowed to remain on the premises between the hours of 6pm and 9am on Monday to Thursday inclusive, between the hours of 11pm and 9am on Friday and Saturday or at any time on Sundays. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity of the site are protected.
Condition 4
The garden area to the rear of premises shall not be open to any member of the public at any time. Reason: To ensure for the amenities of occupiers of properties nearby.
1.3 Amended plans and an amended description were submitted to:
• Extend the proposed opening hours from 9am, as originally proposed under application 09/363w, to 7:30am to capture the breakfast trade and to provide sandwiches to takeaway to work; • Allow outside dining in the area to the rear shown on drawing no. A-P-S- 001.
1.4 The application was reported to Planning Committee on 16th September 2009. It was deferred for a site visit which took place on 5th October 2009. The original report to Planning Committee has been amended to reflect this and to incorporate the late representations received prior to the September Planning Committee.
1.5 The proposal has been submitted ‘to meet customer demand’ and ‘to improve viability and profitability of the business’. The application also seeks to regularise breaches of planning conditions that have occurred in the past, namely, the use of the existing outdoor dining area, an increase in floorspace occupied by tables and chairs, and late night opening on a Tuesday in 2008 for a tapas evening.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site comprises the ground floor and rear garden of nos. 6 and 8 Beulah Road, and the garage and driveway of no 6 Beulah Road. Nos. 6 and 8 have been knocked through at ground floor to form a single unit, and there are two occupied flats above. The garden area to the rear rises across the garden to compass point SSE. Whilst the premises does not currently benefit from a license for the sale of alcohol, an application for a license to sell alcohol from noon – 10pm Monday to Saturday was submitted in October 2007 but declared to be invalid.
2.2 An outside dining area (approx 5.7m long x 4.7m wide) has been formed to the rear of no 8 Beulah, accessed via French doors. This is set down approx 1m from the surrounding garden, and is screened to the south by 2.4m high
293 timber fencing and to the either side by 1.8m high timber fencing, and has a gate. The applicants have confirmed that the outside dining area would be for the exclusive use by customers. This area has been used for outside dining but its use has now ceased, following advice from the Enforcement Team on the extent of planning permission 07/2357w.
2.3 The application site falls within Rhiwbina local centre, as defined by the Local Plan, and lies in close proximity to the busy junction of Pant Bach Road and Beulah Road. All the properties in the host frontage, and those in the opposite frontage are established commercial uses, albeit that no 4 is vacant. Whilst the local centre accommodates a mix of commercial uses, there are only two other premises for eating and drinking- an Indian restaurant (Juboraj) and a coffee/bookshop located on Heol Y Deri, with only the former being open in the evenings. There is church community hall with a large rear garden at the junction of Pant Bach Road and Beulah Road, in close proximity to the site, which is open to members of the public and used for events.
2.4 As noted previously, there are two occupied flats above the premises at first floor. Residential properties lie in close proximity to the site, outside the local centre. The rear gardens of nos. 1 and 3 Heol y Bont immediately adjoin the southern boundary of the site. There are also dwellings located further along Beulah Road to the East (beginning at nos. 16 (even) and 7 (odd)) and to the south, along Heol y Bont.
2.5 The site is separated from no 1 Heol y Bont, the nearest dwelling to the site, as follows:
• The rear wall of no 8 (accommodating the French doors to the outside dining area) and the facing rear wall of no 1 Heol Y Bont are separated by a minimum distance of approx 25.4m, at an oblique angle; • The rear wall of no 8 and the boundary of the rear garden of no 1 Heol Y Bont are separated by a minimum distance of approx 15.4m; • The rear boundary of the outside dining area and the facing wall of no 1 Heol Y Bont are separated by a minimum distance of approx 19.8m, at an oblique angle; • The rear boundary of the outside dining area and the boundary of the rear garden of no 1 Heol Y Bont are separated by a minimum distance of approx 9.8m.
2.6 Whilst the Heol Y Bont dwellings to the rear of the site fall in a residential area, there are a number of commercial and other non-residential uses located in close proximity which detract from the character of the street as an exclusively residential area. There is an Indian takeaway (chilled food) and a bank on the corner of the Heol Y Bont and Pant Bach Road junction, a Scout Hut adjacent to no 2 Heol Y Bont and, as noted above, a church community hall on the junction of Beulah Road and Pant Bach Road. The Indian takeaway operates until 10.30pm Tuesday to Sunday and the Scout Hall is also open outside of normal business hours. A plan is attached showing these uses.
294 3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 The following application is relevant, being that which this application seeks to vary:
07/2357W – Change of use of ground floor to mixed shop/restaurant/gallery use (sui generis) – approved 18/12/07, subject to conditions to control the extent of the dining room area (2), opening hours (3), refuse provision (5), sound insulation (6), noise levels (7), arrival/departure/loading/unloading times (8), fume extraction (9), amplified music (10), the entry of grease into the sewerage system(11) and use of the garage (12). The pre- commencement conditions relating to refuse storage (5), sound insulation (6) and fume extraction (9) have been fully discharged.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The proposal falls within Rhiwbina local centre, as defined by policy 49 of the Local Plan. The following policies of the Local Plan are considered particularly relevant:
Policy 17 ‘Parking and Servicing Facilities’ Policy 49 ‘District and Local Centres’
4.2 The following policies of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan are considered particularly relevant:
Policy 2.24: Residential Amenity Policy 2.36: District and Local Centres Policy 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Policy 2.63: Contaminated and Unstable Land Policy 2.64: Air, Noise and Light Pollution Policy 2.74: Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development
4.3 The following adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) notes are particularly relevant: ‘Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food and Drink Uses’ (June 1996), ‘Waste Collection and Storage Facilities’ (adopted March 2007), ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements’ (adopted June 2006).
4.4 The following paragraphs of the ‘Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food and Drink Uses’ SPG are particularly relevant:
• 3 ‘Food and drink uses are …complimentary, in principle, to the main shopping role of district and local centres, so long as they do not adversely affect the living environment of nearby residents…’; • 4.5 ‘The proximity of a proposal to residential premises is important because of the nuisance which can be caused to residents by the noise and increased activity associated with customers and their cars or taxis arriving and leaving the premises. In general, proposals are unlikely to be acceptable where residents live immediately above or next door. However, should planning permission be granted under such
295 circumstances, applicants will need to demonstrate the provision of satisfactory soundproofing between floors and walls. Any permission granted may also be subject to the provision of self-closing doors and restrictions on the playing of amplified or other music’; • 4.12 ‘If opening hours are proposed outside of normal shopping hours, these will be restricted. In district centres, this will usually be 11.30pm, however, where there are residents nearby an earlier closing restriction may be imposed’.
4.5 The following legislation and national guidance is considered particularly relevant:
Planning Policy Wales (March 2002)
• 13.13.1 ‘Noise can affect people’s health and well-being and have a direct impact on wildlife and local amenity.’
Planning Guidance Wales Technical Advice Note (Wales) 11 – Noise:
• 3. Establishes the principle of the need to ‘minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business’. • 8 ‘Local Planning Authorities must ensure that noise generating development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that if subsequent intensification or change of use results in greater intrusion, consideration should be given to the use of appropriate conditions.’ • 9 ‘Noise characteristics and levels can vary substantially according to their source and the type of activity involved….the character of the noise should be taken into account as well as its level.’ • 13 ‘Authorities should … take into account the fact that the background noise level in some suburban and rural areas is very low and the introduction of noise generating activities into such areas may be especially disruptive’.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Transportation has no objection to the amended plan and recommends that an area be set aside within the existing driveway for the parking of cycles for use by the tenants and staff (minimum 2 no).
5.2 Pollution Control has no comments to the amended plans in relation to contaminated land or air pollution. They advise that all issues relating to sound insulation and kitchen extraction have been addressed. However, they advise that they would not wish the garden area to remain open to 11pm with the rest of the premises, noting that 7.30pm would be a suitable time for it to close. They also take recommend a condition to ensure the garden area can not be used after 7.30pm as a smoking area.
5.3 Waste Management has no objection to the plans, as amended.
296 5.4 Councillors Cowan and Jones requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee and a site visit undertaken, and that consultation be undertaken on any changes to the proposal. They also comment that Snails is a very popular shop in Rhiwbina, that we need to nurture and support small businesses which will attract shoppers from the locality and further afield, but that residents living in close proximity to the rear garden have legitimate concerns about the proposed opening hours. Councillors Cowan and Jones feel that 11pm is too late for patrons to be using the outside area and feel that 7pm is an acceptable time for the outside area to close. They hope that Planning Committee can reach a compromise which will sustain local businesses and also protect local residents from any noise and disturbance late at night.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Welsh Water has no objection.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Twenty two neighbouring occupiers have been consulted and the application advertised by means of a press and site notice. Neighbouring occupiers and all objectors were consulted on the amended plans and given 21 days to respond.
7.2 32 letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 7 (x2), 16 (x2), 18 (x2), 26 Beulah Road and 1 (x3), 3 (x2), 5 (x3), 6, 7 (x6), 9 (x3), 11 (x2), 13, 17 Heol Y Bont, 15, 18 Pen Y Dre and 1 no. of unknown address, which raise the objections and issues set out below. There are no objections from the occupiers of the two flats above the premises.
General concerns i. the proposal represents overdevelopment and is inappropriate in a residential area and religious area, with 2 flats above; ii. Beulah Road and Heol Y Bont have an extremely low ambient noise level and quiet back gardens and the noise from the premises can already be heard; the quiet back gardens are particularly valued given that Heol y Bont is very busy with use of the scout hall and takeaway, through traffic and parking; iii. harm to residential amenity from intensification of use and increased customer numbers, leading to unacceptable noise from all aspects of the business - deliveries, kitchen preparation and cooking, patrons parking, outside dining, leaving open of patio doors and removal of waste.
Extension of dining area Harm to residential amenity iv from the extension of the dining area to the rear of the property, resulting in unacceptable noise from within the building, particularly during summer months when windows and the patio doors are open;
297 v from customers inside looking up into the bedroom and other windows of dwellings to the rear and consequent harm to privacy.
Extension of opening Hours Harm to residential amenity vi from the proposed opening times – particularly the 11pm closing time, 6 days a week, resulting in unacceptable noise and disturbance from the premises, particularly on summer evenings and particularly on young children trying to sleep, as evidenced by the ‘unacceptable noise’ from the tapas evening held in June 2008 which could be heard by local residents until 22:45; vii from noise and disturbance from patrons and staff leaving the premises late at night and cleaning activities- on the tapas evening last year disturbance was experienced in Heol Y Bont until at least midnight, with concern that this would become a nightly occurrence, exacerbating existing noise levels in Heol Y Bont from the use of the Scout Hall, which is considered enough.
Use of outside dining area Harm to residential amenity viii from customers using the garden area, for dining and smoking, leading to unacceptable noise and disturbance, particularly late into the evening and at weekends, and at levels consistently higher than that found in a residential garden area; ix the fencing that the applicant erected early 2008 does little to mitigate the noise levels; x from customers dining outside looking into surrounding gardens and up into the bedroom and bathroom windows of dwellings to the rear and consequent harm to privacy; xi the proposal would be contrary to emerging LDP Policy SD5.
Highway and access matters xii inadequate provisions for parking and concern that the proposals will lead to a greater demand for parking and parking problems, in what is already a congested and heavily parked up area, exacerbated by people visiting the Scout hut, hall and local shops, with specific concerns raised in relation to parking problems in Heol Y Bont and Beulah Road; xiii concern over the applicant’s use of their driveway to park 5 cars, contrary to their eco friendly intention; xiv concern over customer’s use of an access lane to the rear of the shops and flats, adjacent to no 16 Beulah Road, which is not a public right of way, leading to noise and disturbance.
Waste matters xv waste disposal to the rear along Heol Y Bont is inadequate, unsafe and unsightly, with overspill and litter occurring, in breach of pp. 07/2357w (objection received April 2009); xvi concern that Snails have not entered into a commercial waste agreement;
298 xvii concern that the waste store was only built in May 2009 even though it was required by condition; xvii concern over the position and unsightly design of the new bin store, which is in full view of 1 Heol y Bont; xix concern that intensification of use/extension of hours would exacerbate the waste problem, with increased generation of waste and collections and associated noise.
Other concerns xx objection to the stress caused and time taken objecting to the proposal, with many objections being similar to those raised with the initial application; xxi concern that the applicant is seeking greater leniency with each application; xxii harm arising from cooking odours and concern that a very good extraction is needed to avoid problems; xxiii concern that tables and chairs are placed on the pavement area in front of the shop, and a query as to whether they have permission to do so; xxiv harm to privacy from the applicants moving soil and raising the level of a pathway leading to in looking to a garden to the rear; xxv concern that the applicants have breached conditions attached to pp 07/2357w, demonstrating little respect for the planning process or local residents, leading to stress and resulting in residents having to seek enforcement action with consequent burden on Council resources; xxvi concern that the Council has not taken formal enforcement action; xxvii concern that the applicant has made no attempt to mitigate objections raised by local residents in relation to their previous planning application, indicating a lack of understanding of the issues and concerns; xxxviii objection to any application for an alcohol license – whether to allow ‘bring your own’ or for sale on the premises – in that this would lead to increase noise and disturbance, and fear that this would set a precedent and impact detrimentally on the community; xxix query regarding the status of the lane that connects Heol y Bont and Beulah Rd, noting that for it to retain its private status it has to be closed for one day each year otherwise it becomes a public right of way; xxx conjecture that the applicants intend to rent out the garden to no 8 as an allotment; xxxi concern that the garden is not well maintained and that earth pile up at the top of the garden will cause problems for neighbouring boundary walls and fencing; xxxii fear of precedent; xxxiii impact on property values, with a query as to whether Council tax will also be reduced and compensation provided for loss of peace and quiet; xxxiv accept the benefits of the proposed customers to Snails, and acknowledgment that food and drink uses have a role to play in
299 supporting the diversity and vibrancy of shopping centres such as Rhiwbina. xxxv the ‘incorrectly worded petition’ submitted in support of the application which is held to ‘mislead signatories as it: • states that there is "local resident objections and obstacles put in the way by the planning authority." to allow snails to continue to use these premises as a cafe and restaurant, and; • plays down the scope of their planning application to only a couple of late night openings per week’; xxxvi the petition in support admits that the garden area is in use, contrary to the conditions previously imposed; xxxvii the signatories to the petition in support are not harmed by the proposal, with the example of a Cornwall address being given; xxxviii the petition in support should not be given any weight in the decision and raise concerns that the campaign is damaging to those who live locally and who have objected as is their right; xxxix the ‘underhand’ tactics used by Snails to get people to sign the petition in support of the proposal; xl they have had to finish work on grounds of ill health, having several illnesses covered by the DDA Act and for which rest is of paramount importance. Expresses concern that their peace will be shattered if permission is given for Snails to use the outside dining area. They note that noise from within the premises can already be heard and that they would be happy to consult with disability organisations to get help to protect their peace and quiet;
7.3 A petition of over 50 signatures (61) has been received in objection to the proposal, with approximately four fifths of signatories being residents of Rhiwbina. The petition is worded as follows:
‘To reject Application Reference 09/363w submitted by Snails Delicatessen on the 29th June2009, for the following reasons:
• Protect the amenity of local residents neighbouring the business from o Excessive noise that is not neighbourly residential noise. Noise from both within the premises and their use of their garden for outside dining; o Excessive parking by patrons of Snails on surrounding streets; o Excessive amounts of waste, both food and packaging building up on Heol Y Bont. • To prevent future submission of Planning Applications to extend the outside dining area; • To prevent further/future non-compliance to Permissions of Development.’
7.4 A petition of over 50 signatures (624) has been received in support of the proposal, with over half of signatories being Rhiwbina residents. Both the occupiers of the flats above 6-8 Beulah Road signed the petition. The petition, as submitted, was worded as follows:
300 ‘We are meeting with considerable difficulty in obtaining planning permission to allow Snails to continue to use these premises as a café and restaurant. There have been local resident objections and obstacles put in our way by the planning authority.
In order to demonstrate the degree of support which we have from you, our local community, we would be grateful if you would be good enough to sign this petition seeking alteration to the planning permission which would:
• Allow us to open from 7.30am • Open as a restaurant on any of 6 nights during the week, until 11pm. With the exclusion of Sundays. • To continue to use the whole of the ground floor in 8 Beulah Road, and the ‘garden’ area at the back of the café/restaurant (now being used) • To continue using the area in 6 Beulah Road as a seating area (by the window).
7.5 Additionally, 14 letters of support have been received from the occupiers of 1, 3, 22 Pen Y Dre, 101 Heol y Deri, 11 Bryntirion, 6 Clas Tyn Y Cae, 10 Lon Y Dail, 40 Lon Isa, 41 and 42 Heol Iscoed (Rhiwbina), 10 St Asaph Close, Heath and 1 no of unknown address which raise the following issues:
i. Snails is a first class establishment, with responsible, ethical and hardworking owners, friendly staff, superb food made from the best quality local ingredients and this establishment needs support – particularly for longer hours and al fresco dining - if it is to survive the recession; ii. Snails caters for local people and is a focal point in village life, generating genuine community spirit; it is used by a local knitting group and a meeting point for French conversation; more places like Snails are needed in local villages serving the community; iii. Rhiwbina needs a diversity of outlets and greater flexibility; iv. Rhiwbina needs enterprises which can be used by the local community; the businesses that have recently opened (kitchen shops, flooring shops, accountants, interior designer and a dog grooming parlour) are of little use to the village; v. support for Snails’ new opening hours, particularly as it will allow local people a choice of venue for evening dining within walking distance, as the Juboraj is the only restaurant that currently serves evening meals; vi. Support for Snails, which is regarded as a great establishment and a real bonus to Rhiwbina, offers much needed unique and relaxed surroundings in the village and caters for local people, and welcomes children; vii. It is hoped that Snails will also attract customers from further afield, bringing new life into the area; viii. Snails are very involved in community events in Rhiwbina, supporting the local church, Beulah United Reformed, Rhiwbina Festival and charity events; ix. Snails needs support not unreasonable restriction;
301 x. Any residential purchaser moving into the village would make legal enquiries which would show non-residential land use to the main highways including Beulah Road. This is the nature of the suburban mix and one of its obvious attractions and benefits; xi. Considers that parking would not be an issue as most of the custom would arrive by foot. xii. Considers that the customers of Snails, a high quality café, would not be rowdy or badly behaved when leaving the premises in the evening; xiii. Concern that locals have received a letter trying to elicit objections to Snails and comments that it does not represent the views of locals at all and that there are many in favour of the proposals.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The main issues are as follows:
i. whether the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents, as a result of noise and disturbance both from within the premises and the outside dining area, and resulting from patrons and staff leaving the premises, particularly late at night; ii. whether the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents, as a result of cooking smells; iii. whether the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents, assessed in terms of privacy levels; iv. the acceptability of provision for waste management; v. whether the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety and the living conditions of nearby residents, particularly in terms of its consequences for on-street parking.
I Impact on neighbouring amenity as a result of noise and disturbance 8.2 The removal of condition 2, to allow the mixed shop/restaurant/gallery use throughout the ground floor, and the extension to the opening hours, proposed though the variation of condition 3, would be acceptable taking into consideration the following:
• The premises, including the rear garden, falls within the boundary of a local centre, as defined by policy 49 of the Local Plan, where there is an established mix of commercial uses; • It would not be reasonable for residents living in flats above commercial premises in local centres or for residents living immediately adjacent to local centres to expect to enjoy the same level of amenities as those persons living in an exclusively residential area; • The proposal’s location along a busy road, in close proximity to the busy junction with Pant Bach Road, one of the main approaches to the City Centre; • There are non-residential uses outside of the local centre, along Heol Y Bont, in close proximity to the dwellings which immediately adjoin the site. As a result, this part of Heol y Bont does not have the character of an exclusively residential area and experiences a higher level of noise and
302 disturbance from users of the nearby takeaway, Scout hut and church community hall; • The soundproofing and fume extraction details submitted in discharge of conditions attached to pp.07/2357w are acceptable and have been implemented; • There is no objection from the Pollution Control service in relation to conditions 2 and 3; • The Pollution Control service have not received any formal noise complaints; • Paragraph 4.5 of the ‘Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food and Drink Uses’ SPG has not generally been upheld on appeal by Planning Inspectors; • The recommended conditions relating to opening hours (restricted to those applied for), preventing amplified music outside the building, requiring patio doors which open onto the rear dining area to be closed after 7:30pm, and restricting the hours of use of the outdoor dining area will ensure that the amenities of neighbouring occupiers are adequately protected. Additionally, conditions attached to pp. 07/2357w – preventing amplified music inside the building, controlling noise from fixed plant and equipment on this site and controlling deliveries, will continue to apply and will also protect neighbouring amenity; • The proposed opening hours will contribute to the diversity of uses, and the vitality and viability of the local centre, as noted in representations received in support of the proposal.
In making this judgement account has been taken of the representations received. Particular consideration has been taken of the proximity to residential properties in the vicinity, including the two flats above 6-8 Beulah Road and adjoining dwelling, the lower ambient noise levels in the gardens to the rear of the premises, the likely noise characteristics, the fact that most activity in the local centre would cease after normal shopping/ business hours, that resident’s sensitivity to noise levels would be particularly high in the summer months when windows and the patio doors may be left open, resident’s experience of the tapas evening, and the need to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development, stated in national guidance.
8.3 Whilst there are concerns over the impact of the use of the external dining area on noise and disturbance, it would be difficult to sustain an objection to the use of the external dining area from 7:30am to 7.30pm, taking into consideration:
• The premises, including the rear garden, falls within the boundary of a local centre, as defined by policy 49 of the Local Plan, where there is an established mix of commercial uses; • It would not be reasonable for residents living in flats above commercial premises in local centres or for residents living immediately adjacent to local centres to expect to enjoy the same level of amenities as those persons living in an exclusively residential area;
303 • that ambient noise levels in local centres are normally higher during shopping/business hours; • the size and design of the external dining area (including set down and screening levels), • the proximity of the hall whose larger garden is open to the public, the scout hut and takeaway restaurant, which also generate noise and disturbance and which is not restricted to normal shopping/working hours; • the lack of objection from the Pollution Control service to use of the external dining area up until 7.30pm and notwithstanding the representations received.
8.4 However and notwithstanding the above considerations, the use of the external dining area from 7:30pm to 11pm, Monday to Saturday, would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity, in relation to noise and disturbance, for the following reasons:
• The use would extend until 11pm, six nights a week, well beyond normal shopping/business hours associated with local centres, and to hours when noise levels are normally lower and sensitivity to noise is normally higher, as residents relax after work and go to bed, with young children generally being in bed during the early evening; • The noise from the customers would be likely to vary in volume, pitch and intensity, and would not merge into background noise levels normally associated with a local centre; • Noise and disturbance would be likely to be experienced beyond 11pm, as residents and patrons leave the premises and begin their journey home; • The noise from customers would be difficult to control via other noise legislation and by means other than operating hours; • The Pollution Control service have advised that the external dining area should be closed from 7:30pm.
8.5 As a result, a condition is recommended to require that the external dining area shall not be open to the public from 7.30pm Monday to Saturday or at any time on Sundays, and that the patio doors to the rear of the premises remain closed between 7.30pm – 7.30am Monday to Saturday, and at any time on Sundays.
II Impact on neighbouring amenity as a result of cooking smells 8.6 Notwithstanding the representations received, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on air pollution, notably from cooking odours, taking into consideration the fact that fume extraction details submitted in discharge of conditions attached to pp.07/2357w are acceptable and have been implemented, and that there is no associated objection from the Pollution Control service.
III Impact on neighbouring amenity as a result of harm to privacy levels 8.7 Whilst noting the comments from objectors, notably that privacy would be harmed by customers inside and outside the building looking into rear windows and gardens of adjacent and nearby dwellings, there would not be any unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity, in relation to privacy levels,
304 taking into consideration the separation distances involved, and the size and design of the external dining area.
IV the acceptability of provision for waste management and impact on neighbouring amenity 8.8 Notwithstanding the representations received, the proposal would not be unacceptable in terms of provision for waste management, taking into consideration the fact that refuse storage details submitted in discharge of conditions attached to pp.07/2357w are acceptable and have been implemented, and that there is no associated objection from Waste Management in relation to the amended proposals.
V Highway safety 8.9 The proposal would be acceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety and on-street parking, taking into consideration the lack of objection from the Operational Manager Transportation. With regards the recommendation that provision be made for cycle parking, it is acknowledged that cycle parking was not required under pp. 07/2357w and that it would be difficult to demonstrate a material increase in cycle parking requirements that justified a condition requiring cycle parking in relation to the current proposal.
8.10 The following responses are made in relation to the objections received:
General concerns i. the premises and its rear garden lie within a local centre, as defined by the local plan and the proposal is considered acceptable for the reasons noted above, subject to the recommended conditions; ii. the impact on noise and disturbance is considered in section 8 above; iii. the impact on noise and disturbance is considered in section 8 above.
Extension of dining area Harm to residential amenity iv. this issue is considered in section 8 above; v. this issue is considered in section 8 above.
Extension of opening Hours Harm to residential amenity vi. this issue is considered in section 8 above; vii. this issue is considered in section 8 above.
Use of outside dining area Harm to residential amenity viii. this issue is considered in section 8 above; ix. the design of the garden area is considered acceptable in terms of residential amenity ; x. this issue is considered in section 8 above; xi. the proposal accords with local and national policy, subject to the recommended conditions for the reasons set out in section 8 above.
305 Highway and access matters xii. impact on highway safety and parking is considered in section 8 above; xiii. there is no objection from the Operational Manager Transportation; xiv. this is a private legal matter.
Waste matters xv. provision for waste management is considered in section 8 above; xvi. Snails have entered into a commercial waste agreement; xvii. The condition relating to refuse storage attached to pp. 07/2357w has been fully discharged; xviii. provision for waste management is considered in section 8 above; xix. provision for waste management is considered in section 8 above.
Other concerns xx. this point is noted, but the current proposal is considered acceptable for the reasons noted above; xxi. the applicant is certainly seeking greater flexibility but the application considered to be acceptable for the reasons noted above; xxii. this issue is considered in section 8 above; xxiii. planning permission or other agreement under part VIIA of the Highways Act has not been granted for the placement of tables and chairs on the pavement outside the premises; xxiv. the impact on the privacy of neighbours is considered acceptable for the reasons noted in section 8 above; xxv. the current application seeks to regularise the breaches of planning permission 07/2357w; xxvi. whilst the Council has not taken formal enforcement action, advice on the extent of planning permission 07/2357w has been provided and an application subsequently submitted to regularise the breaches; xxvii. previous planning application was considered acceptable subject to conditions and the current application submitted to regularise the breaches; xxviii. the position and issues relating an alcohol license is set out in section 8 above; xxix. this is a private legal matter; xxx. this is conjecture and planning permission may not be needed, depending on the nature of the proposal; xxxi. this is not a material planning consideration; xxxii. it is a well established principle of development control that each application should be determined on its own merits; xxxiii. there are not material planning considerations; xxxiv. this point is addressed in section 8 above; xxxv. the precise wording of the petition in support is set out in paragraph 7.4 above; xxxvi. the report makes it clear that breaches of the planning conditions attached to pp. 07/2357w have occurred and that the proposal seeks to regularise these; xxxvii. the report notes that over half of the signatories are from Rhiwbina residents. A more detailed analysis of the addresses of all the signatories would not represent good use of Council resources;
306 xxxviii. whilst these concerns are noted, the representation received are a material planning consideration; xxxix. the precise wording attached to the petition in support is set out in paragraph 7.4 above; xl. The special personal circumstances of a neighbouring occupier carry limited weight in assessing the acceptability of a proposal and, in this instance, are not considered sufficient to warrant a change to the report’s recommendation.
8.11 In response to the representation from Cllrs Cowan and Jones, consultation on the amended plans was undertaken and that the report has been duly taken to Planning Committee with the request for a site visit noted. A condition is recommended to prevent use of the external dining area beyond 7.30pm.
8.12 The proposal has been assessed against the policy cited above and the material matters raised have been considered. In the opinion of officers it is compliant with the objectives of the policy cited and will not result in an unreasonable impact upon the living conditions of nearby residents, highway safety, and waste management, subject to the recommended conditions, including a condition to prevent the use of the outside dining area from 7.30pm onwards.
307 308 309 310 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/380/W APPLICATION DATE: 18/03/2009
ED: RIVERSIDE
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Thomas & Field LOCATION: 171 & 173 CATHEDRAL ROAD, PONTCANNA, CARDIFF, CF11 9PL PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF REAR ANNEX TO 171, CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT ANNEX TO 171 & 173, CONVERSION TO 8NO FLATS, RETENTION OF HOUSE AT 173 AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND ACCESS. ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer's report planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 1st October 2009 attached to and forming part of this planning application, and to the letter from the agent dated 29th June 2009 in relation to external materials. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. D3D Maintenance of Parking Within Site
4. C3S Cycle Parking
5. D7S Details of Refuse Storage Within Premise
6. The railings shown on drawing no. 18 shall be installed in accord with the approval details along the front boundary of the premises prior to beneficial use of the development. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the Cathedral Road Conservation Area.
7. Details of the means of enclosure for the rear lane boundary of the site shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to
311 the commencement of development. The approved details shall be implemented prior to beneficial occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure the amenities of the area are protected.
8. D4A Landscape Scheme
9. E4A Implementation of Landscape Scheme
10. D7Z Contaminated materials
11. E7Z Imported Aggregates
12. Prior to the commencement of development further details of the rear annex gable end windows shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to beneficial occupation. Reason: To ensure the character and appearance of the Cathedral Road Conservation Area is preserved.
13. Not withstanding the submitted details, the approved car parking spaces shall be surfaced with interlocking plastic ‘grass pavers’ before the flats are occupied. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the occupants of the development and that of the Cathedral Road Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 3: This development falls within an area which has a geological predisposition to radon and will require basic radon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations 2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division
RECOMMENDATION 4: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority
312 takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Bats often roost in houses and other buildings, and work on these buildings may disturb a bat roost. All bats and their roosts are protected against disturbance under UK and European legislation. If works are planned on a building in which bats are roosting, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) must be contacted. They must be given reasonable time to advise as to whether the works should be carried out and, if so, the method to be used. This legislation does not apply to bats in the living area of a dwelling-house.
If work has already commenced and bats are found, or if any evidence that bats are using the site as a roost is found, work should cease and CCW should be contacted immediately.
For buildings other than a dwelling-house, no works of site clearance, demolition or construction should take place unless a licence to disturb these species has been granted in accordance with the relevant legislation.
The Cardiff office of CCW can be contacted at :
Unit 7, Castleton Court, Fortran Road, St Mellons, Cardiff CF3 0LT Tel : 02920 772400 Fax : 02920 772412
For further advice on bats please contact :
The Bat Conservation Trust, Unit 2, 15 Cloisters House, 8 Battersea Park Road, London, SW8 4BG Tel : 02920 7627 2629 Fax : 020 7627 2628
313 RECOMMENDATION 6: You should contact Welsh Water before commencing the development since it may lie within the easement of a public sewer that crosses the site. The approximate position of the sewer is marked on the attached record plan. No development (including the raising or lowering of ground levels) will be permitted within the safety zone which is measured either side of the centre line. For details of the safety zone please contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155. Please note that the grant of planning permission does not give any rights to build within a sewer easement without first obtaining the consent of Welsh Water
RECOMMENDATION 7: That the applicant be advised to provide future residents with a welcome pack providing information on sustainable travel opportunities in the vicinity of the development.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This is a detailed application for the construction of a new rear annex to 171 and 173 Cathedral Road, Pontcanna and the provision in the original building at 171 and the new annex of 8 flats/maisonettes (6 no. two bedroom and 2 no. one bedroom). A four bedroom house would remain within the main building at 173. The application as originally submitted proposed an office on the ground floor of 173 with a maisonette above. This has been omitted from the amended plans which retain the existing house.
1.2 The premises are currently vacant. At rear of the site, an open yard exists which is shared with nos. 169 and 175. Work has commenced to the rear annex of 175 which benefits from previous permission 05/02890/W, although the work does not fully accord with this consent.
1.3 The amended plans provide for the provision of new metal railings on the front boundary wall. At the rear of the site, a seven space grass crete car park, cycle store and refuse store would be provided with access from the rear lane. Planting of 900mm depth is to be provided alongside the annex walls and a patio for the occupiers of the end ground floor flats provided at the end of the annex.
1.4 The new annex would be 15.8m long, 8.5m wide with a dual pitched roof of 6m eaves height/8.5 ridge height. The length width and height are similar to the existing and previously demolished annexes It would have accommodation of three floors with the top floor within the roof space. The two top floor flats would be lit by conservation style roof lights and two small dormers (one on each side). At the end of the annex a large window of distinctive style would be installed within bay windows at first floor level. All windows would be timber sash. Annex walls would be painted render with a slate roof.
314 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The premises comprises two no. three storey mid terrace buildings with a two storey rear annex to no. 171 situated towards the northern end of Cathedral Road. The premises are vacant. No. 171 has previously been used as a guest house and more recently for bed sitting rooms. No. 173 is a dwelling house.
2.2 The rear yard of nos. 171 and 173 extends to rear of 169 and 175. This yard has a single lighted access from the rear lane. The yard has a concrete and gravel surface.
2.3 Number 169 has recently been refurbished and is occupied as flats. Number 175 is vacant. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 The site has been subject to a number of applications since 1989. Of most relevance to the current application are:
03/2013/W: permission refused in December 2003 for 16 apartments and two storey extension at 169-175 Cathedral Road for a number of reasons relating to the lack of information and inappropriate design.
04/1180/W: permission refused in November 2004 for a revised scheme for 16 flats and an extension at nos. 169-175 for similar reasons to 03/2013/W.
3.2 05/2890/W: permission granted in July 2008 following the signing of a section 106 Agreement for 13 apartments and the reconstruction of the rear annexes of nos. 171 and 173, at nos. 169 – 175 Cathedral Road.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Policies 3 (Development in Conservation Areas), 11 (Design), 17 (Parking) and 28 (Sub-division of Residential Properties) of the Local Plan and Policies 2.20 (Good Design), 2.22 (Sub-division of Residential Properties), 2.24 (Residential Amenities), 2.53 (Conservation Areas) and 2.57 (Parking) of the Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are of relevance in the consideration of this application.
4.2 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is of relevance:
Access Circulation and Parking Open Space Cathedral Road Conservation Area Appraisal
315 5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Transportation has advised in the context of the amended plans that the parking provision is acceptable subject to the receipt of £8,840 to be spent on providing two bus stop boarders in the vicinity of the site. 17 cycle parking spaces should be provided. Future residents should be provided with information on sustainable transport options.
5.2 The Parks Service has advised that as no recreation space is being provided on site, the developers are required to make a financial contribution towards the provision of off-site open space or the improvement of existing open space in the locality. A sum of £8,172 is required.
5.3 Pollution Control has advised that imported soil and aggregate conditions are required together with advice regarding construction noise, radon gas and contaminated / unstable land.
5.4 Waste Management advises that a refuse storage area should be provided at the rear of the site to accommodate 2 x 1100 litre bins and 1 x 240 litre bins. As the distance to the nearest Council collection points are substantial (Sneyd Street or Pontcanna Street), a kart may be used to push / pull the bins. This is the responsibility of the site management company. NB : The amended plans show a rear refuse storage area of satisfactory size.
5.5 The Strategic Planning Manager (Policy) advises that Policy 28 of the Cardiff Local Plan supports the subdivision of property to self contained flats. Given the location within an existing housing area, the application raises no land use policy concerns subject to satisfactory details, e.g. parking, external alterations.
5.6 The Strategic Planning Manager (Conservation) had concerns regarding the original submission in relation to the details of the new rear annex, e.g. side dormer size and missing information. The amended plans and additional details are considered satisfactory subject to conditions to confirm details of the rear gable window and rear boundary wall to the lane.
5.7 The Strategic Planning Manager (Biodiversity) recommends bat roost advice in relation to the proposed annexe demolition.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Environment Agency advises that it has no objection to the development in relation to flood risk as there is emergency access for residents to upper floors in the event of extreme flood conditions.
316 6.2 Welsh Water states it has no objection. It advises the rear yard is crossed by a public sewer. Sustainable drainage opportunities should be investigated.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Neighbouring occupiers have been notified of the original and amended plans, and the application publicised by press and site notices. The occupier of 88 Plasturton Gardens comments that the development does not reflect the character of the surrounding properties, which do not have three floors in the rear annex nor a glazed area / windows in the annex attic wall. The design statement comment that the rear elevation and annexes retain little of the original character is not agreed as other annexes have (rear) first floor sash windows and no attic level window. There is concern the windows will be upvc. The roof space accommodation may be too hot in summer and cold in winter. The large rear attic windows will invade the objector’s privacy as they will be closer than previously. The location of the refuse store is of concern as refuse collection is from the front. The bin store may encourage vermin and it is unclear how waste will be removed.
7.2 The Cathedral Road Conservation Group has commented that the roof pitch is too shallow and does not respect the rhythm of the adjoining properties. The fenestration on the rear elevation of the annex is inappropriate and not in sympathy with the usual Victorian styles. There is a lack of amenity space and landscaping.
7.3 Local Members have been notified. Any comments will be reported at Committee.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The conversion of the building at no. 171 to self contained flats and their provision in the new rear annex is considered to conform to land use policies supporting their provision in principle where multiple occupation (bedsits) is replaced.
8.2 With regard to the character and appearance of the Cathedral Road Conservation Area, the proposed rear annex with a simple dual pitched roof will replicate the traditional pattern found in the local area. The annex will use traditional materials and incorporate timber sash windows. The provision of accommodation partly within the annex roof space is a less traditional feature. However, it is considered that the design of the windows (mostly rooflights) accords with local character. The rear large gable window is not a feature usually found in a rear annex. However, it is considered that its appearance will reflect the character of the architecture of the local area as it will be installed in both 171 and 173 and be symmetrical in form. The development
317 will also result in an improvement to the more prominent site frontage by installing traditional railings on the front boundary wall.
8.3 Residential amenity: the facilities provided to future occupiers of the flats in terms of internal space standards, parking and cycle parking, refuse storage and outlook are considered satisfactory. The two ground floor flats in the rear of the annex will have a smaller patio area adjacent to their lounges. More generally the plans provided for a planting bed along the sides and rear of the annex and the use of grasscrete for the parking spaces will help soften the appearance of the rear yard. The concern raised by a resident of Plasturton Gardens regarding loss of privacy is not supported as the rear windows of the annex will be 23m from the end of the rear garden of the objector’s home and further from the rear of the house itself.
8.4 The proposal will help result in the removal of an area of unsightly land at the rear of the premises and improve the appearance of the rear of the buildings, as well as providing eight new dwellings. Permission is recommended subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the payment of £8,840 for bus stop improvements and £8,172 for open space in the local area. Conditions are also required to ensure the development is built as indicated and satisfactory further details for landscaping, the rear annex gable window, cycle parking, refuse storage and the rear lane boundary.
318 319 320 321 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/00446/W APPLICATION DATE: 17/03/2009
ED: RIVERSIDE
APP: TYPE: Conservation Area Consent
APPLICANT: Thomas & Field LOCATION: 171 CATHEDRAL ROAD, PONTCANNA, CARDIFF, CF11 9PL PROPOSAL: Demolition of Rear Annex
______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That Conservation Area consent by GRANTED to the following conditions:
1. The works permitted shall be begun before the expiration of the five years from the expiration of five years from the date of the consent. Reason: In accordance with the provisions of section 74 (3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
2. C2M Restricted Demolition
RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This is an application for conservation area consent to demolish a two storey rear annex to 171 Cathedral Road, Pontcanna. It is submitted in conjunction with planning application 09/380W, also reported to Committee today, to construct a new annex to the rear of Nos 171 and 173 as part of a development to provide new flats at that address.
1.2 The two storey annex to be demolished is 14 m long with a single storey projection of 4 m length at its end. It has a monopitch roof and formerly formed one half of a paired annex with a structure at the rear of No 173 which has previously been demolished.
322
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 No 171 Cathedral Road is a three storey building occupied by 12 bed sitting rooms. At the rear is a parking area shared with No 173 accessed via a rear lane. The annex has render walls and a slate roof.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 06/00939W: conservation area consent granted in September 2006 for the demolition of the two storey rear annex of 171 Cathedral Road together with single storey annexes and garages at the rear of 169 and 175 Cathedral Road in conjunction with planning permission for 169-175 Cathedral Road (05/2890W).
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Policy 3 of the Cardiff Local Plan and 2.53 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan advise proposals should only been permitted which preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The supporting text to policy 2.53 states that ‘Proposals for the demolition of unlisted buildings’ will be assessed in the same way as those for Listed Building Consent in accord with Welsh Office circulars 61/96 and 1/98.
4.2 The Cathedral Road Conservation Area Appraisal is relevant.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Strategic Planning Manager Conservation has advised that there is no objection to demolition subject to the receipt of satisfactory proposals for development at the site.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Nil
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Neighbouring occupiers have been notified and the application publicised by press and site notices. No comments have been received.
7.2 The Cathedral Road Conservation Group objects to demolition of the annex in the absence of a suitable replacement scheme.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The demolition of the rear annex to No 171 is considered to be acceptable subject to the grant of planning permission for the replacement annex at the rear of no 171 and 173 (see application 09/380W) and its construction.
323
This development would restore ‘paired’ annexes to Nos 171 and 173 with a dual pitched roof which is a characteristic of the rear elevations of this part of Cathedral Road. The annex to be demolished is not considered to process any intrinsic architectural merit that justifies its retention. The grant of conservation area consent is recommended subject to a condition to ensure demolition only occurs after a contract to build the replacement development has been signed.
324 325 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/848/W APPLICATION DATE: 18/05/2009
ED: RIVERSIDE
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Y Mochyn Du LOCATION: LAND TO FRONT OF Y MOCHYN DU, SOPHIA CLOSE, PONTCANNA, CARDIFF, CF11 9HW PROPOSAL: TEMPORARY USE (3 YEARS) OF HIGHWAY FOR OUTSIDE SEATING (UP TO 36 SEATS) BETWEEN APRIL AND OCTOBER ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. The use hereby permitted shall only be used between the months of April and October (inclusive) and shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition within three years of the date of this decision notice, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the proposal accords with the submitted details and to enable the Local Planning Authority to monitor the impact of the proposal in the short/medium term in view of the sensitive historic environment.
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the drawing titled ‘OS plan’ and numbered J05/23/S1/E and dated stamped 25/08/09 attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plan amends and form part of the application.
3. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the drawing titled ‘SITE PLAN’ and numbered J05/23/S2/E from the agent and dated stamped 25/08/09. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
4. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the information contained in the photograph of the proposed tables and chairs dated stamped 25/08/09. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.
5. The extent of the area for outside seating shall be restricted to the seating area shown on the drawing titled ‘SITE PLAN’ and numbered J05/23/S2/E, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary of the area shall be marked out and a schedule of the means of marking out shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
326 commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The marking out shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the historic setting.
6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no umbrellas, jumbrellas, parasols, shelters, planters, means of enclosure or other structures shall be placed within the application site identified by the red line boundary, identified on the drawing titled ‘OS plan’ and numbered J05/23/S1/E, with the exception of tables and chairs which shall be restricted to the seating area defined in condition 5 above. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the historic setting.
7. The tables and chairs to be used in the seating area shown on the drawing titled ‘SITE PLAN’ and numbered J05/23/S2/E shall be constructed of teak and painted black metal, and shall be of a scale and design in keeping with the tables and chairs shown in the photograph attached as additional information and date stamped 25/08/09, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the historic setting.
8. The tables and chairs to be used in the seating area shown shall be stored overnight and when not in use within the building, in the internal storage area on the drawing titled ‘SITE PLAN’ and numbered J05/23/S2/E, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the historic setting.
RECOMMENDATION 2: That the applicant be advised that the Local Authority has the power to issue a Street Litter Control Notice under S94 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to the occupier/owner to clear up any litter produced as a result of the outdoor seating.
RECOMMENDATION 3: That the applicant be advised to contact Highways and Waste Management, Brindley Road, on tel no. 029 2078 5240 in order to obtain the necessary Part VIIA License which will be required in order to permit this area of adopted highway being used for the purpose of this application.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The proposal seeks permission for a temporary use (3 years) of the highway for outside seating associated with the premises between April and October.
327 1.2 In the submission, the agent states that:
• The application proposes the use of this area for outside seating on an ad- hoc basis (weather dependant) between the months of April and October on days when it is not required for highways purposes; • The application initially proposes a temporary use of the land to enable the LPA to monitor the situation in the short/medium term; • The furniture would not be located on the pedestrian footway, ensuring that the proposed use would not interfere with pedestrian movement; • The furniture would be lightweight and would not be fixed, to allow for easy movement and storage by staff, and on this basis would not constitute development; • The use of the land for outside seating would serve to enhance the vibrancy and vitality of the area, enhancing the overall character and appearance of the locally listed building and historic park; • The highways department are fully supportive of the proposed use.
1.3 The number of tables and chairs detailed in the description has been changed from ‘up to 48 seats’ to ‘up to 36 seats’. A site plan has been submitted as additional information, showing the proposed tables and chairs drawn to scale to demonstrate the extent of the number of seats proposed. This shows a reduction in the number of tables and chairs, a smaller seating area and also identifies an internal storage area for overnight storage of tables and chairs.
1.4 An amended location plan has been submitted, showing a reduction in the number of tables and chairs to 36 but no change to the red and blue line boundary.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application relates to a broadly crescent shaped area of land, located to the south east of, and outside the main entrance to, Y Mochyn Du public house. The land is designated as adopted highway, encompasses both a pedestrian footway and highway, and has recently been created as part of on- going improvements to Sophia Gardens. The crescent area has been formed, together with a similar crescent on the opposite side of Sophia Close, as an occasional drop off point and turning area for buses bringing spectators to events in Sophia Gardens, Bute Park, the nearby SWALEC stadium and Welsh Institute of Sport. The area is not intended for general vehicular access and the use of the land as such is prevented through the presence of droppable bollards.
2.2 The Mochyn Du public house has a conservatory style extension and two beer gardens; one to the north-east of the building accommodating picnic bench style tables and jumberellas and another to the south-west of the pub and to the rear of the houses in Sophia Walk, which accommodates tables, chairs, ‘jumberellas’, timber decking, lighting and a loose gravel surface. The land is level and smoothly surfaced.
328 2.3 The pub is identified on the Local List as a ‘locally listed building of merit’. It is located within the Cathedral Road Conservation area and within, and at the entrance to, the historic park of Sophia Gardens which is included as Grade II on the Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 84/350 – Full - ‘Use of premises as a wine bar and restaurant at Sophia Gardens Lodge, Sophia Close, Cardiff’ granted 25/01/84 subject to conditions (relating to landscaping, tree preservation, means of site enclosure, arrangement and layout of car parking).
84/1754 – Full - ‘Winebar and restaurant at Sophia Gardens Lodge, Sophia Close, Cardiff’ granted 19/12/84, subject to statutory time limit condition only. File comments note application differs from 84/350w in that it includes a residential flat and an extension.
85/108 – Full - ‘Landscaping and screening to form family area for ‘The Lodge’ winebar, plus additional 10 parking spaces at The Lodge, Sophia Close, Cardiff’ granted 05/03/85, subject to conditions (relating to landscaping, planting of a hedge, siting of a barbeque, number of tables on the terrace area, use of the grassed area, loudspeakers, means of enclosure).
86/512 – Outline – ‘Construct extension to form Orangery Restaurant at ‘The Lodge’, Sophia Close, Cardiff’ granted 22/07/86 subject to conditions (requiring design to reflect Victorian character, requiring area 3 land to be use for car parking only, the extension to be used for restaurant purposes only and not a bar, preventing area 2 being used as a beer garden and preventing meals being served in the restaurant extension after midnight).
86/1441 - Full – ‘Temporary function marquee within area 1’ refused 30/09/86 on grounds relating to parking, harm to visual amenity and harm to neighbouring amenity as a result of on street parking, noise and general disturbance.
86/1896 – Reserved matters relating to 86/512 and approval of conditions a (siting, design, appearance), b (3 year time limit), c (start time), d (details and drawings) and e (Victorian character), approved 16/01/87 subject to conditions (additional plans, additional parking to be provided in accordance with details, surface treatment, extension to be used for restaurant only and not bar, no amplified music in proposed extension, no meals to be served in the restaurant extension after midnight on any day, garden area between extension and 32 and 34 Cathedral Road not to be used as a beer garden and no tables without prior consent, details of measures to protect privacy and amenities, tree protection measures).
87/2094w ‘Temporary function marquee area’.
329 89/1283w – Reserved matters for outline 86/512 in respect of conditions a (siting, design and appearance), b (3 year time limit) and c, subject to conditions (relating to materials, previously submitted parking details, tree preservation and tree retention)
04/244w – Full – ‘Form a door from an external window’ – granted.
05/98w – Full – ‘Conservatory style extension’ – refused.
05/2925w – Full – ‘Proposed ground floor rear conservatory extension’ – refused.
08/773w – Full – ‘Single storey extension together with external alterations at Y Mochyn Du, Sophia Close, Pontcanna’ – granted, subject to conditions (controlling provision to cycle parking, tree preservation, fume extraction, external materials, loading, unloading and parking, landscaping, site enclosure, material storage, refuse storage, lighting trenches and cable runs, surface treatment of SW beer garden, tree pruning, takeaways, drainage, tree protection, removal of containers, joinery details, programme for the repair for the stone plinth and gate piers). The application has been implemented but not all the conditions discharged, including the landscaping condition.
09/274w – Var – removal of condition 12 of planning permission 08/773w – approved.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The land is designated as adopted highway. The pub is identified on the Local List as a ‘locally listed building of merit’. It is located within the Cathedral Road Conservation area and within, and at the entrance to, the historic park of Sophia Gardens which is included as Grade II on the Cadw/ICOMOS Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales.
4.2 The following policies of the Local Plan are considered particularly relevant:
Policy 3 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ Policy 4 ‘Historic Gardens, Parks and Landscapes’ Policy 11 ‘Design and Aesthetic Quality’ Policy 17 ‘Parking and Servicing Facilities’ Policy 18 ‘Provision for Cyclists’ Policy 19 ‘Provision for Pedestrians’ Policy 20 ‘Provision for Special Needs Groups’.
4.3 The following policies of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan are considered particularly relevant:
Policy 2.20: Good Design Policy 2.24: Residential Amenity Policy 2.45: Trees Policy 2.52: Locally Listed Buildings
330 Policy 2.53: Conservation Areas Policy 2.54: Historic Gardens and Parks Policy 2.57: Access, circulation and parking requirements Policy 2.74: Provision for waste management facilities in development.
4.4 The following adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) notes are relevant: Cathedral Road Conservation Area Appraisal (2007), ‘Restaurant, Takeaways and other Food and Drink Uses’ (June 1996), ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements’ (June 2006), Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007), ‘Street Cafes on the Highway’, ‘Waste Collection and Storage Facilities’ (adopted March 2007), ‘Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements’ (adopted June 2006).
4.5 The following legislation and national guidance is considered particularly relevant:
Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 WO Circular 61/96 TAN 12 Design
Planning Policy Wales (March 2002), including paragraphs: 6.5.15 ‘If any proposed development would conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, or its setting, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission.
6.5.23 Local planning authorities should protect parks and gardens and their settings on the first part of the ‘Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales’. The effect of proposed development on a park or garden contained in the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales or on the setting of such a park or garden, may be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Waste Management have no objections to the proposal, but recommend the agent be advised of the Council’s powers to issue a Street Litter Control Notice under S94 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to the occupier/owner to clear up any litter produced as a result of the outdoor seating.
5.2 Pollution Control have no comments to make in relation to noise, air or contaminated land.
5.3 The Police ALO has no objection to the proposed temporary use but asks that a CCTV system is installed to monitor the seating area of the premises and the restaurant area, noting that the area should be appropriately lit during hours of darkness.
331 5.4 The Operational Manager Transportation has no objection to the proposal, but recommends that the applicant be advised to contact Highways and Waste Management in order to obtain the necessary part VIIA License which will be required in order to permit this area of adopted highway being used for the purpose of this application.
5.5 The Strategic Planning Manager (Conservation and Design) notes that:
• the proposal ‘will have an impact on the setting of the locally listed building, and the character of the conservation area and historic park in which it is set’, noting that it could undermine the character defined in the adopted conservation area appraisal; • whilst possessing potential to ‘add vibrancy’ to the area, the dignified character of the conservation area and historic park at this grand entrance will be affected by the proposed use; • the locally listed building will be surrounded by seating on three elevations, two of which face the park and hold the building’s principal decorative features. The remaining elevation is enclosed by service and kitchen areas; • highway surfaces designed for vehicles will become the location for chairs and tables. Their presence, and the litter and activity they will generate through catering and bar services will have a profound impact on the character described above; • the surface material here is ‘Imprint’, a printed surface that may be prone to staining through drink and food spills. As the area is not cleansed on a regular basis [as is the case in the city centre], the impact of unregulated pavement seating will make the bar use difficult to manage; • they have concerns over the extent of the red line boundary, in that it includes the pavement which is part of the main pedestrian route which must be kept clear in order to meet DDA requirements; • if the proposal is considered acceptable, they advise that the red line boundary should be drawn to exclude the pavement area and that the means of enclosure and type of furniture proposed should be carefully; • their grounds for objection are not strong given the weightier advice from Cadw; • the tables and chairs shown in the additional information photograph are acceptable.
5.6 The Cathedral Road Conservation Group objects to the proposal, commenting that the additional use will create visual clutter detracting from the visual amenity of the locally listed building and the important entrance of the historic park.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Cadw considers that the proposed seating would not cause serious harm to the historic or visual character of the park so long as the area they occupy is limited and its character is sympathetic to their setting within a historic park. They comment further on the seating, noting that the proposed seating is in a visually sensitive location within the park, located just inside the main
332 entrance and that it would be highly visible from and adjacent to the main access road into the park. They note that whilst it would have no physical impact on the park, its visual impact would be noticeable. Given this sensitivity, they recommend that the seating should be restricted to the central portion of the road and that the seating should be of an appearance that is appropriate to its historic parkland setting. They advise that traditional material (timber, preferably teak) and design would be most suitable in this context and that this could be addressed by condition.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 37 neighbouring properties were consulted and the application advertised by means of a site and press notice. One letter of objection has been received, from the occupier of 58 Ryder St, who advises that the use of the area at the frontage already causes obstruction to pedestrians, prams and wheelchairs.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The key issues for consideration in the determination of this application are as follows:
The principle of the acceptability of the temporary use of the adopted highway for outside seating 8.2 The principle of the temporary use is acceptable, taking into consideration the lack of objection from the Operational Manager Transportation, the 3 year temporary nature of the consent and that the seating would be used on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, as detailed in the information by the agent.
Impact on highways safety 8.3 The proposal is acceptable in highway safety terms, taking into consideration the lack of objection from the Operational Manager Transportation and that the proposed seating area will not encroach onto the pedestrian footway.
Impact on residential amenity 8.4 The proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of residents in the vicinity, particularly in relation to potential noise and disturbance, taking into consideration the existence of the 2 existing pub gardens, the scale of the proposed seating area, that the proposed additional seating is unlikely to materially add to existing levels of noise and disturbance, the lack of complaints about the current beer garden, the controls placed by the license and the lack of objection from the Pollution Control service.
Impact on visual amenity of the area, the character and appearance of the conservation area, the setting of the Historic Park and Garden (Grade II) and locally listed building 8.5 The objections from both the Strategic Planning Manager (Conservation and Design) and the Conservation Group are duly noted. There is some concern that the proposal will impact on the visual amenity of the area, the character and appearance of the conservation area, the setting of the historic park and garden and the locally listed building, taking into consideration the existing
333 pub gardens and cluttered appearance of the area. However, it would be difficult to sustain an objection at appeal given the weightier comment from Cadw that they do not consider that the proposed seating would cause serious harm to the historic or visual character of the park. Moreover, conditions are recommended to carefully control the impact of the proposal on the sensitive historic environment and it is considered that this is sufficient to prevent unacceptable harm. The 3 year temporary consent will allow the situation to be monitored over the short/medium term.
8.6 In relation to the advice from the Police ALO, I would comment as follows:
• it is noted that the area is already appropriately lit by street lamps; • it would be unreasonable to require the developer to provide a CCTV system to be installed to monitor the seating and restaurant area, given that the application is for a temporary 3 year permission and that there is no evidence to indicate that the need for the action would be created by either the features or the effects of the new development; • there is also concern that the CCTV system would add to the cluttered appearance of the area, to the detriment of the setting of the locally listed building, the character of the conservation area and the setting of the historic park.
8.7 In response to the objection from a local resident, I would comment that the application is acceptable with regards access for pedestrians and the mobility impaired, in that the application shows the seating only within the semi- circular area, with a clear pedestrian route maintained along the existing highway. Moreover, there is no objection from the Operational Manager Transportation.
8.8 The proposal has been assessed against the policy cited above and the material matters raised have been considered. In the opinion of officers it is compliant with the objectives of the policy cited, is acceptable in land use policy terms and will not result in an unreasonable impact upon the residential amenity of neighbours, highway safety, the visual amenity of the area, the character and appearance of the conservation area, the setting of the adjacent historic park and garden, the locally listed building or any other material matter, subject to the conditions recommended above.
8.9 The proposal is, accordingly, recommended for approval, subject to the recommended conditions.
334 335 336 337 COMMITTEE DATE: 16/09/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/943/W APPLICATION DATE: 18/06/2009
ED: CAERAU
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Forge Care Homes Limited LOCATION: Former Forge Garage, Cowbridge Road West, Caerau, Cardiff PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF 76 BED NURSING HOME WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING. ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in paragraph 5.8 of the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer's report planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition(s):
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans received on 17th July 2009 (drawings numbered C.04 and C.05) and 20th August 2009 (drawings numbered C.01A, C.02A and C.03A) attached to and forming part of this planning application. Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.
3. The proposed car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details before the development is brought into beneficial use and be thereafter maintained and retained at all times for those purposes in association with the development. Reason: To make provision for the parking of vehicles clear of the roads so as not to prejudice the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic, in accordance with policy 17 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.”
4. No development shall take place until details showing the provision of 8 no. sheltered and secure cycle parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter the cycle parking spaces shall be maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose.
338 Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles in accordance with policy 18 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
5. No obstruction to vision exceeding one metre in height shall be placed within the visibility splay defined on the approved plans. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed access does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site, in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
6. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of construction management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include details of construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access and wheel washing facilities. The construction shall be managed strictly in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity, in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
7. No gates shall be erected to the proposed vehicular access. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed access does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site, in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
8. The existing access to the site shall not be used and shall be permanently closed before the development is brought into beneficial use in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway abutting the site in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
9. No development shall take place until a scheme for the drainage of the site and any connection to the existing drainage system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the scheme is carried out and completed as approved. Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development in accordance with policy 2.61 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
10. Prior to commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide
339 that all habitable rooms exposed to external road traffic noise in excess of 63 dBA Leq 16 hour [free field] during the day [07.00 to 23.00 hours] or 57 dBA Leq 8 hour [free field] at night [23.00 to 07.00 hours] shall be subject to sound insulation measures to ensure that all such rooms achieve an internal noise level of 40 dBA Leq 16 hour during the day and 35 dBA Leq 8 hour at night. The submitted scheme shall ensure that habitable rooms subject to sound insulation measures shall be provided with acoustically treated active ventilation units. Each ventilation unit (with air filter in position), by itself or with an integral air supply duct and cowl (or grille), shall be capable of giving variable ventilation rates ranging from :
1) an upper rate of not less than 37 litres per second against a back pressure of 10 newtons per square metre and not less than 31 litres per second against a back pressure of 30 newtons per square metre, to 2) a lower rate of between 10 and 17 litres per second against zero back pressure.
No habitable room shall be occupied until the approved sound insulation and ventilation measures have been installed in that room. Gardens shall be designed to provide an area which is at least 50% of the garden area for sitting out where the maximum day time noise level does not exceed 55 dBA Leq 16 hour [free field]. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of future occupiers are protected in accordance with policy 2.64 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
11. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a scheme detailing the measures necessary for the purposes of identifying chemical and other contaminants on the site and to ensure that the land is suitable for the proposed development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall include details of any measures necessary to protect future occupiers/users of the land from chemical and other contaminants. All measures in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with a timetable which shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority . Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced in accordance with policy 10 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.63 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
12. Any topsoil (natural or manufactured) or subsoil to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation.
340 Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced, in accordance with policy 10 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.63 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
13. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced, in accordance with policy 10 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.63 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
14. No development shall take place until details of the means of site enclosure have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The means of site enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being put into beneficial use. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the area are protected in accordance with policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
15. No development shall take place until a scheme for the illumination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved scheme shall be implemented before the development is brought into beneficial use and shall be thereafter maintained. Reason: In the interests of crime prevention and safety, in accordance with policy 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan.
341 RECOMMENDATION 2: The developer is advised that details required by condition 8 above relate to the reinstatement of the footway over former dropped crossovers and creation of a splay at the entrance. This will require extensive footway construction prior to the commissioning of the development. Liaison with John Haines (tel 02920 785240) of Highways Operations should take place to arrange an agreement as to the specification of the works.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The applicant is advised that public transport and non-car mode information should be provided for staff and visitors to help mitigate against trip generation from the onset of beneficial use of the development.
RECOMMENDATION 4: This development falls within a radon affected area and may require full radon protective measures.
RECOMMENDATION 5: The contamination assessments and the effects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for
(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.
The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.
RECOMMENDATION 6: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity, attention is drawn to the provisions of section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800 - 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
342 RECOMMENDATION 7: The developer is advised that foul and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site and that no surface water or land drainage run-off shall be permitted to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system. The developer is advised that it may be possible to control surface water on the site via Sustainable Urban Drainage techniques and that the use of such techniques should be fully investigated before connection of surface water to the public sewerage system is considered. The developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s Network Development Consultants on 01443 331155 to discuss this matter.
RECOMMENDATION 8: 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 water mains and associated infrastructure. Detailed site layout plans should be sent to New Connections Design Department, Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea SA6 5BQ.
RECOMMENDATION 9: A trunk/distribution water main crosses the application site. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. It may be possible for the water main to be diverted under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the cost of which will be re-charged to the developer.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a 76 bed nursing home with associated car parking. Planning permission was previously granted for the erection of two 3 storey blocks containing 32 flats, one block facing towards Cowbridge Road East and one located at an angle to that block, at the rear. That development was begun but it is now proposed to link the two blocks, create a fourth storey in the roof space and to use the development as a nursing home rather than flats.
1.2 The building would be finished in red brick, buff brick, smooth render and timber cladding and would have a mansard style roof finished with blue black cement fibre slates.
1.3 The application was originally reported to the Planning Committee on 16th September 2009 and was deferred for a site visit, which took place on 12th October 2009.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site covers approximately 0.3 hectares and lies on the southern side of Cowbridge Road West, with existing housing to the west, south and south-
343 east and on the opposite side of the road. To the north-east is an industrial building currently occupied by a sign manufacturer.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 96/1534/R - New sales building and drive-through takeaway facility, new link canopy, new underground storage tanks etc. Refused.
3.2 04/234/R - Residential development of 18 flats in two blocks with associated car parking, bin store and amenity facilities. Granted subject to Section 106 obligation that was not resolved.
3.3 06/118/W - 32 residential flats in two blocks with associated car parking etc. Granted.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan 1991 - 2011:
EV1 (Towards sustainable development); MV1 (Location of New Developments); MV2 (Commuted Payments); MV11 (Parking); H4 (Special Housing Provision)
4.2 Cardiff Local Plan:
11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality); 12 (Energy Efficient Design); 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities); 18 (Provision for Cyclists); 19 (Provision for Pedestrians); Supplementary Planning Guidance - Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (June 2006); Cardiff Residential Design Guide (March 2008); Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007)
4.3 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan:
2.20 (Good Design); 2.24 (Residential Amenity); 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements); 2.74 (Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development).
4.4 National Guidance: Planning Policy Wales (2002):
344 2.5.3: Local planning authorities should assess the extent to which developments are consistent with minimising the need to travel and increasing accessibility by modes other than the private car.
M.I.P.P.S. 01/2006 - Housing: 9.1.1: The Assembly Government will seek to ensure that new housing and residential environments are well designed, environmentally sound and make significant contribution to promoting community regeneration and improving the quality of life. 9.2.6: Maximising the use of appropriate previously developed land for housing development can assist regeneration and relieve pressure for development on greenfield sites. 9.2.12: Higher densities should be encouraged on easily accessible sites where appropriate but these will need to be carefully designed to ensure a high quality development. Local authorities should adopt a flexible approach to car parking standards. 9.3.3: Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity. 9.3.4: Where high densities are proposed, the amenity of the scheme and surrounding property should be carefully considered.
M.I.P.P.S. 01/2008 - Planning for good design: 2.9.8: Visual appearance, scale and relationship to surroundings and context are material planning considerations.
Technical Advice Note 12 (Design): 5.11.3: The design of housing layouts and built form should respect local context and distinctiveness.
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Chief Officer Strategic Planning and Environment (Urban Design):
The amendments are acceptable in resolving the concerns raised by the previous plans, which were that the proposal was considered to be very bulky in scale and massing in relation to the site context and particularly to the scale of development surrounding the rear of the proposal. There will be a reduced impact in relation to the properties on Cyntwell Crescent and the scheme will be more similar in scale to the current approved scheme on the site.
5.2 Chief Officer Strategic Planning and Environment (Land Use Policy):
The application site falls within an existing residential area as defined by the City of Cardiff Local Plan. Planning permission to construct 32 residential flats was granted in 2006. Whilst work has begun on the construction of the flats,
345 due to the depressed state of the market, the applicants are seeking to extend and use the proposed building as a 78 bed nursing home. Policy 26 of the Local Plan states that community uses appropriate within a housing area are generally acceptable in principle.
5.3 Policy HSC 3 of the Deposit Local Development Plan recognises that a range of community uses are appropriate and necessary, in principle, within residential areas, including residential homes and permits such uses where there would be no unacceptable impact on residential amenity.
5.4 Subject to residential amenity considerations, the application raises no land use policy concerns.
5.5 Operational Manager Transportation:
No objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring the retention of parking within the site, provision of cycle parking as per the approved drawing, retention of visibility splays within the defined area, a scheme of construction management, no gates to be erected to the vehicular access and closure of the existing access.
5.6 The developer should liaise with Highway Operations regarding the reinstatement of the footway.
5.7 The applicant is advised that public transport and non-car mode information should be provided for staff and visitors to help mitigate against trip generation from the onset of beneficial use of the development.
5.8 A Public Transport contribution should be secured for the sum of £6,240 (inclusive of the 4% statutory fee) to provide two CCTV cameras on Cowbridge Road West, to be secured through a S106 Agreement. (This figure is on the basis that £6,120 has previously been requested, but not secured, from the developer on this site under planning permission 06/00118/W).
5.9 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Drainage):
No objection in principle. Where ground conditions are suitable, surface water should be drained via sustainable drainage techniques such as permeable paving or soakaways etc.
5.10 Chief Officer Culture, Leisure and Parks (Parks Services):
No comments to make as nursing homes are exempt from policy 31 and the requirement to provide recreational open space.
346 5.11 Chief Officer Strategic Planning and Environment (Pollution Control):
Standard conditions and recommendations relating to road traffic noise, construction site noise, contaminated land, imported soil and aggregates, radon gas protection, and contaminated/unstable land.
5.12 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Waste):
Current plans showing refuse storage are acceptable. Further information regarding the bin store should be submitted.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Cardiff Bus:
No reply to consultation.
6.2 Police Architectural Liaison Officer:
Comments are confined to general building security and car park layout, which has yet to be started. We would recommend that where possible features such as doors and windows comply with new build Secure by Design Standards.
Doors All entrance doors should be constructed and fitted certified to at least PAS 24-1:1999 ‘Doors of enhanced security’. Where emergency exit doors are fitted they should be certified to EN 179:1998 Building with emergency exit (hardware)-Building Hardware- Emergency exit devices operated by lever handle or push pad- requirement and test methods.
Windows Ground floor windows or those easily accessible above ground, should be certified to BS 7950:1997 Specifications for enhanced security performance casement and tilt/turn windows for domestic applications’.
Lighting I note no lighting plan was included but access road and parking areas should be lighted to comply with BS5489 and should ensure even light patterns with avoiding creating dark shadow areas.
Bin Store The bin store is currently located to front of development far away from the kitchen area to the rear of the development where most rubbish is likely to be
347 generated, it is suggested this be replaced with a parking area and bin store located opposite kitchen area (elevation AA and against boundary fence).
Lock up Bike Shed Suggest this is moved to corner of site at junction of boundary fences of elevations AA and BB.
Parking Parking spaces 5 and 6 furthest inside site be sacrificed to create a safe vehicle turning area. Turning area opposite main entrance be changed to create 3 additional parking spaces. This increases parking capacity on site to 20 spaces and if designated staff car parking is placed to rear of site, this will increase vehicle/ pedestrian traffic and natural surveillance.
Boundary fence This should be close boarded timber with no exterior climbing aids to min height of 1.8 metres to site boundaries elevations AA/BB/DD. The gap between building and perimeter boundary fence to front of DD elevation should be secured by fencing or gate to same height.
Entrance to site Differential road surface by means of surface type colour and rumble strip to differentiate between public and private space.
6.5 Welsh Water:
Foul and surface water discharges should be drained separately. No surface water shall be permitted to drain to the public sewerage system unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority; land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system. A scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site must be approved before development commences. No problems are envisaged with the waste water treatment works for the treatment of domestic discharges from this site. A water supply can be made available. The site is crossed by a trunk/distribution watermain, which it may be possible to divert.
6.4 Western Power Distribution:
Have provided details of the location of their apparatus.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application was advertised by site notice and neighbour notification. Two letters have been received from residents of Caerau Park Crescent and Cowbridge Road West, objecting to the proposals on the following grounds:
348 1) The building is too tall and overbearing; 2) Loss of light; 3) Loss of privacy; 4) There will be a wind tunnel between the buildings; 5) Insufficient parking provision; 6) Disturbance from building works.
7.2 Councillor Gasson has no objection in principle to the proposal and has been advised by Social Services that there is a need for this type of care home. Local residents have also been concerned that the site has remained as a building site for over a year since work on the flats ceased.
7.3 However, she objects to the over-development of the site and is concerned that a considerable number of nursing and care staff will be needed - bearing in mind that that part of Cowbridge Rd West is not well served by public transport, staff will require car parking but only 19 car parking spaces are provided, which she feels will be insufficient. She is also concerned that the car parking is allocated to the rear of elderly persons bungalows (in Cyntwell Crescent) - rather than on the other side of the site which is adjacent to industrial uses, which would not suffer from night-time disturbance, and that there is a lack of "garden" amenity for the home residents. Also, if planning permission is granted, the Council should ensure that the site boundaries are secure.
7.4 As Councillor Gasson objects to this proposal, she requests a site visit.
7.5 The applicants’ agent has submitted a letter of support for the application, stating that following the previous grant of planning permission for flats, construction work was undertaken by previous developers but a downturn in the market has meant that the site has remained half finished since December 2007. Their clients are anxious to progress the development of the site as soon as possible, so that the development can be completed, the appearance of the site improved and the local economy boosted by the employment of more than 50 people on a full and part time basis as well as the construction providing employment for local firms and tradesmen. The project is at a critical stage and their clients have been threatened with withdrawal of funding should planning permission not be granted in the near future. Their clients entreat the Planning Committee to deal with the application at the forthcoming meeting as any further delay may result in current funding being lost, which would prejudice immediate progress on the project with the effect that the site would remain half finished and jobs may be lost.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 Planning permission has been granted for the erection of two blocks of flats on this site in almost the same location and of the same height as the
349 proposed nursing home. The current application differs from the approved scheme in that the design of the buildings has been changed slightly and the footprint of the block to the rear of the site has been increased in size and the rear block has been linked to the block at the front.
8.2 The difference in the design details of the current and approved buildings is not considered to be significant: for example, the elevation fronting Cowbridge Road West no longer has entrance doors but has shallow gables to the full height of the building.
8.3 The changes to the footprint of the rear block are also considered acceptable. Although the rear block has been brought closer to the dwellings on Cyntwell Crescent by around 7m, the upper floors have been set back in order to reduce the impact of the difference in scale between the proposed development and existing buildings.
8.4 With regard to the objections received:
1) The building is no taller than that which already has planning permission and it is prevented from being unduly overbearing by setting back the upper floors of the rear block; 2) It is not considered that the increase in the size of the building will result in a significant additional loss of light to neighbouring dwellings, particularly as the nearest residential properties are to the south and south east of the site; 3) The nearest dwellings will be around 23m from habitable room windows of the proposed building, which is generally accepted as an adequate distance for the maintenance of privacy; 4) It is not possible to confirm whether a “wind tunnel” would be created between the buildings; 5) The Operational Manager, Transportation, is satisfied that adequate parking arrangements are shown on the plans; 6) Building works inevitably cause disturbance but this is for a temporary period only and matters of dust, noise etc would be controllable under Environmental Protection legislation.
8.5 In response to Councillor Gasson’s concerns, the issue of over-development is addressed at paragraph 5.1 and section 8 of the committee report. The Operational Manager Transportation considers the proposed number of parking spaces and the parking arrangements to be acceptable. The location of the parking spaces is the same as for the approved scheme for flats, which included 33 parking spaces rather than 19. Potential disturbance to adjacent residents from the use of the car park would therefore be lower for the proposed scheme. There will be a small amount of outdoor amenity space for the use of the residents. The Council does not have any policy or guidance regarding the amount of amenity space required for a nursing home. The
350 amount is less than would be required for general housing since there would not be a need for children’s play space, clothes drying areas etc. Recommended condition 14 above requires details of boundary treatment to be approved, and site security will be considered when the details are received.
8.6 In conclusion, there are no objections to the principle of the proposal and it is considered that the development would be acceptable in terms of its impact on visual and residential amenity, particularly given that planning permission has recently been granted for a very similar scheme.
351 352 353 354 355 PETITIONS AND LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/978/W APPLICATION DATE: 09/06/2009
ED: PENTYRCH
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Cardiff County Council LOCATION: YSGOL GYNRADD GWAELOD Y GARTH, MAIN ROAD, GWAELOD-Y-GARTH, CARDIFF, CF15 9HJ PROPOSAL: INSTALLATION OF A DOUBLE DEMOUNTABLE CLASSROOM ON EXISTING SCHOOL GROUNDS INCLUDING CONTINUOUS SERVICES ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. C01 Statutory Time Limit
2. The building hereby permitted shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition on or before 01JAN 2015 in accordance with a scheme of works which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development. Reason: The building proposed is of a temporary type and its long term retention could detract from the appearance of the area.
3. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) setting out the methodology that will be used to prevent loss of or damage to trees. A Tree Protection Plan in the form of a scale drawing showing the finalised layout and those tree and landscape protection methods detailed in the AMS that can be shown graphically. The development shall subsequently be carried out in conformity with the approved proposals, and in particular no work on site shall be done other than at the stages set out in the AMS.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, in accordance with policies 2.20 and 2.45 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
4. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by
356 the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include proposed finished levels, any earthworks, hard surfacing materials, proposed and existing services above and below ground level, planting plans (including schedules of plant species, sizes, numbers or densities, and in the case of trees, planting, staking and protection methods) and an implementation programme. The details shall be consistent with other plans submitted in support of the application. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to determine that the proposals will maintain and improve the amenity of the area and to monitor compliance, in accordance with policies 2.20 and 2.45 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
5. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved design and implementation programme submitted in discharge of condition 4. Any trees, plants, or hedgerows which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development, die, or are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the current planting season or the first two months of the next planting season whichever is the sooner, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To maintain and improve the amenity of the area, in accordance with policies 2.20 and 2.45 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
6. No development shall take place until details showing the provision of cycle parking spaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the development being put into beneficial use. Thereafter the cycle parking spaces shall be maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles, in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
7. The external walls of the building shall not be finished in accordance with the details of the colour shown on the approved plans but shall be finished in accordance with details that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with policy 2.53 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.
8. No development shall take place until plans showing details of the proposed floor levels of any building in relation to the existing ground level and the finished levels of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details.
357 Reason: These details are not included with the application and are required to ensure an orderly form of development as standard; add “in accordance with policies 2.20 and 2.53 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.”
RECOMMENDATION 2: A Travel Plan should be provided for the school and once approved this document should be implemented and monitored in accordance with the details contained within, in order to encourage more sustainable mode choices and promote sustainable transport options.
RECOMMENDATION 3: A summary of the Coal Authority’s standard advice is given :
The development lies in an area that could be subject to hazards arising from current or past coal mining. These hazards may include risk of ground subsidence or collapse, gas emissions, spontaneous combustion of coal and / or water emission.
You must take account of these hazards before your development proceeds, or any works of excavation and / or boring are carried out on the land. You must contact The Coal Authority Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com to obtain site specific information to assess the risk of such hazards and subsequently seek suitable specialist advice as to how the risk from any hazard may be managed.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The developer is advised that foul and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site and that no land drainage run-off shall be permitted to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the installation of a demountable building measuring 9.5m x 16.5m x 3.5m tall containing two classrooms, a lobby and toilets.
1.2 The building is to be constructed of plastisol coated steel sheeting, coloured light green, with UPVC window frames and doors. There will be ramped access to the lobby.
1.3 The application was originally reported to the Planning Committee on 12th August 2009 and was deferred for a site visit, which took place on 7th September 2009. It was subsequently returned to the Planning Committee on16th September and deferred to enable officers to draft reasons for refusal based on the Committee’s objections to the proposal on the grounds that it is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Gwaelod Y Garth Conservation Area.
1.4 Since the application was last reported to the Planning Committee, an amended plan has been submitted showing a proposed landscaping area to
358 the west of the building which comprises a strip of trees and shrubs approximately 7m wide stretching from the adjacent existing demountable classroom to the northern boundary of the school grounds. The intention is to create a visual buffer between the road and field and the proposed temporary building.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site is at the eastern end of the school playing field, which lies between Main Road and School Lane. To the south and south west there are two demountable classrooms (one single and one double), a modern teaching block and the original school buildings. Adjacent to Main Road, but outside the school site, is the Gwaelod Y Garth village hall. The entrance to the school is on Main Road to the south of the village hall.
2.2 There are houses opposite the site on Main Road and to the north west, and one house to the south east on the opposite side of School Lane.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 05/02446/W - New external steps and associated handrail. Granted.
05/02445/W - As above (listed building consent). Granted.
04/01524/W - Internal alteration to main school building, insertion of sun pipes, demolition of outbuilding, new fencing, steps and handrail. Granted.
00/01143/W - Temporary (demountable) classroom unit and covered play area. Refused on the grounds that its design, materials and prominent siting in relation to Main Road would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the listed building, that the proposal would result in considerable short stay car parking at the entrance to the school and that it would increase on-street parking pressure in Main Road.
98/02012/W - Provision of a new timber framed classroom unit. Granted.
97/00257/W - Replacement of existing demountable unit with new demountable unit of similar size in same location. Granted.
97/00256/W - Replacement of existing demountable unit with new demountable unit of similar size in same location. Granted.
97/00255/W - Replacement of existing demountable unit with new demountable unit of similar size in same location. Granted.
T/88/154 - Mobile classroom unit. T/79/1610 - Toilet extension. T/74/324 - Mobile classroom.
359 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Mid Glamorgan County Structure Plan Incorporating Proposed alterations No.1 - LC13 (presumption against development likely to affect adversely the character of conservation areas).
4.2 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan –
1.A (General Principles for the Location of Development) 1.B (Achieving Good Design) 1.I (The Historic Environment) 2.20 (Good Design); 2.24 (Residential Amenity); 2.45 (Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows); 2.51 (Statutory Listed Buildings); 2.53 (Conservation Areas); 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements).
4.3 The following policies of the deposit Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006- 2021 (April 2009) are of particular relevance:
SP2 (High Quality Sustainable Design) SP7 (Built Heritage) SD1 (Sustainable Design) SD2 (Sustainable Drainage) HER4 (Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows) HER10 (Conservation Areas)
4.4 Planning Policy Wales (2002):
6.1.2: Local authorities have an important role in securing the conservation of the historic environment while ensuring that it accommodates and remains responsive to present day needs. 6.5.7: Where a development proposal affects a listed building or its setting, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting or any special architectural or historic features it possesses. 6.5.15: If any proposed development would conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, or its setting, there will be a strong presumption against the granting of planning permission.
4.5 M.I.P.P.S. 01/2008 - Planning for good design:
2.9.8: Visual appearance, scale and relationship to surroundings and context are material planning considerations.
4.6 Welsh Officer Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment - Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas.
360 5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Chief Officer Strategic Planning and Environment (Conservation Group):
The setting of the listed building. The school site comprises the listed school building and various other buildings including a new permanent teaching block and two existing demountable classrooms. There is also a yard, playground and playing field. The site is set in a gentle hollow below the main road which defines the form of the conservation area.
5.2 The views of the listed school building are obscured from the road, though the gables and bellcote are still evident. The proposed position of the demountable classroom is set a reasonable distance from the listed school building and is not considered to affect its setting.
5.3 The conservation area. This part of the conservation area is characterised by the main road, the linear arrangement of houses overlooking the site and the wooded embankment. There are a number of building styles and periods represented in the area.
5.4 The installation of a new demountable classroom will not affect the open aspect of the main entrance or the enclosed tree/hedge lined feel to School Lane. Also, the proposal is set back on the site and is to be situated on an area of land that slopes down from Main Road reducing its visibility from the highway and impact on the conservation area. However, the terrace of houses known as Garth Villas do have an elevated view of this area of land and can at present see one of the existing demountable classrooms and the rear of the permanent teaching block and will have a view of the proposed classroom.
5.5 With regard to the effect the installation of a demountable classroom will have on the conservation area it is felt that it is a finely balanced judgement as to whether the proposal has a negative impact taking into account the existence of two demountable buildings one of which is clearly visible from the public highway. Also, as planning permission has been given in the past for demountable schoolrooms on the site, it is difficult not to justify a further classroom to meet the needs of the school.
5.6 However, when planning permission was granted for the permanent teaching block it was accepted that it allowed for the removal of temporary structures. The current proposal would undermine that enhancement. If, however, it is accepted that the need outweighs the impact the classroom would have on the conservation area and local context, then a temporary consent only should be offered. This is because the quality of the design and materials is not appropriate to the conservation area’s recognised historic setting.
5.7 Therefore, if it is minded to approve the application then consideration should be given to changing the proposed colour of the classroom to a colour which will blend with the natural landscape (green), possible landscaping scheme
361 and reduction in size of the proposed classroom.
5.8 Chief Officer Strategic Planning and Environment (Trees and Landscaping):
The replacement of the existing footpath has the potential to cause harm to retained trees either side of the path, particularly if excavation is required or levels are to be raised. The installation of the demountable classroom has the potential to cause harm to trees, particularly if cranes are used to put it in place. These issues could be covered by discharge of a non-standard tree protection condition. Landscaping conditions should also be attached to any permission.
5.9 Operational Manager Transportation:
No objections subject to conditions requiring approval of details of sheltered and secure cycle parking spaces. It is recommended that a travel plan be provided for the school to promote sustainable transport options.
5.10 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Drainage):
No objection in principle. Where ground conditions are suitable, surface water should be drained via sustainable drainage techniques. Ground permeability tests should be undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and a drainage scheme submitted for approval.
5.11 Chief Officer Strategic Planning and Environment (Pollution Control):
No reply to consultation.
5.12 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Waste Management):
No reply to consultation.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Police Architectural Liaison Officer:
A conversation with the headmaster of the school confirmed that there are no security concerns at this time. South Wales Police would recommend that the classroom to be alarmed and hard wired into the school security system and to avoid features that could be used as a foothold to gain access to the roof area by unauthorised persons.
6.2 Welsh Water:
Foul and surface water discharges should be drained separately. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system. Surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its source as possible via a suitable sustainable approach.
362 6.3 North West Conservation Group:
The portakabins are out of keeping with the village, out of keeping with the conservation area, unneighbourly development and over-development of the site. There is a lot of opposition from the local community. The applicant should look again at the proposals.
6.4 The Coal Authority
Standard advice applies.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Pentyrch Community Council:
The Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:
They are a short term fix to a longer term problem. Experience dictates that once the demountables solve the initial accommodation problem then longer term solutions would be quietly sidelined. This Council only need to point to the experience of Pentyrch Primary School where temporary demountables were used to solve an accommodation problem and nearly 40 years later the parents, governors and teachers are campaigning with the City & County of Cardiff to have them removed as they are in a dreadful condition and no child that was educated in them benefited from the experience. Unlike Pentyrch GYG School is within a conservation area and it would be wholly inappropriate to place demountables in such a position as they fail to comply with even the most basic of the special planning controls. By way of example the ‘design guidance’ contained within the advisory leaflet distributed to households following the review in 2007 states. Generally a high standard of design for new buildings and for the alteration or restoration of existing properties will be expected. Any new buildings should be designed to harmonise in form and scale with the area. Existing buildings should be maintained and renovated with care and sensitivity’. It is obvious that demountables, by their very nature, will not comply with the design guidance The school itself is a lovely example of a traditional village school made from local stone and a longer term solution should be sought, that would harmonise and connect any new buildings with the existing. The demountables will impinge on the valuable playing area. If the City & County of Cardiff can ignore their own advice in relation to conservation area status, would this not set a dangerous precedent for other applicants to be able to follow? 7.2 The application has been advertised by press notice, site notice and neighbour notification. 16 letters and a petition of 54 signatures have been
363 received, objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
1) Reduction in the size of the school playing field; 2) The increase in pupil numbers will lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic and will exacerbate existing parking difficulties; 3) The development is not needed- there is spare capacity at Pentyrch School. The school should control its intake. 4) A demountable classroom has recently been removed from the site. It would be a retrograde step to replace it with another. 5) Loss of designated green space, which is an essential part of the village’s amenities. 6) Detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the nearby listed building. 7) Loss of trees and hedgerow. 8) Detrimental impact on the rural character of School Lane. 9) The building is likely to be permanent, not temporary. 10) Loss of light and views across Main road from School Lane. 11) Over-development of the site. 12) Loss of wildlife habitat. 13) The application has not been advertised adequately. 14) The proposal is contrary to policies en27, en28, en46, en47, en49, en52, c1 and c4 of the deposit Taff Ely Local Plan, policies 1A, 1B, 1I, 1J, 2.20, 2.24, 2.45, 2.49, 2.51, 2.53 and 2.64 of the deposit draft UDP and policies SD1, SD2, HER4, HER10, HSC7 and HSC11 of the deposit draft LDP.
7.3 Twenty six letters and a petition of 97 signatures have been received in support of the application.
7.4 The governing body of the school has written in support of the proposal, stating that the need to erect the demountable building comes from the school’s objective to improve the education environment and teaching structure within the school. The new classrooms would allow for the teaching structure to be amended. It is not intended to increase the numbers of pupils: there will be no additional children attending the school other than normal fluctuations, therefore there will be no increased traffic associated with the proposal.
7.5 The governing body also states that whilst it would be desirable to have phase 2 of the school extension completed, the Local Education Authority has not presently made a commitment to this and therefore the proposal provides the only interim solution available so as to maintain the educational standards attained by the school. Using the school hall for teaching, as will be the case in September, is not a proposition that is sustainable in anything other than the short term. This will cause disruption in terms of physical education and school lunch, not to mention a teaching environment that is patently unsatisfactory.
7.6 Councillor Craig Williams requests a site visit to the school so that the committee can better assess the impact on the local community of further
364 developments within the school area, the continuing over-development of the school and surrounding buildings, the impact on the amount of green, open space available to the school, residents and children and the impact on the sky line in the conservation area.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The main issues that must be considered with regard to this application are the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and on the setting of the grade II listed school building.
8.2 The application site is separated from the listed building by an existing demountable classroom and part of the school yard. The proposed classroom will be at a reasonable distance (around 35m) from the listed school building and therefore will not affect its setting.
8.3 The impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area must also be carefully considered. It is a finally balanced judgement as to whether the proposal will have a negative impact, since there are already two demountable buildings on the school site, one of which is clearly visible from the public highway, and planning permission has been given in the past for demountable classrooms on the site.
8.4 Whilst a number of letters and a petition have been submitted in support of the application, 16 letters and a petition of 54 signatures have also been received from local residents who object to the development. These objections are listed above and I would comment on them as follows:
1) The building will cover around 160 square metres, leaving approximately 850 square metres of the field undeveloped. The school also has a surfaced playground. The Board of Governors has raised no concerns regarding loss of part of the outdoor play space. 2) No objections have been raised by the Operational Manager, Transportation, regarding traffic or parking issues. The building is not intended to accommodate a large number of additional pupils but to allow improvements to the existing facilities at the school. 3) The development is required for the purposes of improving conditions in the school and coping with normal fluctuations in intake, rather than increasing pupil numbers. The school is currently over capacity, with current pupil numbers being 211 and the capacity of the school being 189. The proposed unit is required to improve the education environment and to cope with current curriculum requirements. 4) The proposed demountable building would be suited to the needs of the school and, if another has been removed, would not result in an increase in the number of such buildings on the site 5) The site is not designated as “green space” in any development plan. It is a school playing field, not public open space. 6) This is addressed at paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 above. 7) Only one tree will be removed to accommodate the building. The Tree Preservation Officer has raised no objections to the loss of this tree.
365 The hedgerow is to remain. 8) The building will be visible from School Lane but it is not considered that the development will adversely affect the rural character of the area. The lane and the application site are within the settlement boundary of the village as defined in the deposit Unitary Development Plan and other buildings can be seen from the lane. 9) A condition can be imposed to ensure that planning permission for the building has to be renewed after a period of time. 10) Any overshadowing of School Lane will be minimal, and views from the lane are largely obscured by trees and hedges. Residents of houses on School Lane would not have any right to a view across the application site. 11) Sufficient undeveloped space will remain to meet the needs of the school, and the development would result in there being no more demountable buildings on the site than there have been in the past. 12) The site is not designated as having any special wildlife conservation value. Only one tree will be lost and this can be replaced within the site via a landscaping scheme that could enhance the site’s biodiversity. 13) The application has been advertised by publication of a notice in the press, by the display of two site notices on Main Road and at the entrance to School Lane, and by notifying immediate neighbours by letter. This is in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. 14) The deposit Taff Ely Local Plan does not apply in this area as it was not placed on deposit prior to local government reorganisation. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the other policies cited by the objectors:
UDP policy 1A: The building would be sited away from the listed building and away from the highway, on an area of land that slopes down from the road, reducing its visibility from the highway and impact on the conservation area. The development is compatible with neighbouring uses. 1B: The design of the building matches the existing demountable buildings on the site, which are in more prominent locations. 1I: The development will not have an unacceptable impact on the historic environment. 1J: The site is not designated open space. 2.20: Although not in keeping with the historic character of the conservation area, it is debatable whether the building has an unacceptably negative impact taking into account the existing demountable buildings on the site, one of which is more clearly visible from the public highway, and the fact that the building will be sited so as to reduce its visibility. The quality of the design and materials is not appropriate to the conservation area’s historic setting but the building will be temporary and will fulfil a recognised need for improved accommodation at the school. 2.24: The building will not overlook or overshadow any residential property. It will be visible from nearby dwellings, at a distance, but is not considered to be so unsightly as to constitute an unacceptable
366 detriment to the visual amenities of residents. 2.45: The Tree Preservation Officer has raised no objections to the loss of the tree that is to be removed, and tree protection and landscaping conditions can be attached to planning consent. The hedgerow is to remain. 2.49: The site is not designated open space. The area of school playing field lost to the development is not significant. 2.51: The development will not adversely affect the listed building or its setting. 2.53: This is addressed at paragraphs 5.3 to 5.7 above. 2.64: Additional noise originating from the classrooms will be insignificant.
The deposit draft LDP policies carry no weight as the plan is at an early stage. SD1 requires all development proposals to achieve recognised sustainable building standards; SD2 requires new development to incorporate sustainable drainage where practical; HER4 seeks to prevent development that would be harmful to trees that have amenity value; HER10 presumes against development that would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area; HSC7 encourages improved community facilities; and HSC11 does not permit development of areas of open space with significant amenity value or historic conservation importance. Other than the issue of sustainable building standards, these matters are addressed elsewhere in this report, and it is not felt reasonable to refuse the application on the basis that it may not meet “recognised sustainable building standards” as these standards have not yet been formulated and the building is in any case designed to be temporary.
8.5 In regard to impact on the listed building, officers are mindful that it is the Local Planning Authority’s statutory duty to “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting …”. Welsh Office Circular 61/96 Planning and the Historic Environment – Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas guides that it is relevant to have consideration to “the extent to which the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community …”. It is quite clear that providing the proper environment for children’s education is a material consideration and, on balance, the undoubted visual harm to the setting of these listed buildings and character of the conservation area is, in the opinion of officers, outweighed in this case by the need to provide adequate education accommodation in the short term.
8.6 In conclusion, it is considered that although the proposal will have an impact on visual amenity and the appearance of the conservation area, taking into account the existing demountable buildings on the site and the fact that planning permission has been given in the past for demountable schoolrooms, it would be difficult to argue that a further classroom could not be justified, particularly as it is required to alleviate existing accommodation problems at the school. The school is one of the institutions forming part of the school organisation proposals being developed by the Council, and as such the proposed development would be a temporary building serving to alleviate the current situation at the school until the reorganisation proposals are
367 implemented.
8.7 In order to overcome concerns regarding the visual impact of the building, conditions can be imposed on planning permission to ensure adequate landscaping is provided, finishing materials are appropriate and the building is not permitted to remain on the site permanently.
8.8 An amended plan has been submitted which shows that landscaping, in the form of a “buffer” of trees and shrubs, could be provided on the site. This plan has not been the subject of further consultation with the public or other consultees. The plan does not include any details of plant species, numbers etc., therefore, should planning permission be granted, recommended condition 4, which requires details of a landscaping scheme, should still be imposed.
8.9 For the avoidance of doubt officers would like to make it clear to members that there is not an extant unimplemented permission for a further permanent extension to the school. The advice of the councils School Programme Development Manger is that the school will be included in discussions regarding schools in west Cardiff in the near future, she further advises the demountable unit will only be temporary provision and it is expected that is will be removed after the interim period.
8.10 If the Committee is minded to refuse the application, the following reasons for refusal are suggested to reflect the concerns expressed at the Planning Committee meeting of 16th September 2009:
1) The proposed structure, by virtue of its design, materials and prominent location, would constitute an obtrusive and incongruous feature in the Gwaelod Y Garth Conservation Area, to the detriment of the historic character and appearance of the Conservation Area and contrary to policy LC13 of the Mid Glamorgan County Structure Plan Proposed Alterations No.1, policy 2.53 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 6.5.15 of Planning Policy Wales (March 2002).
368 369 370 371 AM COMMENTS
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/1044/W APPLICATION DATE: 22/06/2009
ED: LLANDAFF NORTH
APP: TYPE: Variation of conditions
APPLICANT: W.E Vaughan Properties Ltd LOCATION: OLD VAUGHANS LAUNDRY SITE, ANDREWS ROAD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDREW'S ROAD, LLANDAFF NORTH, CARDIFF, CF14 2JP PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 04/01956/W TO EXTEND EXPIRY DATE BY A FURTHER 3 YEARS. ______RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in paragraphs 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 of the Chief Regulatory Services Officer's report planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. E00 Standard outline
2. E1A Height of Building - 3 storey
3. The details submitted in discharge of condition 1 shall not provide for the development of more than 15 houses and 60 flats. Reason: To ensure an adequate environment is provided for future occupiers and to protect the amenities of the area.
4. C3E Turning Space Within Site
5. No works whatsoever shall commence until details of improvements to the existing crossing facility on Station Road have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The improvements shall be completed in accordance with the agreed details prior to beneficial occupation of the development commencing. Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian facilities are provided for the proposed development.
6. D3C Parking Within Curtilage
7. C3S Cycle Parking
8. F7Y Ground Gas Protection
372 9. C7Z Contaminated Land Measures
10. D7Z Contaminated materials
11. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro
12. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved design and implementation programme submitted in discharge of condition 9. Any trees, plants, or hedgerows which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development, die, or are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the current planting season or the first two months of the next planting season whichever is the sooner, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason : To maintain and improve the amenity of the area.
13. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall accord with the advice in BS 5837 : 1991 Guide for Trees in relation to construction.
(a) a plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, each existing tree on, or overhanging or growing at a distance less than half its height from the site, which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level, exceeding 75mm, and showing which trees are to be retained, and the crown spread of each tree to be retained. (b) details of the species, diameter (measured as in paragraph (a) above), and the approximate height, and an assessment of the general state of health and stability of each tree which is to be retained, or which overhangs the site, or which grows at a distance less than half its height from the site. (c) details of any proposed pruning of each tree which is to be retained, or which overhangs the site, or which grows at a distance less than half its height from the site. (d) details of any proposed alterations to existing ground levels, and any proposed excavations, within the crown spread or in the case of trees which have a height greater than their crown spread within half that height, of each tree which is to be retained, or which overhangs the site, or which grows at a distance less than half its height from the site. (e) details of the specification and position of all fencing and other measures to be taken for the protection of any tree which is to be retained or which overhangs the site or which grows at a distance less than half its height from the site. Reason : To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the effects of the proposals on existing trees, and of the measures for their protection.
373 RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.
RECOMMENDATION 3: This development falls within a radon affected area and may require full radon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations 2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division
RECOMMENDATION 4: The agent be informed that the Parks Service has advised that it will not accept responsibility for any problems perceived by future residents arising from the use of the adjoining play area. The layout and design of the development should take into account potential nuisance to future residents from use of the play area.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 This is an application to vary a condition in order to renew an outline permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of a 0.92 hectare commercial site situated at the end of Andrews Road, Llandaff North, for residential purposes. All details, apart from access, are reserved for future approval. The current application seeks to vary the condition requiring the reserved matter details to be submitted within three years (i.e. before 28th June 2009). A further three year permission is sought.
1.2 The proposals comprise the demolition of all existing buildings at the site, and the realignment of Andrews Road so as to run through the middle of the site (see plan below). Illustrative plans have been submitted which show a development comprising 15 No. three storey houses and 60 No. flats in five blocks of three storey height, situated on either side of the new road and enclosing the end of the cul-de-sac.
1.3 The agent has stated that renewal of the permission is sought as the current financial situation makes it very difficult for any developer to obtain the necessary finance for such a development to proceed.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The site comprises a level area occupied by a variety of industrial and warehousing buildings of different designs and height. One unit has recently been occupied as an art gallery. The largest and highest building is Charlesworth House, a building with eaves height similar to a three storey house, which is situated at the site entrance. The uses at the site include a
374 car repair business, storage and a dance school.
2.2 Numbers 45 – 61 Andrews Road, terraced housing, are situated opposite Charlesworth House. Hailey Park adjoins the remainder of the south-western and north-western boundaries of the site. A bowling green and children’s play area adjoins the south-western boundary. A line of mature trees are situated along the park boundary with the site adjoining a high wall.
2.3 The north-eastern site boundary adjoins a linear open space containing a footpath, which was the route of the former Glamorgan Canal. At the eastern end of the site, the application land includes an area of car parking situated to the rear of 24 to 34 Andrews Road.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 91/1315 : Outline permission was granted in November 1991 for the redevelopment of part of the site (excluding the Charlesworth building) for two storey houses and flats. No reserved matter details were subsequently received.
3.2 04/1956W : Outline permission granted in June 2006 for residential development following completion of a section 106 Agreement relating to public transport, open space and affordable housing.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site is shown as an existing housing area on the Cardiff Local Plan Proposals Map. The following local plan policies are considered relevant:
Policy 9 ‘Development In Areas At Risk Of Flooding’ Policy 10 ‘Contaminated or Unstable Land’ Policy 17 ‘Parking and Servicing Facilities’ Policy 24 Affordable Housing Policy 31 ‘Residential Open Space Requirement’ Policy 36 Alternative Use of Business, Industrial and Warehousing Land
4.2 The following deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are considered relevant:
Policy 2.21 - Change of use or redevelopment to Residential use Policy 2.23 - Affordable Housing Policy 2.26 - Provision of Open Space, Recreation and Leisure Policy 2.57 - Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements Policy 2.62 - Flood Risk Policy 2.63 - Contaminated and Unstable Land
4.3 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant:
Access, Circulation and Parking; Open Space; Affordable Housing; Residential Design Guide.
375 5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Operational Manager Transportation has stated that the reserved matters details should provide parking which accords with the adopted SPG. The parking area (9spaces) at the rear of the existing housing is not overlooked, however, it is noted the layout is indicative. The development will generate less traffic than the potential traffic that could be generated by the existing development. Conditions are required to ensure the reserved matter details provide adequate turning facilities, car and cycle parking and to require improvement to the existing pedestrian crossing facility on Station Road. This will require a Section 278 Agreement. A Section 106 Agreement is required to secure a contribution towards upgrading public transport facilities, comprising two bus boarders, one shelter and one camera. The total cost payable is £26,450 (the sum was previously £22,848).
5.2 The Strategic Planning Manager has no land use policy concerns given the Cardiff Local Plan ‘existing housing’ designation and the 1991 permission.
5.3 The Operational Manager Parks has advised:
(i) The size of the development requires to be assessed in accord with Policy 31 of the Cardiff Local Plan and the Open Space Supplementary Planning Guidance. As the site adjoins Hailey Park he recommends the Council seek a financial contribution towards the improvement of existing open space within the vicinity of the site. The size of the contribution should be determined in accordance with the Supplementary Planning Guidance. (ii) There is NEAP (neighbourhood equipped) category children’s play area adjacent to the south-western boundary of the site. He recommends that dwellings are not located within a minimum 30 metres radius measured from the edge of the play area in order to minimise disturbance to residents. If properties within this 30 metre buffer zone are deemed acceptable, the Parks Service will not accept responsibility for any problems perceived by residents arising from the use of the play area. (iii) Notwithstanding comment (ii), the development should be ‘outward looking’ so as to take advantage of the views over the park and to provide an enhanced level of natural surveillance. (iv) The developers should carry out a survey of trees adjacent to the site boundary rooted in the park and any necessary work carried out to the agreement and satisfaction of the Council. The required demolition works will need to be designed to protect the trees from damage. (v) The treatment of the site boundaries will be important. (vi) Proposals for direct access from the site into Hailey Park may be acceptable.
5.4 The Housing Strategy and Development division has previously advised there are 2,440 people waiting for a property in Llandaff North (September 2004). Two and three bedroom units are particularly required. The site would be suitable for a mixture of affordable housing units, to include tenure neutral
376 rented and special needs housing. On site provision of 30% will be needed with grant provision. If grant funding is not available, the on site provision can be reduced to 18%.
5.5 The Pollution Control division has previously advised that landfill gas, contaminated land and imported soil conditions are required. The applicant should also be advised of construction site noise legislation and radon gas protection.
5.6 The Drainage division previously advised that it has no comments.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 The Environment Agency has previously advised that a Flood Consequences report submitted in support of the application is acceptable.
6.2 Welsh Water has previously listed its drainage requirements for the development. A drainage scheme needs to be prepared. An adequate water supply can be made available to serve the development.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Neighbouring occupiers have been consulted. No comments have been received.
7.2 Local members have been consulted. Any comments will be reported at Committee.
7.3 Jonathan Morgan AM has written on behalf of a neighbouring resident who is concerned about structural damage to her house, traffic problems on Bridge Road being made worse and a negative impact on parking.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 In view of the Cardiff Local Plan designation and the comments of the Strategic Planning Manager, the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is still considered to be acceptable in land use policy terms. Removal of the industrial and warehousing uses, which are accessed via the residential part of Andrews Road, also provides the opportunity to benefit existing residents in terms of removing goods traffic from Andrews Road.
8.2 The illustrative plans show a development of 15 houses and 60 flats (one and two bedroom). The Chief Highways and Transportation Officer has advised that this size of development is satisfactory with regard to the site access through the existing residential part of Andrews Road, subject to improvements to the pedestrian crossing outside 23 Station Road. The proposed road layout within the development is also considered acceptable. The illustrative plan is considered to demonstrate that 15 houses and 60 flats could be satisfactorily developed at the site with regard to adequate space around dwellings and parking provision.
377 8.3 With regard to the scale (height) of the development, the illustrative plans indicate three storey houses and flats are proposed. Whilst it is noted that the existing houses in Andrews Road are two storey, a three storey development is considered to be potentially acceptable given the visual separation of the proposed buildings from the existing. The site is considered sufficiently large and separate to have the potential to create its own design identity.
8.4 The comments of the Parks Service re the proximity of a children’s play area are noted. The illustrative layout shows one block of flats being sited 6.0 metres from the edge of the play area, although currently separated by a wall. If the 30 metre ‘exclusion zone’ mentioned by the Parks Service was applied this would result in over one third of the development site not being available for the building of dwellings. In light of the suitability of the site for residential development in other respects in terms of policies to maximise use of brownfield land and sustainability, it is considered inappropriate to prevent the siting of dwellings in this area. It is proposed to inform the agent of this concern (see Recommendation 4) so that the reserved matter details can take into account the existence of the play area. Secondly, it is noted that if the development proceeds, a significant sum of money will be payable to the Parks Service (over £50,000), some of which could be spent on remodelling/relocating the play area.
8.5 This is an application to vary a condition to allow the renewal of an outline permission. It is considered in light of the above, there are no significant changes in policy framework relating to the site or other material considerations. The variation of the condition to renew the outline planning permission is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the applicant signing a new Section 106 Agreement relating to public transport infrastructure (see paragraph 5.1), public open space improvement (5.3) and affordable housing (5.4).
378 379 380 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/1160/W APPLICATION DATE: 03/07/2009
ED: RIVERSIDE
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Bilal Mosque LOCATION: BILAL MOSQUE, SEVERN ROAD, CANTON, CARDIFF, CF11 9EA PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF CONDITION 4 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 02/2523/W (ALL ROOFLIGHTS AND TWO HIGH LEVEL WINDOWS IN THE SOUTH WALL SHALL BE DOUBLE GLAZED AND FIXED) ______
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition:
1. The roof light windows and the two high level windows in the south facing wall shall be closed between the hours of 19:30 and 09:00 on any day. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the adjoining residents are protected, in accordance with; policy 2.24 of the deposit Unitary Development Plan; and paragraph 9.3.3 of MIPPS 01/2006 (Housing).
RECOMMENDATION 2: The applicant be advised that all other conditions of planning permission 02/2523/W remain in full force and effect, save for condition 2 which is hereby removed and replaced with the condition above.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 The proposal seeks permission to remove condition 4 of planning permission 02/02523/W which states,
“All rooflights and the two high level windows in the south wall shall be double glazed and fixed. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of neighbours are protected.”
Through removing the condition it will allow for the opening of the rooflights to aid natural ventilation to the upper floor which are used as after school classrooms between the hours of 4 pm and 7pm.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The Severn Road Mosque is a prominent two-storey Victorian stone building which has previously been extended to the rear. The main entrance to the Mosque is off the north facing elevation, enclosed by a lean-to roof.
381 2.2 The property is surrounded by residential dwellings to the north, south and west, incorporating a pair of two-storey semi-detached dwellings, two-storey terraced dwellings and a two-storey block of flats.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 02/02523/W- Demolition Of Workshops, Construction Of Two Storey And Single Storey Rear And Side Extensions To Mosque To Provide Facilities And Living Accommodation- Permission granted.
3.2 E/07/00370- Non compliance with conditions
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 MIPPS 01/2006 (housing) para 9.3.3 states- “Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment, including conversion and adaptation, should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity. This includes any such impact on neighbouring dwellings, such as serious loss of privacy or overshadowing.”
4.2 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003)– 2.24 (Residential Amenity); 2.64 (Air, Noise and Light Pollution).
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 The Environmental and Public Protection department raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the attached condition.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Councillor Islam offered his support in favour of the application.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Fourteen neighbouring properties were consulted. Eleven letters of objection have been received, some of which are countersigned by additional objectors to the proposed development, for the following reasons:
1. Noise nuisance; 2. The surrounding area is a quiet residential area; 3. The windows could be open all hours if the condition is removed; 4. The carbon footprint of the development; 5. The application is requested to be determined by planning committee; 6. Chanting from the mosque could be heard from neighbouring gardens; 7. The irregular use of the mosque is disturbing to residents; 8. Enforcement action has been requested; 9. Protection of neighbouring residential amenity; 10. Photographs submitted in support of the above comments; 11. Citation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to protect residential amenity;
382 12. Low energy ventilation devices could be used; 13. Allowing opening of the windows would promote local residents to close windows to reduce any noise impact thereby impacting up their properties ventilation requirements; 14. The rooflights would not be accessible in an emergency as they are in- accessible for fire egress; 15. Councillor Islam support for the application has not been discussed with neighbours in the vicinity of the mosque which is un-representative of local constituents; 16. Concerns that the ‘No comment’ response from Pollution Control should be regarded as neutral as comments were received prior to objection letters being submitted to the Local Planning Authority. 17. Additional rooflights have been fitted between the mosque’s entrance and number 65 Severn Road; 18. Invasion of privacy from overlooking from windows;
7.2 Additional representations received from residents after the completion of this report will be submitted via late representations.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The main issue to arise from this application is the amenities of the adjoining residents. The original condition was placed on the property to protect the amenities of the adjoining neighbours; however, the condition is ambiguous in what is meant in terms of fixed (fixed open or closed etc…). The request to remove the condition can allow for the previous condition to be amended and any ambiguity protecting the reasonable amenities of the adjoining residents. A condition has therefore been attached to allow for the roof-lights to be opened between the hours of 09:00 and 19:30 based on a recommendation received from the Environmental and Public Protection department. This will allow for additional ventilation to serve the evening school. Any excess noise arising from the mosque during or outside these hours could be controlled via part III of the Environmental and Public Protection Act 1990.
8.2 With regard to the objections raised;
1. See above comments in section 8.1; 2. Comments noted; 3. See above comments in section 8.1; 4. Noted; 5. The application is to be placed before Planning Chair whom may decide to call in the planning application to be determined by full planning committee; 6. The comments are noted however no complaints regarding noise have been identified from the Pollution Control department who monitor noise pollution, prior to the submission of the planning application 7. See above comments in section 8.1; 8. Noted; 9. See above comments in section 8.1; 10. Noted;
383 11. Comments noted; 12. Comments noted; 13. Comments noted; 14. Comments noted; 15. Comments noted - not a planning issue; 16. Comments noted. 17. This objection is not subject to the current planning application; 18. No additional windows are proposed and therefore this is not a valid consideration in respect of this current application;
8.3 The proposal has been assessed against the policy cited above and the material matters raised have been considered. In the opinion of officers it is compliant with the objectives of the policy cited and will not result in an unreasonable impact upon residential amenity of the occupants and neighbours. In reaching this conclusion account has been taken of the concerns from the Environmental and Public Protection Department.
8.4 The proposal is recommended for approval.
384 385 LOCAL COUNCILLORS CONCERN
COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/1315/W APPLICATION DATE: 03/08/2009
ED: CANTON
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Ms J Dunn LOCATION: 12 HANOVER STREET, CANTON, CARDIFF, CF5 1LS PROPOSAL: CONVERT 5 BED HOUSE INTO 2 NO 2 BED APARTMENTS. CONSTRUCT SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR ______
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. The flat roof of the single storey rear extension shown on the approved plans shall not be used for any purpose, including sitting out. Reason: To protect the privacy of neighbours and for the avoidance of doubt.
2. Prior to occupation ground floor window on the west elevation, serving the rear lounge, shall be non opening and glazed with obscure glass and thereafter be so maintained. Reason : To ensure that the privacy of the future occupiers of the front flat is protected.
3. Within two months of this permission details for the provision of a minimum number of four no. cycle parking spaces (one per bedroom) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented within one month of approval. Thereafter the cycle parking spaces shall be maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose. The parking spaces should be suitable for the long-stay usage/ storage of resident’s cycles, being sheltered and secure in accordance with the recommendations of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance-Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Retrospective permission is sought for conversion of the mid-terraced dwelling into 2 x 2 bed-roomed flats with a flat roof rear extension. The cycle and bins storage would be located within the rear garden.
386 1.2 The configuration of the flats has changed from the previous permission, to as follows:
Flat 1: Occupies the rear of the ground floor (kitchen/lounge) with bedrooms (1 and 2) and bathroom at the rear of the first floor.
Flat 2: Occupies the rear portion of the ground floor (kitchen and lounge separated by a new staircase leading up to the first floor) the front of the first floor contains bedroom one, toilet and shower with bedroom two being an en- suite and located within the roof.
1.3 To allow light into the ground floor, the flat roof extension has a rooflight projecting from the roof plane. To allow light into the main roof, to serve the bedroom, rooflights have been inserted into the rear roof plane of the main roof.
1.4 The rear flat roof extension measures 3 metres (projection) x 3.5 metres in width x 2.8 metre in height. The extension forms part of the party wall with 10 Hanover Street. The extension has been rendered and will be painted to match the main building.
1.5 Parking for the flats would be on-street, as before.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 This application relates to a two-storey terraced residential dwelling situated in a street with a number of similar single unit residential dwellings, where the land and immediate surrounding area lies relatively flat. The surrounding terraces are of a similar design being constructed from red facing brickwork and incorporate a bay feature to the front of the property.
2.2 There are no on-street parking restriction within Hanover Street.
2.3 The site is located within a flood plane (C1) but is not within a conservation area nor is the building listed.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 08/01457/W – Conversion of dwelling into 2 no. 2 bed flats, single storey rear extension and alterations works – approved by Committee – 13/08/08.
3.2 09/00697/W – To retain flat roof in lieu of pitched roof at rear – Withdrawn.
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 Planning Policy Wales (2002) para 2.5.3 states: ‘Higher density development should be encouraged near public transport nodes or corridors well served by public transport.’
387 4.2 Planning Policy Wales (2002) para 9.2.12 states: ‘Higher densities should be encouraged on easily accessible sites where appropriate. Local Authorities should adopt a flexible approach to car parking standards.’
4.3 MIPPS 01/2006 (housing) para 9.3.3 states: “Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment, including conversion and adaptation, should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity. This includes any such impact on neighbouring dwellings, such as serious loss of privacy or overshadowing.”
4.4 Cardiff Local Plan (adopted 1996) – 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality): Policy 18 (Provision for cyclists); and 28 (Subdivision of properties)
4.5 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003): – 2.20 (Good Design); 2.24 (Residential Amenity); 2.22 (Sub-division of Residential Properties); 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking); 2.74 (Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development).
4.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (June 2006).
4.7 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007).
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
5.1 Chief Highways and Waste Officer (Waste Management) – raises no objections.
5.2 Operational Manager (Transportation): no objections.
5.3 Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer (pollution): no comments to date.
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 Dwr Cymru/ Welsh Water was consulted and raised no objection subject to the attached recommendations.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Six neighbouring properties were consulted. One letter of representation has been received, along with a petition signed by forty three residents highlighting the following generic concerns:
Concerns over the height and projection of the flat roof extension; Believe that the extension, due to its length and height, would adversely affect light and the general character of the area; Due to the number of people living/visiting the flats (they allege up to ten people) this would increase noise and have safety aspects.
388 7.2 Three Local Councillors have requested that the Committee takes account of the concerns of residents as expressed in the petition.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The comments of the petitioners are noted but are not supported by officers for the following reasons:
Whilst it is regrettable that the developer did not built in accordance with the approved plans, that in itself is not a reason to refuse retrospective planning permission. The application must be judged upon the planning merits of the case before Members.
8.2 Members may recall that permission was grated for the conversion of the dwelling into 2 x 2 bedrooms flat and a rear extension in August 2008. The scheme that has been built is fundamentally the same, bar some internal reconfiguration and the size and roof form of the extension. As built, the extension is 0.5m longer than approved and it has been constructed beneath a flat roof rather than a pitched roof. The height of the flat roof is 2.8m whereas the approval would have resulted in a lean-to roof rising from 2.33m to 3.57m where it meets the host building. It should be noted that the proposal also has a projecting velux window set centrally in the flat roof.
8.3 Impact of the rear extension as built:
Had the extension been built when the property was a single dwelling house this extension would have been ‘permitted development’ under schedule 2 part 1 class ‘A’ of the Town and Country (Permitted Development ) Order 1995. However, it has been confirmed that one of the flats is now occupied, therefore as flats do not enjoy permitted development rights planning permission was required. Given the length, height and northerly facing orientation, officers believe that this extension would not unreasonably affect the amenities of the adjoining neighbours. Officers acknowledge that the garden is smaller but that in itself does not warrant refusal. To ensure that the residential amenity is protected a condition is to be imposed ensuring that the flat roof is not used as a balcony.
8.4 With regard to any noise nuisance, should it arise; this would be controlled under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and is therefore not considered a valid reason for refusal of the application. Further to this the Environmental and Public Protection department raised no objections to the proposed development from a noise perspective. Furthermore the development complies with Building Regulations.
8.5 In relation to parking; the proposed development is situated near to local public transport services and inline with guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales and Council adopted policies, a reduced parking standard has been applied. The provision of secure undercover cycle storage for four spaces would meet current Council requirements; however, as no details have been provided a suitable condition has been attached above.
389 8.7 The proposal has been assessed against the policies cited above and the material matters raised have been considered. In the opinion of officers it is compliant with the objectives of the policies cited and will not result in an unreasonable impact upon residential amenity of the occupants and neighbours, visual amenity of the area, highway safety or any other material matter subject to the conditions recommended above.
8.8 The conditions requested by Welsh Water are noted but are not considered by officers to meet the six tests of a valid condition, as laid out in Welsh Officer circular 35/95 ‘the use of conditions in planning permissions’
390 391 392
393 COMMITTEE DATE: 14/10/2009
APPLICATION No. 09/1580/W DATE RECEIVED: 03/09/2009
ED: Creigiau
APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission
APPLICANT: Mr A Evans LOCATION: 16 Tregarth Court, Creigiau, Cardiff PROPOSAL: Velux Dormer to Attic
RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED.
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the retention of a rear dormer window at 16 Tregarth Court. The dormer window is one manufactured by ‘velux’ and contains windows to the rear and within its roof with solid sides. The dormer measures approximately 1.8m wide, 1.3m high and projects 2.4m from the roof. The dormer is set well in from both side elevations and approximately 0.6m from the eaves of the roof.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE
2.1 The application site is a detached two storey dwelling with rear and side single storey extensions. The application site is located within a residential area which consists mainly of detached dwelling set within their plots of similar designs and finish. There appears no other example of roof extensions in the immediate vicinity. To the south of the site is Creigiau County Primary School. 2.2 Construction work is currently underway on a front porch to the property.
3. SITE HISTORY
3.1 Permitted Development Query PD/09/671/W – Porch – Determined to be permitted development 8th September 2009
3.2 Planning permission 09/442/W – Single storey side and rear extension – 15th May 2009
4. POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The site is allocated as part of an area of existing housing on the City of Cardiff Local Plan Proposals Map.
4.2 The following Local Plan policies are of relevance to the determination of this application:
394 Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality)
4.3 The following policies from the deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) are also of relevance:
Policy 2.20 (Good Design) Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity)
4.4 The following policies from the Cardiff Deposit Local Development Plan (April 2009) are also of relevance:
Policy SP2 (High Quality Sustainable Design)
4.5 The following supplementary planning guidance is also of relevance:
Householders Design Guide (2007)
5. INTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
5.1 None
6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES
6.1 The site lies within a previous coal mining area and as such British Coal advised to attach their standard R7 Coal Authority recommendation.
6.2 Pentyrch Community Council has been consulted and no response has been received.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 Neighbours have been consulted and letters of objection has been received from No’s 2, 3 and 7 Tregarth Close and 13 and 15 Tregarth Court. Neighbours object to the proposal for the following reasons:
• The original construction of 16 Tregarth Court was a two storey house and this construction will change this into a 3 storey dwelling. • The occupiers of 2, 3 and 7 Tregarth Close along with 15 Tregarth Court suggests that the window being higher than the existing bedroom windows and is grossly intrusive and looks directly into their gardens, first floor bedrooms and downstairs rooms with the resulting lack of privacy. The situation is made worse for the occupiers of No 2 Tregarth Close by the fact that the two houses back on to each other and are extremely close. • As the construction is 50% glass, the occupiers of 3 Tregarth Close have concerns regarding the internal lighting of the completed room as they feel when the room is alight during the winter months this could give the impression of spot lighting to their rear garden and first floor windows. • The construction of a velux dormer is totally out of keeping with the remainder of the 27 houses on the development and if approved will set a precedent for other houses on the development choosing this option of
395 extension. • If approved this could devalue the current value of properties in the surrounding area. • The window, while being of a recognised manufacturer of such products is totally alien to the existing architecture of the houses and can only be described as totally out of character with existing properties. The window is visible from many different points in and around Tregarth Close Tregarth Court and from one of the main roads through Creigiau. • The dormer is clearly visible from Tregarth Court. It does not respect the form and character of the original dwelling and is out of keeping with the area. All roofs in the area have the same height, design and outline. • The design of dormer windows should be such that it gives the appearance that it is an original feature of the house. In this application it is obvious that it is not. Indeed the ‘roof patches’ located on both sides of the house in order to accommodate the steel ‘RSJ’s’ that now support the roof structure re-iterate this fact. • One would have assumed that the size and position should have complimented the design and proportion of the original building. Since in this case the dormer is set directly from the ridge it appears top heavy. • All previous extensions constructed within the estate have been done so sympathetically. • The development fails most of the Councils own planning guidance for such development as outlined in Section 9 of the Householders Design Guide: Supplementary Planning Guidance.
7.2 Further letters have been received from No’s 9 13 and 15 Tregarth Court along with a petition signed by the occupiers of 5, 6, 10, 11 Tregarth Close and 3, 8, 11, 15 Tregarth Court objecting to the proposal for the following reasons: • The structure is grossly intrusive • It is totally inappropriate given the style of the properties on the estate • Since the development of the estate all roofs have remained intact. • All the residents have shown considerable restraint, and have not undertaken similar extensions in order to maintain the substantial and original visual impact which has created the appeal for the estate. • If planning permission is granted, a precedent will be created, and could result in further such unacceptable development to the detriment of residents.
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 The key issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbours.
8.2 In respect of dormer windows the Householders Design Guide: Supplementary Planning Guidance suggests that dormer windows should look as though they are part of the original house, taking into consideration scale, materials, roof shape and windows. Roof extensions should normally be positioned on the least prominent elevation, usually the rear. In addition it
396 suggests that the size and scale of a roof dormer window should compliment the design and proportion of the original windows. In more details the SPG states: “Dormer windows should be set below the original roof ridge, and be set a significant distance from the edge of the roof. They should not be built flush with the external wall, but set back. This helps to ensure that they do not dominate the house or street.”
8.3 The dormer window is considered to be very minimal in its scale, massing and design. The dormer is set well away from both side elevations and the eaves of the house which is in line with guidance suggested by the Householder Design Guide: Supplementary Planning Guidance. Although the dormer is sited close to the ridge it is of such a small scale it is not considered to prejudice the roof form of the dwelling in any way and complements the design and proportion of the original building.
8.4 The dormer is sited to the rear of the house and can not be viewed from the front within Tregarth Court and the nearby school. Although it is noted that the dormer can be viewed from the front gardens of No’s 4-8 Tregarth Close it is not considered that this area is accessed by the general public on a regular basis such as to the front of the application site with users of the school. It is therefore officer’s opinion that the dormer has been sited on the least prominent roof slope of the dwelling and on balance does not prejudice the character or appearance of Tregarth Close or Tregarth Court in such a degree to be considered incongruous
8.5 In regards to residential amenity, the dormer is set within the roof plane of 16 Tregarth Court and well away from the nearest neighbouring boundary and it is not considered that the proposal is overbearing or prejudices the outlook or sunlight experienced by neighbours.
8.6 The dormer window is sited approximately 17m from the boundary with No 3 Tregarth Close and 27m from its dwelling and 19m from the boundary with the front garden at 4 Tregarth Close and 45 metres from the front windows in 7 Tregarth Close. In addition is noted that the dormer is sited at an angle to all the afore mentioned boundaries. The Householders Design Guide: SPG suggests that any windows at first floor or above should be sited a distance of 10.5m to the rear boundary and 21m to the nearest habitable room window of a neighbouring property to the rear of the application site. Accordingly in regards to its impact on No’s 3, 4 and 7 Tregarth Court, the dormer window is not considered to prejudice the privacy of these neighbours.
8.7 In regards to its relationship with its nearest neighbour at No 2 Tregarth Close the dormer is set approximately 7m from the boundary and 21m from the dweling at an angle. However, it is noted that the application site already has clear glazed first floor windows within its rear elevation which are sited 1.8m closer to the boundary with 2 Tregarth Close than the dormer. It is therefore considered that the dormer will not prejudice the privacy of these neighbours anymore than the existing first floor windows of the application site does and due to the angle between the dormer and 2 Tregarth Close it is officers opinion that the dormer will not afford direct viewing of the rear garden of this
397 neighbour.
8.8 In regards to the comments made by the occupiers of 15 Tregarth Close itis noted that the dormer overlooks the rear garden of the application site and will not prejudice the privacy of the neighbours at 15 Tregarth Court any more than the existing first floor windows would.
8.9 In regards to the comments neighbours which are not covered above the following points should be considered by Planning Committee: • The application site remains a two storey dwelling. • It is not considered that the dormer will give off any more light than existing windows do at the application site. • The effect of the dormer has on the valuation of neighbouring properties is not a material planning consideration. • Any applications received for similar proposals within the vicinity will be determined based on their own merits.
8.1 It is considered that the dormer is compliant with guidance contained within the Householders Design Guide: SPG in regards to its design and effect on residential amenity and privacy of neighbours and retrospective planning permission is therefore recommended.
398 399 400 401 402