At the Planning Meeting, Richard Twomlow spoke on behalf of PAG and other objectors and neatly summarised the range of objections in an excellent 3 minute speech – detailing the main objections as the loss of the pub as a community facility, and fundamental planning problems – massing, scale, access, and open space. Twomlow urged the Committee to reject the applicationDevelopers Charles Church had the opportunity to respond but chose not to.
Conservative Councillor Gareth Neale spoke and congratulated PAG on a “superb campaign”. Neale said his main concerns were access to the site as the entrance is narrow and obscured, and this matter had been ignored by the Highways Officer. He also drew attention to various inaccuracies in the plans. Neale also discussed a Times article published a couple of weeks ago which claimed every 6 hours in England and Wales a pub closes. Neale urged the Planning Committee to reject the application.
Independent Councillor Jayne Cowan thanked the Planning Committee for attending the site visit to consider the impact of the development, and praised PAG’s use of balloons to illustrate the height and area of the proposed development. Cowan went on to highlight various inaccuracies in the application and questioned the Committee as to how they could vote on an application that is inaccurate. Cowan argued that Councillors should reject the plans on overdevelopment of the site; scale and character of the development would be overbearing; privacy standards would be reduced by the development; the un-neighbourly nature of the apartments including their close proximity to existing dwellings; the development being out of keeping with the area; and the impact the development would have on existing houses; and loss of amenity as the development would mean the loss of amenity for 1000 residents – “it will mean no parks, no shops, no nothing”. Cowan urged the Planning Committee to reject the application.
Planning Officer Martin Morris talked through the application, and noted that there had been a huge number of objections from local residents, as well as Jonathan Morgan AM, Julie Morgan MP, and the Rhiwbina Civic Society. Morris claimed that objections based on the pub acting as a community facility should not be considered because he claimed the pub doesn’t act in the same way as a community facility and that in a January 2007 audit, a report stated that there were community facilities located within a one mile radius of the site. This comment was met with jeers from the audience gathered. Morris went on to argue that the site for proposed development was an “isolated site” on the Pantmawr estate – a comment which caused the room to erupt into laughter and jeers. Morris thanked PAG for the balloons at the site visit, but claimed that they were not set at an appropriate site. PAG can confirm that the balloons were laid out by a civil engineer!! Morris apologised for citing the Monico flats as an example, and admitted he’d made a mistake by claiming that particular site was in Rhiwbina. Morris said that he believed the plans were for a “reasonable” development, and said “we recommend approval”.
The Highways Officer discussed two issues – access and traffic. She confirmed that the width of the entrance is indeed 6.8m – a correction to the original application – pointed out by PAG! She went on to argue that the pub currently has 84 parking spaces, and that the new development would only have 48 – meaning a reduction in traffic. This was also met with boos and jeers as the cars would be entering and leaving the site at peak times, meaning an increase in traffic density!
The Councillors on the Committee were invited to comment.
Councillor Cathy Pearcy said that she had visited the pub recently and it was very busy and “thriving”. She argued that local residents “deserve” to have a facility like this near them. She said
“I do not believe the other community facilities mentioned in the report are easily accessible for residents on the estate”.
She also said she was very unhappy with an old building being pulled down. Pearcy went on to highlight the access issues, and noted that the Planning Committee struggled to get onto the estate in their mini-bus. She argued that members (and indeed residents) should be very concerned if a fire engine needed access.
Another Councillor said that they were very concerned how close the new buildings would be to the existing properties.
Another Councillor said that they were very concerned about a comment made by Planning Officer Martin Morris about the proposed development being a “tight development” and that this strongly suggests overdevelopment and overbearing.
The Vice Chair of the Planning Committee said that he was very concerned with the application, and said that this new style of development will be an over development of the site. He also highlighted the lack of amenity space, and concerns over the proximity to existing houses.
Another Councillor said that at the site visit she felt the site was very claustrophobic.
The Chief of Planning told the Committee
“this application meets all requirements”
And said that if Councillors vote to reject it and the developers appeal, there would be a potential cost to the tax-payer. The audience jeered loudly and many audience members shouted “blackmail” in response.
After the meeting, several PAG members said that his behaviour was disgraceful.
The Councillors then voted to REJECT the planning application amidst a burst of applause and celebration from the audience.
After the meeting Planning Officer Martin Morris approached PAG member Sue Rawlinson and said:
“Congratulations on a very entertaining campaign”.
Why thank you Mr Morris.
The Charles Church Rep also spoke to Sue Rawlinson and said
“Congratulations”.
“Do you think they’ll appeal?” replied Sue.
“I’ll need to consult with my client”
“Tell them to bugger off. We’ll fight them to the end of the earth” Sue told the Rep.
“I’ll pass the message on”
PAG will be holding a celebration party at the Inn very soon….check back for details.
YOU ALL DESERVE A HUGE THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT.....
THANK YOU!
However, the fight is not over. The developers might appeal.....please check back for details.
0 comments:
Post a Comment