PUBLIC INQUIRY ADJOURNED – THE STORY SO FAR
The public inquiry into the Appeal against refusal by Cardiff City Council to grant planning approval for the demolition of the Pantmawr Inn and construction of 34 dwellings on the site commenced at the early hour of 09.00 on 18th September. The first period was taken up with various housekeeping matters, deciding the order of play, attempting to assess how long it would take and making sure everyone involved had the necessary bits of paper.
The Inspector also set out the matters he was most interested in hearing about, namely the effect on the character of the area, the effect on the neighbourhood, the loss of a community facility and highway safety, traffic flows and adequacy of car parking. He pointed out he would give extra weight to matters of policy included in the Development Plans and Supplemetary Planning Guidance. He would also be interested in water supply and drainage matters and sustainability.
Then there were opening statements by the legal representatives for the Appellants (Mitchells and Butlers and Charles Church) and Cardiff Council Planning Department. The first witness was Ms J Howard for the Council. She was taken through her proof of evidence by the Council's legal representative. She was then cross examined by the Appellants legal representative and agreed that she wrote the Officer's report and that the report represented her professional opinion - that the application should have been granted at Planning Application stage. She stated that her opinion had not changed. However, the Planning Committee had rejected the application against her recommendation so she was putting the case for them in respect of the matters for which they had indicated the application should be rejected.
The Appellants first witness was Mr M R Stapleton, a specialist in "Hospitality", who argued that the Pantmawr Inn was not viable, based on the turnover for the years ending September 2003 to 2007. For the majority of this time the franchisee was Rosebud Inns Ltd. He was then cross examined by PAG's legal representative, Mr Charles Hopkins, who questioned him about whether the years of turnover that he had used were reasonable to take given the history of those years and whether the rental charged was a reasonable one given that Rosebud Inns were the only people willing to take on the franchise although others expressed an interest.
This took until about 4.45pm at which time the Inspector adjourned the Inquiry to undertake his formal site visit. The locations of the buildings had been set out by a surveyor employed by the Appellants at the request of the Inspector. PAG deployed three poles to indicate the ridge heights of some of the buildings. The Inspector visited the garden of No. 90 Caer Wenallt and had a look inside the Inn as well as examining how the buildings related to the boundaries of the site.
The Inquiry resumed at 09.00 on 19th September and after preliminaries, Mr R Williams of Asbri Planning (the planners employed by M & B and Charles Church) was taken through his evidence by the Appellant's legal representative. He argued that the buildings proposed were in character; that the Inn was out of character with its surroundings especially with tarpaulins over the roofs of the outbuildings and advertising banners; that the proposed buildings were not out of scale with the surroundings; that Pantmawr was not rural but more urban in nature being within the boundary of the City of Cardiff so this style of building was acceptable; that the estate naturally depended on Rhiwbina for its facilities so the loss of the Inn would not matter; that sewerage capacity and linking into the private sewer was no problem or Welsh Water would have come back to them; and that he had observed traffic exiting the Estate had no difficulty in getting into the queue on Pantmawr Road.
During this questioning the Inspector interrupted a number of times to clarify various matters. In particular he thought there was a error in a drawing produced to in response to PAG’s claim that the lowering of the roof levels of flats “A” to “D” would make those on the second floor potentially sell, and that an application might well be made to raise the roof level again should the appeal be successful. This drawing was withdrawn. He also queried the fact that there had been three different versions of the access arrangements, two showing different sight distances, in the last four weeks. Mr Williams said that the Landscape drawing represented the latest version. The telegraph pole would need to be relocated.
Mr Williams was then cross examined by the Council’s legal representative who questioned him on his evidence about the Character and Scale of the proposed development whether because an angle between buildings was only just 30o (not greater) the 21m rule should still apply. She was concerned about the maintenance of the protected trees once the development was in place. He responded that that would be the responsibility of a management company in perpetuity. She also questioned him on whether there would be any light reaching the amenity area and windows nearest the Cedars and Tulip tree. He responded that the Cedars were “gappy” and that light would come through, while the Tulip tree was deciduous so there would be light in the winter.
In questions from the public, Cllr Robson asked where the telegraph pole would be relocated. Mr Williams suggested it could go just inside the entrance to the site in the verge. Mrs J Jones asked about the intended locations of the proposed bus-boarders – to be decided
PAG’s legal representative questioned the witness on the rural vs urban nature of the Pantmawr Estate, the witness still claiming it was more urban that rural. The witness was also questioned on the distance to the Deri, that being the nearest facility/amenity to the Estate and whether it was within comfortable walking distance, particularly for the Elderly and children, given the guidance in the Manual for Streets and the gradient of Rhiwbina Hill. There was discussion about the provision of contributions in respect of open space, community facilities and transport improvements and how and where they should be spent. He queried whether the fact that the Cedars trees were gappy would allow people in the buildings to overlook the properties in Tyla Teg. Mr Williams said they would a small amount. Mr Williams was also asked whether the trees proposed on the northern boundary of the site would cause overshadowing of gardens of nos 90-98 Caer Wenallt. He agreed there would be some. On being asked about the car parking provision Mr Williams said he did not believe there would be overspill onto Tyla Teg. The intention was to encourage the use of public transport. Asked his opinion of the public transport service in the area he replied it was adequate.
He was than re-examined by the Appellants legal representative on various matters to about his responses to the PAG legal representative, and repeated much of what he had said in earlier examination.
The Inspector then adjourned the Inquiry which will reconvene at 10.00 am on Monday 17th November 2008. Please put this date in your diary and try to attend. PAG representatives will be giving their evidence and would welcome your support.
