Letter from the First Minister

Dear Sue,

I was very pleased to hear that the well supported campaign against the redevelopment of the Pantmawr site was successful and Cardiff Council's Planning Committee recently turned down the application.

I am well aware of the importance of the pub, especially for the Pantmawr residents, and that since the closure of the Heol Ffynnon Wen shops, it is the only facility on the estate available for the local community's use.

It is also an important part of the living heritage of North Cardiff, a place where people can meet and can now enjoy good value food & drink in a well-run establishment.

The future may not yet be totally secure, but the Committee's decision, reflecting local people's concerns as well as needs, is an important step in preserving the Pantmawr for future generations and I wish you and the pub every success.

Yours

Rhodri

"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.

Planning Committee - THIS WEDNESDAY - 2PM - CITY HALL

The Planning Application will be heard at the Planning Committee meeting this Wednesday 16th April at the City Hall at 2pm. Please come along and show your support.

PANTMAWR DEVELOPMENT - NO, NO, NO!

Hundreds brave the rain for the Site Visit

Yesterday the Council's Planning Committee visited the Pantmawr Inn site to get a better understanding of the issues facing the planning application. Local residents turned out in force to show the Planning Committee the strength of opposition to the proposals. Lead by Chairman Bob Derbyshire the Planning Committee looked at three locations around the site.



Jonathan Morgan AM came along to show his support.

The Planning Application states that the entrance to the site is 7.5m wide, however, PAG's civil engineer has measured the entrance as 6.8m, so we showed the Planning Committee this with a giant tape measure!

The Planning Application will now be considered at the next Planning Committee meeting on 16th April at Cardiff's City Hall. Please check back here for details.

Pantmawr Site Visit

The Planning Committee will be holding a site visit at Pantmawr on 7th April 2008 at 4.30pm. The Council has agreed a Code of Practice in respect of such site visits - see below.


Planning Applications : Code of Practice for Site Visits
By the Planning Committee

1. Sometimes Members of the Planning Committee need to visit a site to help them make a decision on a planning application. These visits are an extension of the Committee meeting to enable Members to make a visual assessment of the site and its surroundings.

2. When a site visit is required the Development Control Section of Regulatory Services notifies the owner, if access to the premises is necessary.

3. Where sites are small, or access poor, and where planning issues are of limited interest, attendance at meetings is restricted to Councillors and Council officers only.

4. Where sites are large and with good access and where there is wide public interest in an application, attendance at meetings is open to all interested parties, including the public.

5. The owner of large sites is advised that although he and his agent may be present at the site visit, it is not an opportunity to make representations to Councillors. This does not prevent the applicant or his advisers pointing out factual matters such as the height of the proposed buildings or the position of a window. Similar advice is given to any other interested parties present.

6. For large site visits, the County Planning Department notifies those who have submitted written objections to the applications. However, where a petition of objection has been lodged, only one of the petitioners is notified. Objectors are notified that the Council cannot require an applicant to allow objectors onto his land and that their ability to attend the site visit is at the discretion of the applicant. Objectors are advised that the site visit is not an opportunity to make representations to Councillors, but that factual matters may be pointed out.

7. At the start of a large site visit, the planning officer explains to all persons present that :

(i) the purpose of the visit is to enable Councillors to see the site to enable them to consider and determine the planning application;

(ii) the visit is not the opportunity for interested parties to lobby Councillors to support or oppose the application;

(iii) if there are matters of fact, for example the height of the proposed building or the position of a window, that interested parties feel have not been indicated by the planning officer, they are able to indicate these or request that Councillors consider the site from a particular position;

(iv) interested parties should put any representations in writing to the Development Control Section of Regulatory Services prior to the application being considered at a meeting of the Planning Committee or Council, whichever is relevant;

(v) interested parties may discuss the matter with Local Members prior to the meeting at which the application is to be considered, and be informed that the names, addresses and telephone numbers of Local Councillors are available.

8. At the end of a large site visit, the Planning Officer will formally close the visit and explain to the members of the public present, the next stage in the procedure.



Approved November 1991
Amended April & August 1993
And November 1997

PAG turn out in force at the Planning Committee

After the Pantmawr Action Group turned out in force at Cardiff's City Hall, the Council's Planning Committee have decided to have a site visit before making a decision on the Planning Application.

The site visit will take place on 7th April at 4.30pm.

PAG hits the headlines again!

Help us to keep our community

HOW daft can council officers be? Planning policy suggests that communities should be encouraged and amenities provided. Yet our council is about to deprive more than 1,000 Pantmawr residents of their amenity by allowing a development of more houses and flats and therefore more residents on the site of the Pantmawr Inn. We have a thriving community spirit with many activities centred on the pub and its environs, but if it is built over, we will have nowhere to go, our community spirit will be lost.

Surely this goes against local authority and Government guidelines and initiatives? We have always been a neglected part of north Cardiff. The roads are narrow and in a terrible state.

We have problems with drains and water pressure, bus services are infrequent and we have no other amenities, but what makes it worthwhile is knowing and meeting lots of friendly people. How will this be possible without a venue, our village pub?

We have sent in a petition with more than 1,000 signatures and more than 100 objection letters to show the many problems with this development, all of which seem to have been ignored.

Also, do we really need more flats in Cardiff?

Come on councillors, don't take our community centre away from us, throw this outrageous, carbuncle of a development out and help us to keep our community together.

Pantmawr resident

Letter from a Pantmawr resident

Many Pantmawr residents have written to the Planning Committee to air their opinions on the plans. Below is a letter from one resident.

Dear Planning Committee,

To my amazement I found out this week that the Planning Officers report has now been received and it RECOMMENDS that the application is GRANTED!!

This development is not in the interests of the community of Pantmawr or The City of Cardiff. It is driven solely by greed!

When the Pantmawr estate was built in the 1950s, the planners were, by circumstance, ahead of the current environmental thinking. They ensured bus services, local shops (now sadly all gone) and a social amenity in the heritage buildings were provided to meet the needs of the estate residents without the need for car journeys. Global warming is clearly, in the very near future, going to drive us back to this type of more localised amenity planning. In the Pantmawr Inn, chosen as the preferred social amenity by estate residents in the 1950s, you already have the sort of localised amenity that future planning will strive to revive. This is the opportunity for the planning of Cardiff to be environmentally forward thinking and community aware by REJECTING the redevelopment.The main detailed points to consider are :1. Traffic density, narrow and inadequate access roads make the site totally unsuitable for the plans. The current appalling state of the roads on the estate will no doubt deteriorate even more.2. Removal will lead to more traffic on the VERY BADLY maintained roads on the estate as residents are forced to travel to distant alternatives not to mention the increased traffic from the proposed 60 bedrooms that will be created. Which will only have limited parking spaces, some of which I believe are located in front of garages! Which in today's society where households have two cars is inadequate. When I extended my previous property the council requested that I made allowance for two cars to be parked on my drive so why shouldn't this development have to provide a car parking space per bedroom to allow a realistic capacity for residents and visitors?3. I also have concerns regarding 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.
4. I like many other estate residents frequent the Inn on a regular basis, several times a week. It is our ONLY local social amenity, it is the focus of our community (we have no local shops or other facilities left) and it would be a major loss were it to go.5. It is surprising to me that the building has never been given a heritage designation, the question should be asked why not? The old out building would also be perfect for developing into community related buildings, a restaurant, small hotel, shops, arts centre or other such, more appropriate, related business's.
6. If the property is turned into flats then I will have to increase my carbon footprint by using some form of fossil fuel burning transport to visit another public house in the area. This is not really in keeping with the council or government plans to reduce CO2 emissions.
7. Any move to change the use of this site for housing or flats would be a disaster and morally WRONG! Surely working with the current land owners, The Arts Council of Wales and local people to create an Arts centre for North Cardiff would be a far better plan.

Hopefully I don't have to remind you of your duties as councillors but your constitution says......................
2.3 Roles and functions of all Councillors(a) Key roles.All Councillors will:
(i) collectively be the ultimate policy-makers and carry out a number of strategic functions;
(ii) represent their communities and bring their views into the Authority’s decision-making process, i.e. become the advocate of and for their communities;
(iii) deal with individual casework and act as an advocate for constituents in
resolving particular concerns or grievances;
(iv) seek to balance different interests identified within the ward and represent the ward as a whole;
(v) contribute to the continual improvement of council services through the Wales Improvement Programme;
(vi) be involved in decision-making;
(vii) be available to represent the Authority on other bodies; and(viii) maintain the highest standards of conduct and ethics.

The very concept of destroying the only meeting place for the community in Pantmawr goes against so many of these principles! Please act with a sense of social responsibility when you consider your decision!

Everyday on the news we hear about councils and governments trying to fight "antisocial behaviour" and build a greater "sense of community" and "britishness". Well here you have a focal point where the community come together. We are not talking about a brown field site here, it is a beautiful building with a green and pleasant garden, the only "public" green space on the estate.

Without the Pantmawr the soul will be ripped from the estate.

Please, Please, Please think carefully before giving in to commercial pressures and granting this application. I am MD of a company in Cardiff myself and I therefore appreciate the needs of the commercial world. But all things in life need to be in balance!
I look forward to common sense prevailing and this totally inappropriate change of usage and planning application being REJECTED.
Your Sincerely,

Pantmawr Resident

The Planning Committee decide...

The Planning Committee have met and decided to have a site visit. This is excellent news as it means the Commitee will come along to the site, and have a look at what the plans will mean for the area.

The site visit will go ahead on 7th April.

More news coming soon....

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.

Pantmawr application to be heard THIS WEDNESDAY!

The Planning Committee will consider the Pantmawr planning application this Wednesday 19th March. See the agenda and full details here.

Please write to the Planning Committee to object.

• Cathy PEARCY, 14, Caerleon Road Mynachdy CF14 3DR LD cpearcy@cardiff.gov.uk, cathy@btinternet.com
• Gerald HARRIS, 40 St Malo Road Heath CF14 4HN LD gharris@cardiff.gov.uk
• Gillian BIRD 27, Elgar Crescent Llanrumney CF3 5RU Lab gbird@cardiff.gov.uk
• Patricia BURFOOT 60, Kimberley Road Penylan CF23 5DL LD
• Robert DERBYSHIRE(Chair) 876, Newport Road Rumney CF3 4LJ LAB
• Ralph COOK 1, Cemaes Crescent Trowbridge CF3 1TA LAB rcook@cardiff.gov.uk
• Asghar ALI 195, Cyncoed Road CF23 6AJ LD
• Richard FOLEY(Deputy Chair) 1 Watton Close Llanishen CF14 5DG C
• Jacqueline PARRY 24 Claremont Avenue Rumney CF3 4LR LAB JParry@cardiff.gov.uk
• Richard JERRETT 18 Wordsworth Avenue Roath CF24 3FQ LD
• Adrian ROBSON 174, Manor Way Whitchurch CF14 1RN IND arobson@cardiff.gov.uk
• Mohammed-Sarul ISLAM 2 Trevithick Street, Riverside, CF11 6EB PC mislam@cardiff.gov.uk

PANTMAWR DEVELOPMENT - NO!

Planning Officers recommend the application is granted!

The Planning Officers report has now been received and it RECOMMENDS that the application is GRANTED. Members of the Action Group have considered the report and are of the opinion that it is heavily biased in favour of the developer and ignores or brushes aside the valid objections of many residents from the Estate and elsewhere, including the local MP, Assembly Member and Councillors. 138 letters and a petition of 1132 signatures, of which 495 were from people resident on the Estate, were received by the Planning Office against the amended plans submitted in December 2007. There are also factual errors and other matters in the Planning Officers report that the Committee will be bringing to the attention of the Planning Committee.

The first meeting at which the Committee will consider this application is on Wednesday next 19th March at 2.30 at the City Hall. The room in which it is to be held (the Ferrier) has a capacity of nearly 100 and we would like as many people as possible to attend. This application is expected to be heard during the first hour of the meeting and we would hope that a decision would be deferred for a site visit to be made.

If agreed to, THE SITE VISIT WILL TAKE PLACE ON MONDAY APRIL 7TH. We would like as many people to be present as possible so please keep this date free in your diaries. We will let you know the time of the visit as soon as it becomes available.

The next Planning Committee Meeting will then be held on Wednesday April 16th – another crucial date for your diaries as a further showing of objection to the plans is required then as well.

While this is a set-back to our campaign we are determined to carry on and fight these proposals by all means possible and look forward to continuing to receive your support.


PANTMAWR INN DEVELOPMENT – NO NO NO NO

Please check back for more information coming soon :)

Pant plans to be heard on 19th March

Those who live on the Pantmawr Estate will have received an update from Cllrs Jayne Cowan/Adrian Robson saying that the Pantmawr Inn plans are to be heard at the Planning Meeting of 19th March. It will be in the Ferrier Hall at the City Hall, Cathays Park commencing at 2.30.

Please keep checking back for more info :)

Latest newsletter to residents

PANTMAWR ACTION GROUP NEWS UPDATE – 1ST MARCH 2008

You will be aware from latest the circular from Councillors Jayne Cowan and Adrian Robson that amended plans for the Pantmawr Inn site have been submitted to the Council in an attempt to make them more acceptable. This was obviously the reason this Planning Application was not on the agenda for Planning Committee meeting of 19th February. Although the amendments were submitted to the Council on 18th February the Planning Officers decided they were too minor to warrant a further consultation so we only heard a week later!! The letter to Planning Department accompanying the amended plans says: Following receipt of your positive comments in the meeting (to discuss draft revised proposals) the revised scheme has been finalised………

Also according to this letter one of the principle amendments is:
“Scale and Massing – The height of the development has been reduced to an average height of 21/2 storey throughout with the exception of a small part of the apartment building which is 3-storey which is in any event centrally located.” Basically the roof height over most of the apartment block has been lowered by up to a metre by flattening the roof slope and bringing the gutter line down to the base of dormer windows from part way up thereby allowing them to try to claim that most of the flats are now only 21/2 storeys instead of 3 storeys. Other principle amendments relate to the landscaping of the main courtyard and the submission of a landscaping scheme which give no cause for serious general concern though may be of interest to those around the boundary of the site. Anyone wishing to see the plans as paper copies should contact Hugh Payne on 029 20628484. See also our website www.savepantmawr.org.

It might be possible to force a short consultation over the amendments but the application is in any case likely to come before the Planning Committee at their meeting on 19th March. So we would urge all those who have written in/e-mailed with objections previously, and consider the amended proposals are still too massive and out of scale with the existing development, to put in a another short note as soon as possible to say so. You should say the other objections in your previous letter/e-mail still stand. We would still hope that the Committee decide at their meeting to make a site visit, which will probably take place on 31st March as the previous Monday is a Public Holiday. The next Planning Committee meeting is then on 16th April. So please keep these dates free if you are willing to make your presence felt to the Planning Committee.

THANKS FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT :)

Planning application WON'T be heard at February meeting

Local councillor Jayne Cowan has just confirmed that the Pantmawr application will not be heard at the February planning committee. This means that the earliest date the application can be heard is now Wednesday 10th March.

So please keep on sending your objection letters, and sign the petition!

A newsletter will be distributed around the estate over the next few days by the local councillors.

Keep checking here for updates :)

Thanks for your continued support!

Application withdrawn!

A note has been circulated by Councillors Jayne Cowan and Adrian Robson saying that the planning application for the Pantmawr Inn site was not going before the November meeting of the Planning Committee.

It seems likely that the present application for 36 flats is being withdrawn. This is almost certainly due to the number of valid letters of objection and signatures on the petition by Pantmawr residents and Pantmawr Inn users. Many thanks for that.

However, a new application, probably for a smaller development, is expected to be submitted in the future. There will be a new consultation on any revised application.

It was anticipated that the first application was for a scale of development that was expected to be unfavourably received and was only submitted to see what reaction would be. What would be the objectors main dislikes. The new application will be the real one.

The Action Group will be prepared to fight the new application to retain the Pantmawr Inn. Thanks to your assistance, the survey we carried out on the estate, has yielded some very valuable information. We are also pursuing other interesting lines of potential objection.

We will hold another open meeting when the plans are available and ask you all to write in again with your objections. We will also be putting together a new petition. Please keep your posters up in the meantime.

The Pantmawr Inn continues to be very well used and the food can be thoroughly recommended. Craig and his staff are doing a fine job. The Halloween Childrens' Party and the Fireworks & BBQ, organised by the Residents Association in conjunction with the Inn staff, were both great successes and showed what a community spirit there is on the estate. Please support your local pub!

Visit http://www.savepantmawr.org/ for the latest.

Cardiff Planning Committee

The Chair of the Planning Committee is Cllr Bob Derbyshire Labour (RDerbyshire@cardiff.gov.uk).876, Newport Road, Rumney, CARDIFF, CF3 4LJTel: 02920777805 Fax: 02920777805

Rhiwbina Cllr. Adrian ROBSON. B.A. (Hons) Independent is a member of the planning committee and seems to be the only member with a personal email and a website! E-Mail Adrian arobson@cardiff.gov.ukHis address is 'Gallery' 198, Manor Way Rhiwbina CARDIFF CF14 1RP Tel: 02920619237 Fax: 02920827486 Mobile: 07973145116. He has a useful website with Cllr Jayne Cowan Independant

Ralph COOK. Labour for Trowbridge Cemaes CrescentTrowbridge CARDIFF CF3 1TA Tel: 02920793809 Fax: 02920793809 Mobile: 07966522149 Contact the Councillor (No Email required)

Jacqueline PARRY. Labour Cllr for Llanrumney 24 Claremont Avenue Rumney CF3 4LR Tel: 02920779760 Mobile: 07919962479 Contact the Councillor (No Email required)

Mohammed-Sarul ISLAM. Plaid Cymru Cllr for Riverside - Member Services Room 286 County HallAtlantic Wharf CARDIFF CF11 6EB Tel: 02920343847 Mobile : 07976358696 Contact the Councillor (No Email required

lib dem councillors

ALI. Asghar Lib Dem for Grangetown. Home address 195, Cyncoed Road CARDIFF CF23 6AJ Tel: 02920752018 Mobile: 07974773273

Contact the Councillor (No Email required)

Patricia BURFOOT. Lib Dem for Penylan. Home address 60, Kimberley Road Penylan CARDIFF CF23 5DL Tel: 02920488796 Contact the Councillor (No Email required)

Gerald HARRIS. Lib Dem Cllr for Heath since 199940 St Malo Road Heath CF14 4HNTel: 02920217986 Mobile: 07974413554 Contact the Councillor (No Email required)

PEARCY. Cathy Lib Dem Cllr for Gabalfa since 200214, Caerleon Road Mynachdy CF14 3DRTel: 02920613945 Mobile: 07871056908 Contact the Councillor (No Email required)

Richard JERRETT. Lib DemMobile: 07951333820 Contact the Councillor (No Email required)
Cllr for Plasnewydd18 Wordsworth Avenue Roath CF24 3FQTel: 02920400163