What happens at a public inquiry?

Here's some further info on the Planning Inspectorate:

"Our quality statement:
We aim to provide the following in the appeal process:
· clear, prompt and polite advice and information;
· quick and efficient handling of your appeal;
· an open exchange of views between the people involved in the appeal;
· fair and unbiased decisions by appropriately qualified people;
· clear, logical decisions and reports;
· a quick and thorough complaints procedure; and
· a service that gives the public confidence in us.

About the Planning Inspectorate:
We are part of the National Assembly for Wales and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We deal with planning appeals in Wales from our Cardiff office. The Inspectors, who judge the appeals, have a variety of backgrounds. These include town planning, surveying, engineering, architecture and law. We choose the Inspectors very carefully and train them thoroughly.

Guide to taking part in planning appeals:
The purpose of this guide:
Only the person who applies for the planning permission has a legal right to appeal against the LPA’s decision and we call this person ‘the appellant’. But, if you had an interest in an application, whether you were for or against it, you may also be interested in the outcome of the appeal. For example, you may live close to the area, or you may be a member of a residents’ association or a group with a special interest.

In Wales, appeals are made to the National Assembly for Wales. Appeals are judged by Inspectors, who are completely unbiased and professionally qualified in planning or a related area, like law or architecture. An Inspector will decide most appeals, but there are some appeals that the Assembly will decide (for example, proposals that will affect more than just the local area). In those cases, the Inspector will still assess the appeal, but he or she will send a report with his or her recommendation to the Assembly. The Assembly then considers whether to accept the Inspector’s recommendation, and issues a decision letter. Both the appellant and the LPA can have their case heard by an Inspector at a hearing or public inquiry, but very few appeals are dealt with in this way. With all the appeal procedures, the Inspector and the Assembly can only consider things which are relevant to planning. These things can cover a wide range of issues, but the LPA’s reasons for refusing a planning application will usually set out those issues that will apply. You can only raise planning issues about the application. The Inspector and the Assembly cannot consider any other matters. For example, they cannot normally consider how a development will affect property values in the area. Or, if a new building would affect the view from your property, this is also not likely to be a good
reason for you making an objection. You would have to show that the new building would affect your living conditions, for example, because it overlooks your home or you would lose your privacy. Only the person who made the planning application has the right of appeal. We must receive all their appeal papers within six months of the LPA’s decision notice, or within six months of the end of the decision period if the LPA hasn’t made a decision. If we don’t receive their appeal papers within the time limit, and there are no exceptional reasons for this delay, we won’t accept the appeal. If the appeal has been made in time, we will write to the appellant and the LPA telling them which of the following procedures we will use to decide the appeal. We will also give them the timetable for receiving their comments. How much publicity the appeal receives will depend on which procedure we follow.

Inquiry procedure.
There is usually more publicity about an appeal if there will be an inquiry. As with the other appeal procedures, if you have already written to the LPA, they should write to you. And, you can send more comments to us. The LPA should send you details of the inquiry arrangements once the date is agreed. The appellant must display details of the inquiry, like the time and place, on the site of the proposed development.

Any person wishing to speak at an inquiry in the Welsh language, may do so, but it would be helpful if you could inform The Planning Inspectorate beforehand so that arrangements can be made.

The inquiry procedure
This is the most formal of the appeal procedures, because it usually involves larger or more complicated appeals. These are often cases where expert evidence is presented, and witnesses are cross-examined. An inquiry may last for several days, or even weeks. It is not a court of law, but the proceedings will often seem to be quite similar and the appellant and the LPA usually have legal representatives. Inquiries are open to members of the public, and although you do not have a legal right to speak, the Inspector will normally allow you to do so. We encourage local people to take part in the inquiry process. Local knowledge and opinion can often be a valuable addition to the more formal evidence given by the appellant and the LPA. However, as with hearings, you do not have to go to the inquiry to make your views known. You can write to us. If you wrote to the LPA at application stage, they will send us a copy of your views. If you did not, or wish to add to those views, you can still write to us. But you must make sure we receive three copies of your comments within the time limit given in your letter from the LPA telling you about the appeal. This is within six weeks of us accepting the appeal — we call this ‘the starting
date’. If we do not receive your letter within the time limit, the Inspector will not normally take your comments into account and we will send them back to you. If we receive your comments in time, we will send a copy of your letter to the appellant, the LPA and the Inspector. Please tell us in your letter if you would like a copy of the appeal decision. We will not acknowledge your letter unless you ask us to. If we consider your letter contains racist or abusive comments, we will send it back to you before the Inspector sees it. If you take out the racist or abusive comments, you can send your letter back to us. But, we must receive this before the time limit ends. If you want to see what the appellant and the LPA have said, you should be able to see copies of their appeal documents and statements at the local council’s offices.

How you find out about the inquiry
We will agree a date for the inquiry with the appellant and LPA. We do not involve anyone else when we fix the date. The LPA will write to everyone they told about the appeal and give them details of the inquiry, like the time and place. The LPA may put a notice in a local paper and the appellant must put one on the appeal site, giving the same information.

Taking part in the inquiry
If you want to take part in an inquiry, you need to think about what you want to say and how you want to say it. Most people prefer to make, or read out, a brief statement giving their views. If there are several people with the same views, it is a good idea for one person to speak on behalf of the others. Repeating arguments at the inquiry does not help the Inspector, or make the point more relevant. If you want to take a leading role in the inquiry and call your own witnesses, you should contact us at the earliest possible stage. If we agree to this, we may ask you to provide a statement of your case and details of any documents you will produce at the inquiry. You will also be required to provide written statements of evidence 4 weeks before the start of the inquiry. If we ask for this information, and you provide it, we will send you copies of the appellant’s and LPA’s statements.

What happens at the inquiry
If you want to speak at the inquiry, it is important that you are there when it opens because this is when the Inspector will tell everyone about the timetable. At the inquiry opening, the Inspector will go through some routine matters, including asking who will be taking part in the inquiry. When the appellant and the LPA have given their details, the Inspector will ask if anyone else wants to speak. At this stage, you should only give your name and address, and say whether you are for or against the proposal. The Inspector will then usually give an outline of what will happen at the inquiry. The LPA will usually begin by making an opening statement. Their witnesses will then give their evidence and the appellant can cross-examine (question) them. The appellant will then call their witnesses, and the LPA can cross-examine them.

Giving your views
When each witness has been formally cross-examined, the Inspector will normally ask if anyone else who objects to the proposed development has any questions. This is your opportunity to ask questions, but you must make sure that your questions are relevant to the evidence the witnesses have given. You shouldn’t repeat questions that have already been asked. Do not use questions as an opportunity to state your views on the application; you will have the chance to do so later. This will normally be after the LPA’s and the appellant’s witnesses have been heard. At a long inquiry, we cannot predict when we will reach this stage. If you can’t stay at the inquiry all the time, tell the Inspector when the inquiry opens. The Inspector will understand and will try to help by hearing your comments at a different stage of the inquiry, if that is possible. The Inspector will usually ask if you are willing to answer questions about your evidence. You do not have to do this. If you object to the proposed development, the appellant’s representative will ask these questions. Do not feel intimidated. The Inspector will not let anyone ask you hostile or unfair questions. The inquiry ends with closing speeches by the LPA and the appellant. This is
normally followed by the Inspector visiting the appeal site. Because the inquiry is over, there can be no further discussion about the case during that visit. The arrangements are very similar to the visits that are made as part of the written procedure.

After the inquiry
The Inspector will write their decision or send their report to the Assembly. Where the
Inspector decides the appeal we will send a copy of their decision to:
· the appellant;
· the LPA;
· anyone who took part in the inquiry; and
· anyone else who wrote to ask us for a copy.
For inquiries which the Inspector decides, and which last for one or two days, we aim to issue the decision no later than seven weeks after the close of the inquiry. For inquiries which last longer, or where the Inspector has to write a report for the Assembly, the decision will usually take longer.

Public meeting

Last night local ward Councillors Brian Jones, Jayne Cowan and Adrian Robson held a public meeting at the All Saints Hall in Rhiwbina to discuss the appeal and public enquiry.

Cllr Jayne Cowan informed those present that the Assembly had granted a public enquiry, and said that this was a "positive way forward".

Adrian Robson talked through the enquiry procedure, and reminded those present that all objection letters already sent in to the Council on this matter will be forwarded to the planning inspector - but that doesn't mean you shouldn't write in again!

There's more information on the Planning Inspectorate website - click here.

Adrian reminded everyone that written representations must be received by the inspectorate by 4th July. Write to:
Hefin Jones
Case officer
The Planning Inspectorate
Crown Buildings
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Jonathan Morgan AM was also in attendance, and he explained that he has experience of 2 major planning appeals.

Thank you to everyone who came - please send your letters of objection to the planning inspectorate now!

Watch this space for more news soon!

WRITE TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE NOW!

Local Cllr Jayne Cowan has just sent us this update...

"Just a short note to advise that I have made contact with the Planning Inspectorate and they have confirmed the following contact details for people wishing to make their representations.

Although the application has not been formally registered, this should be done in the next few days.

The Planning Inspectorate
Crown Buildings
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ

Telephone: 029 2082 3866
Fax: 029 2082 5150

wales@planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk

wales@pins.gsi.gov.uk

I will also post this on our website www.rhiwbinaward.com"

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

Reasons planning permission was refused

Local independent Councillor Jayne Cowan confirmed the reasons planning was refused - reasons cited by the planning officer.

Pantmawr Inn - reasons for refusal - 07/1980

RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed development by virtue of its scale and massing would be out of keeping with the pattern and density of development in the surrounding area and would appear obtrusive and over-dominant when viewed from neighbouring properties, to the detriment of visual amenity, residential amenity and the character of the area and contrary to policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policies 2.20 and 2.24 of the deposit. Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 9.3.3 of Planning Policy Wales.

The density of the proposed development is such that the development would be contrary to policy 2.24 of the Cardiff Unitary Development Plan in that there would not be an adequate distance between facing habitable room windows of dwellings within the application site and between such windows of the proposed dwellings and existing dwellings surrounding the site to maintain a satisfactory standard of privacy.

Latest newsletter to residents

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.

"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.

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.

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

Local Councillors latest thoughts...

Local independant Cllrs Jayne Cowan and Adrian Robson have made their latest thoughts known to Martin Morris in the Planning department at the Council. Here's what they had to say:

Pantmawr thoughts:

1) Paragraph 7.3. It is worth noting that approx 495 people resident in Pantmawr have signed the petition and that there are only approx 510 properties in Pantmawr.

2) The Operational Manager for Transportation makes no comment in paragraph 5.6 about the width of the driveway which is a matter of great concern to many objectors. We would request that this issue is specifically examined should a site visit be granted by the Planning Committee.

3) We are disappointed that the Planning Officer has given attention to the comments as stated in section 8.6. The issues relating to the licence application were some years ago and this issue should be treated as a separate matter, just as every planning application is treated as a separate matter. The comments which are in the Supplementary Planning Statement on behalf of Charles Church Developments limited, which are repeated in subsection 1 of this para 8.6 suggest that the applicant does not believe that residents should have the right to make a representation on an application, whether that be licensing or planning if they have made comments on what is a completely separate matter. The repetition of this in this planning report suggests that this is condoned.
Additionally the comment relating to the recent increase in visitor number as “short term” is short sighted by the applicant.

Cllr Jayne Cowan & Cllr Adrian Robson

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 :)

Pantmawr development plans ammended

Local Councillors Jayne Cowan and Adrian Robson have forwarded the ammended Pantmawr development plans to the Pantmawr Action Group. If you'd like to see the plans in full please email savepantmawr@hotmail.co.uk and we'll forward you a copy :)

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!

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."