LATE REPRESENTATIONS SCHEDULE

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 13TH MARCH 2013

HOUSEHOLDER

PAGE NO. 1 APPLICATION NO. 13/52/DCH ADDRESS: 55 FLORA STREET, , CARDIFF

FROM: Ward Councillor Elizabeth Clark

SUMMARY: Cllr Clark objects to the proposal for the following reasons: • The proposed increased length of the already large extension of the ground floor of 20cm and 50cm of the first floor will have an adverse impact on the accessibility to light of neighbouring properties (in line with Section 6.1 of the SPG Householder Design Guide SPG). • Having 2 bedrooms in the dormer represents overdevelopment of a very small roof space • The proposals for 6 bedrooms in the application represents overdevelopment. There are already pressures in Flora Street caused by overdevelopment. These include waste, parking and noise. • The proposal to extend the width of the current extension brings the extension too near to the neighbouring boundary wall. Section 6.1 of the SPG Householder Design Guide specifies the need to “Avoid overbearing’ It states that “As a general rule, two-storey extensions should not be positioned very close to the boundary adjacent to the garden of a neighbour’s property”. • The drawings and measurements used in the plans are unclear

REMARKS: See Section 8 (Analysis) of Officers Report

PAGE NO. 1 APPLICATION NO. 13/52/DCH ADDRESS: 55 FLORA STREET, CATHAYS, CARDIFF

FROM: Jenny Willott MP

SUMMARY: Jenny Willott MP suggests her constituents are concerned that the proposed extension and dormer will be an overdevelopment of the property and will put additional strain on limited local resources. For instance parking is already limited in the area and this development will only exacerbate the problem. Given the location of the property it is likely to become student accommodation, and residents are concerned about anti-social behaviour, particularly noise disturbance, and refuse problems which are already a problem in the area.

1

REMARKS: See Section 8 (Analysis) of Officers Report

2

INNER

PAGE NO. 15 APPLICATION NO. 12/2085/DCI ADDRESS : DAVID HALL MOTOR ENGINEER, 1-3 DALCROSS STREET, ROATH, CARDIFF

FROM: Cllr Mary McGarry

SUMMARY: Requests that the application be deferred in order to allow Committee Members to visit the site.

REMARKS: Noted.

PAGE NO. 28 APPLICATION NO. 12/2165/DCI ADDRESS: 4 CATHEDRAL ROAD, RIVERSIDE, CARDIFF

FROM: Architect

SUMMARY: Confirms his client’s agreement to the financial contributions requested via S106 agreement; has confirmed a preferred cladding material, being Eternit Equitone through colour fibre cement cladding in a terracotta colour; (a TATA steel cladding is also suggested as a second option), but no samples of these materials have been provided. He has also confirmed the use of Oriel windows to the N & S elevations of the building conversion.

REMARKS: S 106 Financial obligations of £13582 in lieu of Public Open Space provision and £750 succession tree planting confirmed.

The agent’s confirmation of a preferred finishing product is acknowledged, and finishing of the building in a terracotta colour would not be resisted, however without samples of the product, it would not be appropriate to confirm any acceptance of the proposed finishes at this stage.

Planning conditions appertaining to final finishes and approval of samples are therefore recommended to remain as drafted.

The oriel window confirm the requirement of the planning officer and finite design and specification can approved by condition.

No change to recommendation.

3

OUTER

PAGE NO. 136 APPLICATION NO. 12/01454/DCO ADDRESS LAND AT COURT ROAD, DANESCOURT

FROM: Occupier, 22 Blethin Close

SUMMARY: They request that Committee take the following points into consideration:

(i) Imagine how beautiful and appealing the site and surrounding River Corridor looks in 'full leaf', during the Spring and Summer, hence its reason for being especially popular with the local population during those times; (ii) Concerned that the importance and value of the open space, as demonstrated through the 700 to 800 residents and other interest/user groups who have objected, has not been fully understood or democratically reflected in the report, in balancing the open space value against any shortage in housing land supply. They note that the report does not appear to refer to an additional hard copy petition prepared by local residents containing approximately 400 signatures from objectors (iii) The Preferred Strategy Consultation Plan (October 2012) might carry limited weight at present in the planning determination process. However, it is still important since it confirms that the Council's preferred long term objective for this site is for it to be 'protected' and 'enhanced' as part of the wider River Corridor. Officers are only recommending approval at this stage due to a technical short-term shortage in housing land supply, which will be re-dressed over coming months as far larger planning applications for housing development come forward on more suitable sites, as the local development plan progresses; (iv) The Council has already refused a smaller housing development on part of the same site in 2004 due to the loss of open space/visual amenity value, a decision that was upheld by a Planning Inspector on appeal (who also considered that the 'highway improvements' on Radyr Court Road would have an unacceptable urbanising effect). Surely Officers cannot seemingly change their minds now and argue that this larger development would not have such adverse impacts; (v) The recent appeal decision for Michaelston Road applies to a different site with very different characteristics. Bearing in mind that each application should be determined on its own merits, and taking

4 into account the points made above together with related Local Plan Policies, they consider that a Planning Inspector would be very likely to reach a different conclusion with the current proposal in question.

REMARKS: (i) Noted; (ii) The importance and value of the open space and the housing supply issues are addressed in paragraphs 8.2 – 8.6 and 8.25 – 8.27 and balanced in paragraphs 8.33-8.35. See late reps regarding the petition; (iii) The Preferred Strategy Consultation Plan carries no weight until such a time that the Local Development is adopted. The impact upon the River Corridor is assessed in paragraphs 8.7 – 8.11; (iv) The previous application was refused over 8 years ago and dismissed on appeal 6.5 years ago. This application is being considered in a different climate with fresh consideration required by officers, who are entitled to reach different conclusions to those reached over 8 years ago; and (v) Whilst it is accepted that each application must be determined on its own merits, the Inspector’s decision for Michaelston Road makes conclusions which are relevant for the determination of this application i.e. Cardiff’s current shortfall in housing land supply.

5

PAGE NO. 136 APPLICATION NO. 12/1454/DCO ADDRESS LAND AT RADYR COURT ROAD, DANESCOURT

FROM: Local Resident (no address)

SUMMARY: Instead of selling the land the Council should make an example by making money from the land. For example:

(i) Renting out allotments; (ii) Urban Nature walks and guides to the area to include Hailey Park , River Taff etc; (iii) School children could have lessons about nature and gardening with an allotment per school (iv) Community play area to include picnic area; (v) A tea shop to attract families, Taff walkers, dog walkers as in Bute Park; (vi) BBC Autumn Watch could be sold to BBC Wales to cover Urban Wildlife here using this site for filming; (vii) Create an RHS Community Garden; (viii) Encourage Rowing Club to hire out the park and its facilities for their annual regatta; (ix) The Facilities could be hired out for functions; (x) Planting British Trees, creating Woodland on the site.

REMARKS: These suggestions are noted. However, the Council is not the owner of this land. In any case, this application for development must be determined on its own planning merits.

PAGE NO. 136 APPLICATION NO. 12/1454/DCO ADDRESS LAND AT RADYR COURT ROAD, DANESCOURT

FROM: Operational Manager, Transportation

SUMMARY: A condition regarding the highways works on Radyr Court Road between the site entrance and the junction with Gerddi Taf is necessary. The following condition is proposed:

No development shall take place until a scheme of environmental highway improvements and programme for their implementation along Radyr Court Road from the site entrance to the junction with Gerddi Taf, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include (but not be limited to) details of traffic calming features, including the provision

6 of speed reducing features, localised widening of the carriageway, reconstruction and/or resurfacing, street lighting provision, drainage, lining, and signage (as required). The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to beneficial use of the development, in accordance with the approved programme to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the comprehensive enhancement/improvement of the adjacent public highway and to facilitate access to the proposed development.

REMARKS: Noted. Add new condition 32.

PAGE NO. 136 APPLICATION NO. 12/1454/DCO ADDRESS LAND AT RADYR COURT ROAD, DANESCOURT

FROM: Danescourt Community Association

SUMMARY: Dismayed by the analysis of the highway objections presented in the report to the Planning Committee.

It fails to point out that “Manual for Streets”:

• Does not say is that shared surface streets can be provided with narrow carriageways where pedestrians will have to do battle with two way traffic of all types. • Indicates that the minimum width of carriageway for two way delivery traffic is 5.5 metres, which does not compare favourably with the available carriageway width of as little as the 4.38 metres width quoted in the Transport Statement that accompanied this application.

No mention is made of the dangers to the visually impaired users of this proposed shared surface or that the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Guide Dogs Association for the Blind both have severe reservations about such proposals. Neither of these organisations has been consulted.

No mention is made of the height of the railway bridge. The available headroom is stated within the Transport Statement is 3.73 metres or 12'-3". The allowable maximum height of road vehicles is currently 15'-0" and the standard headroom under a bridge is 15'-6". This one is therefore significantly substandard. Anything having less than this 15'-6" clearance has to be signed. A large furniture van is in the order of 13'- 6" tall and a normal delivery van can be of the order of 12'-9" tall, so neither of these vehicles would be able to pass under

7 the railway bridge. The consequence of any large vehicle that has failed to pass under the bridge having to reverse some distance along Radyr Court Road before reaching a location where it could turn around in order to depart. Such events will cause considerable difficulty to any other road users present at the same time.

No mention is made of the statutory duty placed on all Highway Authorities by the Traffic Management Act 2004 to ease the flow of vehicular traffic on its roads. If the development goes ahead, it will contribute further traffic to Bridge Street which is already severely congested at peak periods. The report fails to recommend any measure to overcome this situation.

REMARKS: The Transportation Manager responds as follows:

(i) As included within the submitted Transport Statement, the width of Radyr Court Road between the site access and Gerddi Taf varies along its length. As such there would be opportunities for delivery traffic to pass – should this be occurring in both directions. Where the carriageway is narrower, including at the pinch point, then vehicles would have to give way. It is generally accepted that where traffic flows are low that it is not essential that 2 way delivery traffic has to be accommodated and that the design should not be dominated by such (Manual for Streets para. 6.8);

(ii) With regard to visually impaired users of this length of carriageway, we are confident that an acceptable scheme can be provided which incorporates an alternative method for navigation for blind or partially- sighted people. The Council’s Access Officer will be involved during the detail design of the scheme which will be subject to the associated Technical Approval Process (this will include a Road Safety Audit at each relevant stage);

(iii) The issue of the low bridge has been considered within the submitted Transport Statement in terms of Refuse and Emergency Vehicles. All reasonable steps will be taken to ensure that HGV drivers are aware of the ‘low bridge’, i.e. with the provision of additional signage at the junction of Radyr Court Road/Gerddi Taf. HGV drivers would also likely have access to a ‘low bridge warning’ system and as such would be deterred from approaching the bridge/having to reverse should the height exceed the

8 limit.

(iv) It is accepted that as a result of a new development such as this that there will be an element of additional traffic on the highway network. The submitted Transport Statement indicates that this will likely be 28 (2way) trips in the AM peak period and 30 (2 way) trips in the PM peak, which is considered to be low in terms of trip generation. This broadly equates to one vehicle every 2 minutes during the busiest hours of the day. Based on traffic survey data, the impact at the junction of Radyr Court Road/Bridge Road is therefore likely to be 2.17% (AM peak) and 2.54% (PM peak) which is not considered to be a significant increase, over and above that which currently exists.

It is also important to note that the location of this site is such that local shops and facilities are within an acceptable walking/cycling distance, including access to public transport. Therefore, not all trips by residents and/or visitors will necessarily be made by car.

In addition, those improvement works to Radyr Court Road as conditioned, will require the following by way of a 2nd Recommendation.

(v) Legal Agreement - The highway improvement works (subject to condition) and any other works to the existing or proposed adopted public highway are to be subject to agreements under Section 278 and 38 of The Highways Act 1980 between the developer and Local Highway Authority.

PAGE NO. 136 APPLICATION NO. 12/1454/DCO ADDRESS LAND AT RADYR COURT ROAD, DANESCOURT

FROM: AM and Kevin Brennan MP

SUMMARY: At the site visit it was clear that two way traffic will not be possible in and out of the site. That is surely unacceptable. At peak flow times there is a real danger that serious and potentially dangerous traffic problems will occur. This is, of course, to say nothing about the dangers caused to ordinary pedestrians in being expected to share the carriageway with vehicular traffic, let alone the dangers posed to pedestrians with special needs, such as those with visual impairment

The "Manual for Streets" which the local authority deploys in such

9 circumstances indicates that the minimum width of carriageway for two way delivery traffic must be 5.5 metres. The access to the site does not comply with this requirement. Indeed, the Transport Statement which accompanies the application itself quotes an available carriageway width of as little as 4.38 metres at points along the access route.

Unless and until this matter can be satisfactorily resolved, we remain clearly of the view that planning permission should not be granted.

REMARKS: Members are referred to the remarks provided in respect of the late representation from the Danescourt Community Association above which address the same issues.

PAGE NO. 136 APPLICATION NO. 12/1454/DCO ADDRESS: LAND AT RADYR COURT ROAD, DANESCOURT

FROM: Chief City Development Officer

SUMMARY: Petition of 413 signatures objecting to the application on the following grounds:

(i) development would have a major effect on the character and appearance of the area; (ii) the site is an area of undeveloped open space enjoyed by local residents and is used by walkers, cyclists and ramblers. It has established trees, shrubs, and wildlife providing a peaceful rural setting at the edge of a major housing development; (iii) Radyr Court Road is presently unlit and would require significant upgrading to take account of the additional vehicle access requirements thus harming the area’s character and creating an urbanising effect.

This petition was submitted in October 2012.

REMARKS: (i) Noted; (ii) See paragraph 8.3; The proposed works to Radyr Court Road are considered to be acceptable to officers. No trees are proposed to be felled, although some vegetation clearance would be necessary. See plan attached to report for details of proposed highway improvement works.

10

PAGE NO. 169 APPLICATION NO. 12/1520/DCO ADDRESS 56A PLAS MAWR RD, FAIRWATER

FROM: Local Residents – Petition with 29 signatures

SUMMARY: Petition states ‘Please find beneath the names and address of people opposed to the proposed hot food takeaway at 56a Plasmawr Road, Fairwater. On the grounds that as a small area we are well served with hot food outlets also that it will cause more disruption to an already very busy and congested area with residents living in close proximity. Their lives will be disrupted even further by more noise, vandalism, litter and air pollution. Mr Rabbiotti’s living accommodation will be directly above the flue outlet

REMARKS: Details of petition noted, the concerns raised are discussed within the report

PAGE NO. 169 APPLICATION NO. 12/1520/DCO ADDRESS 56A PLAS MAWR RD, FAIRWATER

FROM: Local Residents – Petition with 83 signatures

SUMMARY: Petition states ‘We, the undersigned, oppose plans to open a new hot food takeaway at 56A Plasmawr Road, Fairwater

As a small area, we are well served with hot food outlets and this proposed takeaway will cause more disruption to an already very busy and congested area to the residents who are living in close proximity. Their lives will be disrupted even further by yet more noise, vandalism, litter and air pollution

REMARKS: Details of petition noted, the concerns raised are discussed within the report

11

PAGE NO. 181 APPLICATION NO. 12/01904/DCO ADDRESS : THORNHILL GARAGE, HEOL LLANISHEN FACH, RHIWBINA, CARDIFF

FROM: The applicant

SUMMARY: (a) Advice from Officers is that the Cardiff Local Plan retail policy protects identified centres within the Cardiff Local Plan. Local residents and members have raised concerns regarding the impact upon parades of shops on Heol Llanishen Fach and Caerphilly Road Crossroads, which are not identified centres but do contain retail (both are identified as residential areas on the proposals map of the Local Plan). Following request by the Local Planning Authority a commentary setting out the general health of the ‘centres’ was provided. Both centres were considered to be healthy and trading well with low vacancy rates. This concurred with the Council’s own review which was conducted in 2012 to inform the emerging LDP.

Third parties have indicated that the submitted Retail Assessment is insufficient. The proposed development is for a scheme which is in excess of 85 percent below the trigger point for a retail assessment to be required. The applicant has fully addressed Policy 50 (Retail Developmen) of the Local Plan.

The redevelopment of the former Viscosuisse site on Ty Glas Avenue raised a number of concerns regarding impact upon centres and concerns were raised that the retail development would provide a direct threat to the Station Road shopping centre. It should be noted that the development has not resulted in any significant impact upon Llanishen Village centre. The retail assessment submitted as part of this application shows that the are currently no vacant units and that rental levels are steady. Retail property experts estimate that yields would be around 8.5 % and there are no transactions recently in Llanishen Village.

The proposed development at Thornhill Cars subject of this application represents 9% of the floorspace at the Cardiff Lifestyle Retail Park (former Viscosuisse site).

A significant growth in population is anticipated in north Cardiff in the LDP Preferred Strategy. All centres

12 within the area will benefit from the increase in population.

(b) Many of the representations received have raised a number of detailed concerns regarding the Transportation Assessment prepared by Vectos. The submitted Transport Assessment has been considered by Local Authority Transportation Officers and by another transportation consultant, who has verified the conclusions. No objections have been raised by Council Officers subject to the provision of a zebra crossing of Heol Llanishen Fach and funding a CCTV traffic monitoring camera at the junction of Heol Llanishen Fach and Thornhill Road. The crossing will provide a safe crossing point to the benefit of residents accessing not only the proposed development but the school and other shops. The camera is intended to monitor traffic at the junction of Thornhill Road and Heol Llanishen Fach and will be linked to the Council’s SCOOT traffic system which optimises the phasing of traffic lights.

In response to the points raised by the ‘Local Resident reported as a ‘Late representation’ to Committee in February:

1. The purpose of the Transport Assessment is to support the application, identifying risks and highway safety issues. Suggestions for highway improvements have been made and agreed with the Council.

2. The draft copy of the Transport Assessment and the Full Transport Assessment reach the same conclusions, the full assessment is available for public viewing.

3. The land use class permits the property to return to its previous use without the need for planning permission.

4. The proportion of cycling in comparison to vehicular use will always be small.

5. The proposed development is located within a well- established walking catchment which provides the opportunity to visit the site on foot or by bicycle and is in a sustainable location. The store is intended to be used for ‘top up’ shopping and convenience / essential items which can conveniently be made by

13 foot.

6. The transport Assessment uses Government published acceptable walking distances.

7. Sensitivity analysis has been undertaken on the figures. The effect is the same in terms of low numbers of additional traffic demand.

8. Given the scale of the proposals and the likely traffic demand in terms of new trips there is no requirement to do this. Appropriate modelling has been undertaken as per the scope of works agreed with the Council.

9. Flow diagrams are not to scale and are used to indicate traffic flows.

10. TRICS is an industry standard software package and the sites are limited in this category. The sites have been selected as ‘best fit’ and have been approved by the Council Transportation Officers and another highway consultant.

11. There is no history of pedestrian / vehicular conflict at this existing access.

12. Service vehicles typically service premises during off peak times, so as to avoid delay. Deliveries are coordinated to as to avoid delay on site. The site is constrained and service arrangements have been deemed to be appropriate and safe by all technical reviewers. A servicing management plan will also be prepared.

13. ‘This comment has no relevance to this application’.

14. Parking within the site has been provided in accordance with the Council’s parking standards. The turnover of spaces will be frequent due to the nature of the retail offer.

15. Development does not necessarily give rise to accidents and highway safety issues. The already high frequency of turning movements along Heol Llanishen Fach the accident records suggests that highway safety is not an issue. Increased tuning movements will generally result in lower vehicle speeds and the reduced severity of accidents.

14

The development will not give rise to many new trips. Heol Llanishen Fach is a through route and a large proportion of the trade is expected to be drawn from this traffic or traffic diverting from Thornhill Road. The capacity calculations have been endorsed by another transport consultant and agreed by the Council. The problems of congestion at Heol Llanishen Fach / Thornhill Road are existing problems generally confined to peak periods. The financing of the traffic monitoring camera which will be linked to the SCOOT telematics network will enable congestion to be monitored and the signal timings to be altered depending on traffic demand on the approaches to the junction. This will improve the current operation of the junction.

Buses operate at 12,30 and 60 minute frequencies dependant on services on Thornhill Road and appropriate pedestrian linkages. There is also a less frequent service 22 operating along Heol Llanishen Fach. The site is therefore, well connected in public transport terms.

(C) Due to the irregular shape of the application site and its close proximity to a large electrical sub station redevelopment to create anything significantly greater than what is on site at present would be difficult.

The existing use of the site for car sales is no longer required and given the change in the nature of the market and a move towards more internet based sales and large car ‘supermarkets’ it is unlikely that the site will return to its previous use, and will likely fall into disrepair.

The proposed development would result in the refurbishment of the site and would provide investment and employment, of upto 50 jobs. Job creation is a material planning consideration that should be weighed positively in the planning balance.

REMARKS: Points raised have previously been addressed within the Chief City development Officer’s report to Committee.

15

PAGE NO. 203 APPLICATION NO. 12/02068/DCO ADDRESS: 77 KIMBERLEY ROAD,

FROM: Joint applicant.

SUMMARY: The applicant has provided a written copy of her submission to the Planning Committee on 13th February 2013, which relates to parking, traffic flow and road traffic accident issues. The sources of the factual information given in the representation are also provided, including a copy of the Transport Projects Investigations report 2012.

REMARKS: The Committee has already heard the applicant’s submission at the meeting on 13/2/13.

PAGE NO. 203 APPLICATION NO. 12/02068/DCO ADDRESS: 77 KIMBERLEY ROAD, PENYLAN

FROM: Applicant.

SUMMARY: 1. There is a demonstrable need for local childcare. Cardiff Council Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2012 – 13 has identified a shortfall of full day care places in Penylan and ; the Childcare Strategy Manager supports the development; 78 local people signed a petition of support; 21 children are currently waiting for places at the applicants’ nursery; the Childcare Strategy department requires childcare to be within “pram pushing distance” of residential areas (also a Flying Start requirement); 77 Kimberley Rd is within “pram pushing distance” of Penylan and Plasnewydd; a buggy store will be available.

2. There is a demonstrable economic benefit. The Welsh Govt is committed to tackling youth unemployment; 7 new jobs will be created (5 on site, 2 off site); the cook’s hours will be increased from 15 to 25 hours per week; 5 new nursery nurse jobs will be created (2 for recently qualified apprentices, 3 for currently unemployed 16-19 year olds via the Welsh govt.’s Young Recruits Programme (YRP apprenticeships); 2 additional jobs will be created off site in accounts, admin, payroll and I.T.; 6 out of 7 staff at the baby nursery will be aged 16 – 24; the business plan shows that the nursery has long term sustainability therefore employment will be long term; all apprentices will continue to higher qualifications (Level 3 Childcare, Level 4 and degree level).

16

3. Parking. Over 50% of customers live within 5 – 10 min “pram pushing” distance and a further 20% live within 15 – 20 min; for those who drive, kerbside space is readily available on Blenheim Road near the nursery entrance; drop off/collection times are quick (2-3 mins) and staggered, mainly 8.00 – 8.40 (closed door 8.40 – 9.10) and 4.30 – 5.45pm; objector’s photos showing “school time” congestion parking are not relevant; the applicant’s parking survey shows more than 10 marked spaces available close to the nursery at times when they would be needed (see attached photographs – 1 and 2 show morning at 08.13 and 08.32; 3 and 4 show evening at 17.06 and 17.24; 5 was taken at corresponding time to the Committee site visit on the day before); the parking situation on the day of the site visit is not typical – objectors had deliberately parked at the junction and on the pavement and had staged incidents such as double parking, stopping to ask for directions and overtaking at speed; despite increased parking during the site visit, spaces were still available close to the premises for Members and officers; the photographs in the committee report taken independently by the case officer also show empty parking spaces; with regard to the photograph of the Asda van, the applicant is not responsible for where this is parked and there have been no complaints regarding noise or parking in the 9 years that the nursery has operated; control over where the nursery customers park is maintained via a signed contract and closed door policy; 6 out of 7 nursery staff do not drive - only 1 would drive to work and would be encouraged to park away from the premises in order to retain parking for customers.

4. Accidents. There have been 5 recorded accidents in the area over an 8 year period and none in 2013, therefore for the past 5 year period there have been only 2 recorded accidents, both in 2012 –the statistics have been provided by the Welsh Govt Transport Statistics Dept.; all recorded accidents were referred to and addressed by the applicant at the February Planning Committee meeting, including those from 22/02/12 and 01/03/12 which the objector has labelled as “not yet published” – this is not new evidence; neither of the 2012 accidents occurred at a time when nursery traffic would be expected; of all the accidents, only one (15/06/05) was during peak traffic flows; the official reason for all 5 accidents was “the driver disobeyed the give way sign and road markings” or “the driver failed to look properly” – accidents can happen on any road at any time and as in all of these cases it is usually due to human error rather than

17 the road.

5. Traffic flow/speed. Blenheim Road is not busy and congested, as claimed; Transport Project Investigations recorded 85 percentile traffic speed at 29mph (March 2012) and an average of less than 2 vehicles per minute pass the property during the peak time of 8 – 9am.

6. Junction. There is no technical evidence to suggest the junction is dangerous; Transport officers have no objections on highways grounds; the recent studies at the junction are not ongoing but have been concluded – the result is in the Council’s “Transport Projects Investigations 2012 Full Report which concludes that no scheme is justified; the report noted that road markings were worn but these have been refreshed (October 2012) and there have been no recorded accidents since. 7. Conclusion. Planning officers have recommended the application for approval; there are no objections from Noise Pollution, Transportation, City Development or the one adjoining neighbour at 79 Kimberley Road; there is full support from the Council’s Childcare Strategy Unit, NDNA Wales and the 78 local people who signed the support petition; demonstrable harm is unlikely to be caused and the applicant requests that the Committee grants permission.

REMARKS: These comments are made in response to information submitted by objectors and by Councillor Kelloway, and following the Committee site visit, and deal with issues already addressed in the committee report.

PAGE NO. 231 APPLICATION NO. 13/109/DCO ADDRESS 100 WENTLOOG ROAD RUMNEY

FROM: Occupier, 35 Tyr-y-Sarn Road, Rumney

SUMMARY: Raises the following objections:

(i) the applicant should comply with the Town and Country Planning laws before proceeding; (ii) the smells already coming from the premises are disgusting, requiring laundry to be re-washed; (iii) the applicant has no consideration for neighbouring occupiers otherwise he would comply with planning laws; (iv) causing aggravation for neighbouring occupiers.

18

REMARKS: (vi) Noted; (vii) see paragraph 8.2; (viii) Noted; (ix) Noted.

PAGE NO. 231 APPLICATION NO. 13/85/DCO ADDRESS 33 MURRAYFIELD ROAD,

FROM: The applicant

SUMMARY: Applicants have submitted a response to the objections raised by neighbours:

1. Noise from children Understand that children can make a lot of noise and we limit the amount of time that the children are allowed in the garden. They are supervised by us constantly are attended to if upset. As our mindees are mostly aged 0-3 years old, they don’t make as much noise as older ones are never outside past 6pm so as to respect our neighbours right to quiet

2. Loss of tree screen to the rear of the site, which would have protected adjoining occupiers from noise of children Our garden has never had trees in it and the one property that adjoins our garden removed half of their conifer trees last year. There are still large conifers which provide privacy for them and note that our garden is enclosed by a 1.5m high fence

3. Parking issues associated with dropping off/picking up children Our house has a drive, our car is permanently parked there and there is considerable space in front of house for drop off/pick up. There is also lots of space opposite our house that is public parking. None of these parking facilities compromise any of our neighbours access to their properties. Our children are also dropped off and picked up at various times of the day

4. Highway safety As stated above, there is ample parking areas for pick up and drop off and would not compromise highway safety

5. Loss of value to own property House is the only detached house on road and is located at the end of the road, confident that have minimised any

19 possible inconvenience to our neighbours. Property will still be our residence

6. Children throwing into other gardens/lane As mindee children are mostly babies aged 0-3, and have a existing garden enclosure some 1.5 metres tall, not possible for them to throw things over, although some of the older children (including own) may regrettably on occasion lose balls into other gardens

REMARKS: Noted

20