PANTMAWR ACTION GROUP NEWSLETTER – 18th APRIL 2008
PANTMAWR INN SITE PLANNING APPLICATION
You should all be aware by now from other notes around the Estate that the Planning Application for 34 dwellings on the Pantmawr Inn site was rejected by the Planning Committee. Excluding the Chairman, of the six Councillors present and able to vote, five voted to reject the application and one abstained. From a point of view of fairness we should make it quite clear that Adrian Robson, the Independent Councillor for this area on the Planning Committee, was obliged to declare an interest and withdraw as he had publicly stated his opposition to the plans prior to becoming a member of the Committee. A comment that he didn’t bother to vote is inaccurate. The Labour Councillor present voted in favour of rejection.
We would like to record our grateful thanks to our local Councillors Jayne Cowan, Adrian Robson and Gareth Neale for the support they have given us during our campaign to defeat this application. We have also been supported by Julie Morgan MP, Jonathan Morgan AM, Chris Franks AM and others. We would also like to acknowledge the fantastic support we have received from residents of Pantmawr especially and users of the Pantmawr Inn. Without their demonstration of support at the two planning meetings and at the site visit it is possible we would not have achieved a positive result. However, the applicants can appeal to the National Assembly for Wales against the decision by the Council or they could submit a new application to develop the site. We cannot allow ourselves to be complacent.
We should emphasise our campaign is not just about saving the Pantmawr Inn, but about rejecting totally unsuitable developments on the site.
PS. Could the person who contacted the Chairman about Bats please ring him again on 20628484 and remind him of their address so that he can let them have the promised copy of the report on the survey that was carried out last year.
Showing posts with label gareth neale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gareth neale. Show all posts
Friday, April 18, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
