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.
Showing posts with label planning officers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning officers. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Celebratory emails from campaign supporters
The Pantmawr Action Group has received a huge number of emails following the Planning Committee voting NO to development. Here's just some of them:
A short note to say many thanks for all the hard work that you’ve put in on the campaign to stop the Pantmawr planning application. My wife and I moved here last year, and we quickly realised the importance of the pub as a focus for the estate and a place for our three year old daughter to play. We were horrified at the prospect of losing it before we’d really had a chance to get to know it, and I have no doubt that this would have been the result had you not decided to press the case with such commitment and innovation. I’ve attended the last two planning meetings and the site visit and have been amazed at the support that you’ve mobilised. Pantmawr is fortunate to have you. [Pantmawr resident]
Congratulations and thanks to all concerned for achieving this result. By mounting such a professional and well informed campaign you have demonstrated how members of the community can exert a real and positive influence over decisions which affect them. You have also highlighted a worrying naivety and lack of rigour in the way that the planning and highway officers handled such a badly prepared proposal. Hopefully lessons will be learned in County Hall. [Elwyn Owen, Pantmawr resident]
Congratulations. What an amazing result. Everyone worked so hard to ensure the right result was achieved. [Independent Cllr Jayne Cowan]
A short note to say many thanks for all the hard work that you’ve put in on the campaign to stop the Pantmawr planning application. My wife and I moved here last year, and we quickly realised the importance of the pub as a focus for the estate and a place for our three year old daughter to play. We were horrified at the prospect of losing it before we’d really had a chance to get to know it, and I have no doubt that this would have been the result had you not decided to press the case with such commitment and innovation. I’ve attended the last two planning meetings and the site visit and have been amazed at the support that you’ve mobilised. Pantmawr is fortunate to have you. [Pantmawr resident]
Congratulations and thanks to all concerned for achieving this result. By mounting such a professional and well informed campaign you have demonstrated how members of the community can exert a real and positive influence over decisions which affect them. You have also highlighted a worrying naivety and lack of rigour in the way that the planning and highway officers handled such a badly prepared proposal. Hopefully lessons will be learned in County Hall. [Elwyn Owen, Pantmawr resident]
Congratulations. What an amazing result. Everyone worked so hard to ensure the right result was achieved. [Independent Cllr Jayne Cowan]
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.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.
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
Friday, March 14, 2008
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 :)
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 :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
