The Pantmawr Action Group committee met last night to discuss the appeal. The applicants Mitchells & Butler and Asbri Planning (on behalf of Charles Church) have requested that the appeal be made through written representations, rather than a public enquiry.
PAG has contacted the Planning Inspectorate strongly urging them to launch a public enquiry into the matter, following the high profile and strongly supported campaign to SAVE THE PANTMAWR! The Planning Inspectorate have noted PAG's request for a public enquiry.
PAG will be making a statement at the public meeting at All Saints Church Hall, Rhiwbina, Cardiff, at 7pm on Monday, May 26th. All welcome - please come along! Spread the word.
Join us on Facebook here.
Showing posts with label Charles Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Church. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Assembly to rule on Pantmawr Inn's future as developers appeal
Assembly to rule on pub’s future as developers appeal
Katie Norman, South Wales Echo
DEVELOPERS have appealed against the rejection of controversial plans to build flats and houses on the site of a popular pub.
Proposals to build on the site of the Pantmawr Inn, Pantmawr, Cardiff, were rejected by Cardiff council’s planning committee after a lengthy residents’ campaign against the idea.
But Asbri Planning, which represents developer Charles Church and landowner Mitchells and Butlers, has appealed to the National Assembly.
The Pantmawr Action Group (PAG), which formed to try to save the pub, has said it will continue its campaign against the plans.
The Assembly’s planning inspectorate, based at Cathays Park, Cardiff, will now have 30 weeks to look at the appeal.
Asbri Planning has asked the inspectorate to consider the application on written representation alone, without a public inquiry.
But a public inquiry could be held if the Assembly receives enough demands for such action from the public.
Ward councillor Jayne Cowan said she fully supported PAG and believed a public inquiry would be in their interests.
“It would mean there would be a site meeting and the campaigners could show the full scale of the impact, as they have done previously,” she said.
A public meeting to discuss the situation has been organised at All Saints Church Hall, Rhiwbina, Cardiff, at 7pm on Monday, May 26.
Katie Norman, South Wales Echo
DEVELOPERS have appealed against the rejection of controversial plans to build flats and houses on the site of a popular pub.
Proposals to build on the site of the Pantmawr Inn, Pantmawr, Cardiff, were rejected by Cardiff council’s planning committee after a lengthy residents’ campaign against the idea.
But Asbri Planning, which represents developer Charles Church and landowner Mitchells and Butlers, has appealed to the National Assembly.
The Pantmawr Action Group (PAG), which formed to try to save the pub, has said it will continue its campaign against the plans.
The Assembly’s planning inspectorate, based at Cathays Park, Cardiff, will now have 30 weeks to look at the appeal.
Asbri Planning has asked the inspectorate to consider the application on written representation alone, without a public inquiry.
But a public inquiry could be held if the Assembly receives enough demands for such action from the public.
Ward councillor Jayne Cowan said she fully supported PAG and believed a public inquiry would be in their interests.
“It would mean there would be a site meeting and the campaigners could show the full scale of the impact, as they have done previously,” she said.
A public meeting to discuss the situation has been organised at All Saints Church Hall, Rhiwbina, Cardiff, at 7pm on Monday, May 26.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
M&B and Charles Church have appealed
Local Cllrs Jayne, Adrian and Brian contacted the Pantmawr Action Group with the following:
We are sorry to advise that Mitchells and Butler and Charles Church have appealed against the Pantmawr Inn Decision.
We are putting out a flyer to every house in Pantmawr to advise them of this over the next few days.
A public meeting has been arranged for Monday 26th May, 7pm at All Saints Church Hall.
Please contact us with your views which we will forward to the National Assembly for Wales.
Best wishes
Jayne, Adrian and Brian
Email Jayne - JCowan@cardiff.gov.uk
We are sorry to advise that Mitchells and Butler and Charles Church have appealed against the Pantmawr Inn Decision.
We are putting out a flyer to every house in Pantmawr to advise them of this over the next few days.
A public meeting has been arranged for Monday 26th May, 7pm at All Saints Church Hall.
Please contact us with your views which we will forward to the National Assembly for Wales.
Best wishes
Jayne, Adrian and Brian
Email Jayne - JCowan@cardiff.gov.uk
PLEASE CHECK BACK HERE SOON FOR MORE DETAILS.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
"It's a wonderful result"
“It’s a wonderful result”- The words of PAG’s chairman Hugh Payne says it all. Yesterday the Council’s Planning Committee voted to reject plans to demolish the Pantmawr Inn and build apartments on the site. Below is what happened at the meeting.....
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 application
Developers 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.....
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.
Friday, January 11, 2008
In the news...
Pub placards are ‘banned’
Jan 10 2008 by Katie Norman, South Wales Echo
GIANT placards have been banned from highlighting a community’s fight to save its local pub.
Cardiff council has ordered residents to remove massive banners objecting to the proposed demolition of the Pantmawr Inn, in Pantmawr, Cardiff, from their properties.
Developer Charles Church wants to build a block of 23 flats and 11 houses on the site but locals are against the proposal.
Protest advertisements at least four metres long had been sited near the pub but council officers ordered their removal after receiving complaints.
They say the huge banners need planning permission.
Hugh Payne, who is chairman of the Pantmawr Action Group, said: “The banners may be going up again. Not officially, but I can’t stop people if they’re going to put them in their gardens.”
Read the full story on icwales here.
Jan 10 2008 by Katie Norman, South Wales Echo
GIANT placards have been banned from highlighting a community’s fight to save its local pub.
Cardiff council has ordered residents to remove massive banners objecting to the proposed demolition of the Pantmawr Inn, in Pantmawr, Cardiff, from their properties.
Developer Charles Church wants to build a block of 23 flats and 11 houses on the site but locals are against the proposal.
Protest advertisements at least four metres long had been sited near the pub but council officers ordered their removal after receiving complaints.
They say the huge banners need planning permission.
Hugh Payne, who is chairman of the Pantmawr Action Group, said: “The banners may be going up again. Not officially, but I can’t stop people if they’re going to put them in their gardens.”
Read the full story on icwales here.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Open meeting at the Pantmawr Inn
The Pantmawr Action Group (PAG) held an open meeting at the Pantmawr Inn on Friday evening for local people to come along, find out more about the plans, and have their questions answered.
Councillors Jayne Cowan, Adrian Robson and Gareth Neale were in attendance as well as Jon Bassett, who is the current operator of the Pantmawr Inn. Jonathan Edwards MEP sent his apologies.
PAG Chair Hugh Payne addressed the meeting, and urged those in attendance to write and post their objection letters as soon as possible. Hugh explained the plans using copies of the plans submitted by the developer Charles Church. He showed people the enormous L shaped block of flats which, if the plans get approved, will stand on the site of the historic Pantmawr Inn. Hugh explained that the amended plans are very similar to the original application with a mixture of 2 and 3 storey buildings. Hugh highlighted the fact that whilst the number of dwellings has been reduced by 2, the number of bedrooms remains the same – 60. The amended plans submitted by the developer are shown on a horizontal level – PAG is assuming that during the development, the uneven land will be levelled off.
Hugh covered a number of points which people objecting may wish to include in their objection letters, including the scale of the development, the height and mass of the development, the density of dwellings, parking, and the ‘type’ of dwellings – which are completely out of character of the existing estate. The amended plans also exclude facilities for the disabled and elderly, with the entrance to one section of flats straight off a section of grass. Under the submitted plans, a significant number of existing properties will be overlooked.
Questions were also raised over the ‘tunnels’ on the plans. Cars can fit through, however vans were certainly struggle, and this also raises questions of access for the emergency services, as well as rubbish collection. The tunnels on the plans are 7’6” high.
Hugh explained that he looked up the word ‘amenity’ in the dictionary, and it carried the definition – ‘pleasurable and useful feature’. If the Pantmawr Inn is not a ‘pleasurable and useful feature’ then we are at a loss to what is. In Cardiff County Council’s planning guidelines, there’s a recommendation that a public amenity should be provided. It seems that Charles Church believe that several small patches of grass will suffice.
Currently, children are welcome in the Pantmawr Inn, however, under the new proposals, there are no facilities for children at all.
Hugh urged those present to get their objection letters to the Council by 10th January at the latest. Whilst it was noted that this is very short notice, it was also noted that Charles Church did not submit the amended plans until 18/12/07, meaning that PAG was extremely lucky to get hold of a copy of the new plans before the City Hall closed for the Christmas period.
Councillor Gareth Neale reminded residents to primarily focus their objection letters on planning objections as opposed to the ‘softer’ aspects.
A member present at the meeting also raised the traffic issue, arguing that if the Pantmawr Inn is closed, Pantmawr residents will be forced to use their cars to access other local community facilities. The fact that The Deri Inn may be in walking distance for a small number of residents, The Deri does not allow children on its premises. At the other end of the age scale, some elderly residents will find it very challenging to walk to The Deri, and as Cllr Jayne Cowan pointed out, the Rhiwbina area has the oldest population in Cardiff.
Councillors Jayne Cowan, Adrian Robson and Gareth Neale were in attendance as well as Jon Bassett, who is the current operator of the Pantmawr Inn. Jonathan Edwards MEP sent his apologies.
PAG Chair Hugh Payne addressed the meeting, and urged those in attendance to write and post their objection letters as soon as possible. Hugh explained the plans using copies of the plans submitted by the developer Charles Church. He showed people the enormous L shaped block of flats which, if the plans get approved, will stand on the site of the historic Pantmawr Inn. Hugh explained that the amended plans are very similar to the original application with a mixture of 2 and 3 storey buildings. Hugh highlighted the fact that whilst the number of dwellings has been reduced by 2, the number of bedrooms remains the same – 60. The amended plans submitted by the developer are shown on a horizontal level – PAG is assuming that during the development, the uneven land will be levelled off.
Hugh covered a number of points which people objecting may wish to include in their objection letters, including the scale of the development, the height and mass of the development, the density of dwellings, parking, and the ‘type’ of dwellings – which are completely out of character of the existing estate. The amended plans also exclude facilities for the disabled and elderly, with the entrance to one section of flats straight off a section of grass. Under the submitted plans, a significant number of existing properties will be overlooked.
Questions were also raised over the ‘tunnels’ on the plans. Cars can fit through, however vans were certainly struggle, and this also raises questions of access for the emergency services, as well as rubbish collection. The tunnels on the plans are 7’6” high.
Hugh explained that he looked up the word ‘amenity’ in the dictionary, and it carried the definition – ‘pleasurable and useful feature’. If the Pantmawr Inn is not a ‘pleasurable and useful feature’ then we are at a loss to what is. In Cardiff County Council’s planning guidelines, there’s a recommendation that a public amenity should be provided. It seems that Charles Church believe that several small patches of grass will suffice.
Currently, children are welcome in the Pantmawr Inn, however, under the new proposals, there are no facilities for children at all.
Hugh urged those present to get their objection letters to the Council by 10th January at the latest. Whilst it was noted that this is very short notice, it was also noted that Charles Church did not submit the amended plans until 18/12/07, meaning that PAG was extremely lucky to get hold of a copy of the new plans before the City Hall closed for the Christmas period.
Councillor Gareth Neale reminded residents to primarily focus their objection letters on planning objections as opposed to the ‘softer’ aspects.
A member present at the meeting also raised the traffic issue, arguing that if the Pantmawr Inn is closed, Pantmawr residents will be forced to use their cars to access other local community facilities. The fact that The Deri Inn may be in walking distance for a small number of residents, The Deri does not allow children on its premises. At the other end of the age scale, some elderly residents will find it very challenging to walk to The Deri, and as Cllr Jayne Cowan pointed out, the Rhiwbina area has the oldest population in Cardiff.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Local Councillors hold meeting to discuss plans
Councillors Jayne Cowan and Adrian Robson held an open meeting last night to discuss the amended plans, and how to best oppose them. Adrian briefly explained the new plans before opening the meeting up for the floor to comment.
The packed out church hall saw a range of comments discussed, including overdevelopment, peoples’ property being over looked, access, transport, wildlife and so on. There were a wide range of people at the meeting – young and old – and one of the youngest attendees addressed the meeting, arguing that the loss of the Pantmawr Inn would be terrible because the Inn provides a social space for young people to meet up, and celebrate various events, for example, Halloween. “It’s a place for children to play as well”.
Jayne Cowan said that she thought the amended plans were a “complete overdevelopment of the site”.
The Councillors reminded those present that objection letters must be sent to the Council by 10th January 2008, ready for the planning meeting on 20th February.
There was no representation from developers Charles Church at the meeting, however, the Councillors did say that they could put any questions to Charles Church if necessary.
The packed out church hall saw a range of comments discussed, including overdevelopment, peoples’ property being over looked, access, transport, wildlife and so on. There were a wide range of people at the meeting – young and old – and one of the youngest attendees addressed the meeting, arguing that the loss of the Pantmawr Inn would be terrible because the Inn provides a social space for young people to meet up, and celebrate various events, for example, Halloween. “It’s a place for children to play as well”.
Jayne Cowan said that she thought the amended plans were a “complete overdevelopment of the site”.
The Councillors reminded those present that objection letters must be sent to the Council by 10th January 2008, ready for the planning meeting on 20th February.
There was no representation from developers Charles Church at the meeting, however, the Councillors did say that they could put any questions to Charles Church if necessary.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
2nd application submitted! ACT NOW!
Charles Church Wales & West have submitted a second planning application to develop the Pantmawr site. The new proposal is for 34 dwellings.
You can look at the application and plans at the City Hall Reception (Main Entrance Room 139) from 8.30am to 4.45pm Monday to Thursday and until 4.15pm on Fridays. You will need to quote reference number - 07/01980/W.
Please write to the address below with any comments you wish the Council to take into account. Write to: Julian Stedman, Development Manager, Development Control Planning & Environment, City Hall, Cardiff, CF10 3ND, or email developmentcontrol@cardiff.gov.uk.
Please watch this space for further announcements. Thanks for your support.
You can look at the application and plans at the City Hall Reception (Main Entrance Room 139) from 8.30am to 4.45pm Monday to Thursday and until 4.15pm on Fridays. You will need to quote reference number - 07/01980/W.
Please write to the address below with any comments you wish the Council to take into account. Write to: Julian Stedman, Development Manager, Development Control Planning & Environment, City Hall, Cardiff, CF10 3ND, or email developmentcontrol@cardiff.gov.uk.
Please watch this space for further announcements. Thanks for your support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
