"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.....

THANK YOU!

However, the fight is not over. The developers might appeal.....please check back for details.

Letter to the Planning Committee

TO:
Councillors on the Cardiff City Council Planning Committee

Dear Councillor,

APPLICATION NO. 07/1980/W
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 34 DWELLINGS ON LAND PRESENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE PANTMAWR INN, TYLA TEG, PANTMAWR, CARDIFF.

As Chairman of the Pantmawr Action Group I hope you do not mind me writing to you to explain that the Action Group have significant concerns over the accuracy of the Planning Officer’s Report on the above application and we feel the Members of the Planning Committee should have the full facts before they make any decision. We hope you will consider the following and also agree to a site visit to see the location for yourselves.

We have given the report considerable deliberation and spoken with other local Residents who have had access to copies. All are of the opinion that IT IS UNREASONABLY BIASED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT AND IGNORES OR BRUSHES ASIDE VALID OBJECTIONS OF 138 RESIDENTS FROM THIS ESTATE AND ELSEWHERE, INCLUDING THE LOCAL MP, ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND COUNCILLORS, as illustrated by the examples below. There are also factual errors and other matters in the Planning Officers report that the Action Group wishes to bring to the attention of the Planning Committee.

Example 1 - The proposed block of 23 apartments will be far more massive than any other building in the vicinity and, despite amendment, is still taller than the existing public house and the surrounding properties. Therefore we would argue there has been no “proper regard to the scale of the surrounding environment” as required by Policy 11 of the Council’s local plan.

To make the scale and massing of the apartment block acceptable to Planning Officers, the roof level was lowered in amended plans submitted on 18th February 2008. However, the headroom in the top floor apartments is now very low in places and it is conceded in 8.9 (48) of the report that a further application could be submitted to raise the height again. Any attempt to raise the roof height again would be an abuse of the planning system. It is considered that A CONDITION MUST BE PUT ON ANY PLANNING APPROVAL PROHIBITING FUTURE ALTERATION OF THE ROOF OF THE APARTMENT BLOCK to ensure the scale and massing is not increased to that currently unacceptable to the Planning Officers. A similar Condition has been suggested in 8.9(19) for the houses and should also be included.

Example 2 - Apartments and townhouses are urban-style developments and are out of character with the semi-rural nature of the estate and we consider they will therefore “adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the area”. The only relevant comment in the officers report to this objection at 8.9 (30) is that the “leafy” character of the area will be maintained by the landscaping!!! The recommended approval again is not considered to have “proper regard to the character of the surrounding environment” as required by Policy 11 of the Council’s local plan.

Example 3 - The existing residential units comprising Pantmawr Garden Village (as it is properly known) are characterised by high standards of privacy and spaciousness. Putting 23 apartments and 11 terraced townhouses on this 0.5ha site must be considered to be “overdevelopment and insensitive and inappropriate infilling” and not in accordance with Policy 30 of the Council’s local plan. NOWHERE IS THE OFFICER’S REASON FOR DENYING THIS OBJECTION SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED.

Example 4 - There are only direct bus services to Rhiwbina Village, Whitchurch Village and the City Centre. One of the three services only runs three times a day and outside peak hours (not regularly as stated on the Officer’s report). So to visit the main supermarkets and to go to work at locations other than the above, people on the Estate need to use cars. As a result, occupants of most units, like other residents of this Estate, are likely to have more than one vehicle. THE AMOUNT OF PARKING PROVIDED BARELY COMPLIES WITH THE COUNCIL’S OWN GUIDELINES AND DOES NOT ADOPT A FLEXIBLE APPROACH TO CAR PARKING STANDARDS AS REQUIRED BY PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE WALES (2002). Parking will inevitably spill out onto the surrounding narrow roads and make the currently difficult situation even worse. Surely Officers cannot believe that the £15,300 for three Bus Boarders (not even shelters) they have agreed to will have any influence on travel patterns!!

The windows of some existing properties will only be approximately a cricket pitch length away from windows of 3-storey proposed properties. Screens of trees proposed between them will cause unacceptable overshadowing.

There are many other examples of objections, too many to detail, which are either not addressed or claimed by the Officers’ Report to not in themselves constitute a reason for refusal of this application. BUT TAKEN TOGETHER THEY MUST HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE. There are also the following additional matters of material consideration.

At present the only the rainfall run-off entering the existing foul sewer system is that from the roof of the Pantmawr Inn. I have calculated that, during a very rare severe storm, the flow into the sewer from the Inn roof will only be equivalent to the flushing of 10 toilets or the emptying of 12 baths. This amount of flushing and/or emptying at the same time would seem to be likely on a daily basis given that 51 bathrooms and 11 cloakrooms are proposed without needing to include the water from 34 kitchens with washing machines and dishwashers. Therefore claims that “the proposed development will certainly offer a reduction in flows to the public combined sewerage system” must be called into question. We have been refused permission to see information supplied by the Applicant’s consultant to Welsh Water on which this statement is based.

A letter from the Council’s Highways Department in 2002 admits that the local roads are subsiding and cracking but that there is insufficient funding to undertake renewal work. Since then there have been complaints about the dangerous state of that part of Caer Wenallt leading to Tyla Teg and patching has been carried out. As a former member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation I am of the opinion that the road will not stand up to the Construction Traffic generated by the development and that THERE MUST BE A CONDITION IN ANY PLANNING APPROVAL THAT ROADS FROM PANTMAWR ROAD TO THE SITE ACCESS ARE RECONSTRUCTED ON COMPLETION OF WORKS.

In Policy 31 of the Local Plan there is a requirement for 2.43 hectares of recreational space (5 times the area of the site) per 1000 population (the population of the Pantmawr Estate). It states that the extent of the nature and need in the locality must also be taken into account. The following summarises the current extent of open space.

Item
Recommended
In Pantmawr
Equipped childrens play areas
0.3 ha
Only in the Pantmawr Inn grounds
Informal recreational open space
0.5 ha
Two sloping grassed areas among the houses on the estate amount to little over 0.1 hectare in total and are too small for much in the way of recreation. Most informal recreation for young people (Cycling & kicking footballs) takes place in the Pantmawr Inn car park
Formal recreational open space
1.6 ha
Nil.

We consider that ADEQUATE ON-SITE REPLACEMENT PUBLIC OPEN SPACE MUST BE INCLUDED AS A CONDITION OF THE PROPOSALS. It must be a condition of any approval that the contributions from developers of £25,352 towards community facilities and £31,928 towards open space in the locality must be spent within the area of the Pantmawr Estate to compensate for the loss of the present facilities and because all other open space is too far away to be readily usable.

To ensure the stated reasons for Conditions can be achieved, we consider the following items in Recommendation 1 should all be agreed BEFORE any Planning Approval is granted: Condition 3 (details of the junction between the proposed access road and the highway, Condition 8 (visibility splays to the entrance), Condition 9 (details of all roads and footpaths and surface water drainage) and Condition 13 (ground permeability tests).

We are of the opinion that details of the means of achieving the Attenuation Rate of 5 litres per second for land drainage run-off to the public surface water sewerage system must be agreed BEFORE Planning Permission is granted to ensure it is technically feasible.

The question of the future viability and status of the Pantmawr Inn is purely hypothetical and cannot be used as a valid reason for claiming that the site is redundant. The profitability of a Public House depends, like other businesses, largely on the capability of its management. There is overwhelming evidence that past difficulties were due to the withdrawal of the serving of food and bad management that allowed noise disturbance (admitted in the report) drunkenness and abusive language to be used. It is confirmed in the report that the tenant was being given “assistance” which obviously did not encourage him to improve matters. The owners are desperate to sell because they have made a widely publicised major financial loss. THE IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THAT THE PANTMAWR INN IS NOW BEING WELL MANAGED AND IS BUSY. It is being used by people from on and off the Estate who appreciate the present orderliness and its child- friendliness and have no desire for opening hours to be extended. The next nearest Public House to the Estate, The Deri Inn, is not a suitable alternative as it does not permit children under 14. THE TREATMENT OF THIS MATTER IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THE BIAS IN THE OFFICERS REPORT IN THAT IT DETAILS THE APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS AT LENGTH WITHOUT ADMITTING THE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF REBUTTALS OF THESE ARGUMENTS FROM OBJECTORS.

THE RADYR ARMS CASE IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE PRECEDENT FOR GRANTING THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE PLANNING APPROVAL WAS ONLY GRANTED AFTER THE BUILDING WAS BURNED DOWN. Prior to that the Approvals to two applications were refused and the Planning Inspector turned down an Appeal on the grounds that “the loss of the public house would diminish the range of uses and social facilities in the local centre to the detriment of the character and general amenity of the wider residential area”. AGAIN, THE OFFICER’S REPORT ONLY GIVES HALF THE STORY.

Pantmawr is a community in itself rather isolated by its surroundings from both Rhiwbina and Whitchurch. It has just a single facility, the Pantmawr Inn, which serves as our Community centre in addition to being a Public House. It is used for community social events organised by our Residents Association and others, and family events both happy and sad. A “wake” is being held there as I write this. It is conceded in 8.2 of the Officers Report that a public house does have “community benefits”. Ours definitely has and the demolition of the Pantmawr Inn would rip the heart out of our Community.

We trust that this information will go some way to redressing the balance between the Officer’s report and the objections and enable the Members of the Planning Committee to reach a fair and equitable decision.

Yours faithfully


Hugh R Payne, B.Sc (Eng), C.Eng, MICE, FGS.
Chairman, Pantmawr Action Group.

That's one way to get more exposure ladies!

Feb 20 2008 by Katie Norman, South Wales Echo

MOVE over Calendar Girls.

A group of ladies campaigning to save Cardiff’s Pantmawr Inn pub plan to expose their campaign on national television by stripping naked on Friday’s Al Murray show.
The protesters have already posed nude outside the Tyla Teg pub, using a 15ft campaign banner to shield their modesty.
They have now been filmed alongside former newspaper editor Piers Morgan, Coronation Street actress Kim Ryder and Michael Winner as guests for the ITV show, hosted by comedian Al Murray as his character the Pub Landlord.
The naked protesters are members of the Pantmawr Action Group, which has been campaigning against plans to stop developers demolishing the pub and building flats in its place.
Sue Rawlinson, 54, an office administrator, of Cae’r Wenallt, Pantmawr, said she was not fazed by the prospect of stripping on national television.
“We will be getting good exposure in more ways than one,” she said.
“I’m not nervous. Why should we be nervous when the banner hides everything?
“It will be an experience for us all, I think.
“We’re expecting Al to take the Mickey out of us something rotten but we would do anything for our pub so it will be worth it.”
Sue’s daughter Sian-Elin wrote to the show to suggest they feature the Pantmawr Inn.
After viewing the naked protest pictures on the group’s website, programme makers invited them to London.
The television company whisked the six ladies and action group chairman Hugh Payne to the television studios for filming yesterday and put them up in a London hotel afterwards.
To celebrate, the Pantmawr Inn will be screening the Al Murray show and have its own live music in the pub on Friday.
Mr Payne hoped the TV appearance might bring the group’s fight to save the pub to a wider audience.
He said: “I don’t think any residents in Pantmawr have missed the campaign because we’ve knocked on every door and 75 per cent of them have our posters.
“But hopefully this will tell people from further afield that the pub is still open and doing very well.”
Pub owners Mitchell and Butler decided to sell the premises because of a decline in trade.
Developer Charles Church wants to build a block of 23 flats and 11 houses on the site. Cardiff council is likely to consider the plans at a planning meeting on March 19.
For campaign details visit www.savepantmawr.org

katie.norman@mediawales.co.uk

Julie Morgan MP supports campaign!

Julie Morgan MP has visited the Pantmawr site with our Chairman and comments in a letter to him: "I think the setting of the Inn is idyllic and there is enormous scope for developing the outbuildings as a community resource. In terms of the revised planning application I found the visit and your observations very helpful indeed. I have written to the local authority and opposed the revised application."

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.

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.

Stripped for action!

YOU’VE heard of the Wags – but what about the Pags?

There have been scores of pictures of the wives and girlfriends of footballers – but none have ever been photographed going as far as the Pantmawr Action Group.

The band of ladies, aged between 45 and 65, stripped off in a bid to boost support over the potential closure of their beloved pub.

The Pantmawr Inn, in Tyla Teg, is under threat of being concreted over with 36 apartments. But the group’s members went the Full Monty in a bid to make sure that won’t happen.

Sue Rawlinson, 54, a company director, said: “We feel very strongly about this because the pub has been at the heart of our community for so long.“It’s a meeting place for young and old where christenings, weddings and funerals have been held. We can’t allow that connection to be lost. A planning committee is due to be held on October 10 and we’ll do everything we can to make them aware of our feelings.”

Chairman of the Pantmawr Action Group, Hugh Payne, of Caer Wenallt, said: “The inn is a former farmhouse that certainly dates to before 1875. “It was converted into a public house in 1961 when the surrounding land was built upon to create the Pantmawr estate.

“The estate is now bounded to the north by the M4, to the west by the Pantmawr Cemetery and A470 trunk road, to the south by the Whitchurch golf course, and to the east by the Twmpath ancient monument and its surrounding fields.

“It’s quite an isolated and individual community. The inn is our heart. “There have been problems over the past few years including reports of its closure but we don’t see why it cannot once again thrive as it has done in the past.

Gill Irwin, secretary of PAG, said: “I moved to Pantmawr two years ago because it has a wonderful community feel.

“We’re appalled by the prospect of losing our last amenity to developers who want to build four blocks of flats.

“Some ladies from the group felt so strongly about the need to bring this protest to the public eye we bared all (discreetly) with our banner in front of the pub. “We hope that anyone who has enjoyed visits to the pub over the years or who deplores over-development within communities, will support our fight.” gavin.o’connor@wme.co.uk The ECHO

Pantmawr Inn Acton Group successful first meeting

Pantmawr Inn Acton Group successful first meeting

Hugh Payne, of Caer Wenalt, Pantmawr addressed a packed Pantmawr Inn full of enthusiastic people who want to join the Pantmawr Inn Action Group!

He explained that the idea is to form a nucleus of people to work together to lead the opposition to the proposal of Charles Church and Mitchell and Butler for 36 flats.
For more information

We have already started a petition.

We want you to write to the planning department and the planning committee.

Those who are affected by the development can write about this.
Are you overlooked?
Are you concerned

about the drainage or the mains water pressure?

Is there going to be an increase in noise and disturbance?

Have you worries about the increase in traffic flow?

The Pantmawr is the only community facility in the area.

How will this loss of amenity and recreation and leisure facility affect you?

Are you a regular?

Say how you use the pub even if that is only occasionally?

Did you used to come to the Pantmawr Inn to eat?

Did you attend events at the pub?

Did you have Christmas dinner with you friends?

Does your group meet here, e.g. the residents association?

Will your quality of life and the environment of your neigbourhood be affected? People on the estate will not be able to maintain and strengthen pride in their community.

A committee was organised and it plans to meet again on Thursday at the Pantmawr Inn at 7.30.

Contact your councillor and the planning committee