Why is Penarth Northcliffe Nightmare Development getting a second chance

REFUSED 

2015/01449/FUL  Northcliffe Lodge, Northcliffe Drive, Penarth
Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding, erection of 30 apartments, new access and alterations to adjacent parking area, provision of a footpath link, replacement tree planting and landscaping and associated worksCeltic Developments (Penarth) Ltd. Refused 06/01/2017 00:00:00 

DECISION TO REFUSE The proposed development is considered to be contrary to the aims of Policies HOUS2 - Additional Residential development, HOUS8 – Residential Development Criteria and ENV27 - Design of New Developments, of the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996-2011, and the advice contained within Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 12 (Design) for the following reason: It is considered that the proposed buildings are of an excessive size, massing and form and fail to have regard to the context of the site, would appear as over scaled and incongruous within the streetscene and within its coastal headland context, and would fail to either preserve or enhance the character of the nearby Conservation Area or Listed Buildings. The development would therefore be contrary to the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Refused Press coverage here 

But its back - VoG Sept planning meeting. Why? disgrace this is to be discussed again. There has been no significant changes ......ignoring the wishes of Penarth Town Council 

2017/00541/FUL

Northcliffe Lodge, Northcliffe Drive, Penarth Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding, erection of 30 apartments, new access and alterations to adjacent parking area, replacement tree planting and landscaping and associated works (resubmission application)

Controversial architect Chris Loyn Northcliffe development for 30 flats/apartments in his own words. "Organised from a pragmatic response to the challenging site topography and an unequivocal ambition from the outset for all principal living spaces to have an extensive view out over Cardiff Bay, the three distinct linear apartment blocks step down the cliffside, allowing vistas over the lower rooftops and framing landscaped streets or mews spaces in between." Just above the listed custom house. Marine Building (Grade II) and Custom House (Grade II) 3 ugly blocks of flats will replace the wooded scene behind these buildings. The gateway to Penarth altered forever.  

In spite of this being refused the 'conservation' officer says  

The 'conservation' officer considers 3 blocks
of these monstrosities will not alter the setting
 or view above the listed Custom House 

 Marine Building (Grade II) and Custom House (Grade II)
The immediate setting of these listed buildings is the former tidal estuary that led to the Penarth and Cardiff Docks. Since the construction of the Cardiff Bay Barrage this immediate setting has been altered drastically, however, the quintessential maritime character of the area remains. Behind the buildings the cliff face forms the back drop to the buildings with development above. In longer range views across Cardiff Bay the scale of the cliffs is such that this aspect of the setting of the listed building is considered negligible -??!! Seems he is ignoring Planning policy Wales Technical Advice Note 24: The Historic Environment May 2017. 

The developers are relying on this outrageous statement by the solitary so called conservation officer of VoG.                                                                                     They commissioned their own report May 2017  by consultants  Heritage Impact Assessment Prepared by: The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP) On behalf of: Celtic Developments Penarth Ltd May 2017 relying on English Heritage guidelines completely ignoring Planning Policy Wales new 2017 guidelines.

Where is the justiofication for the density/no of units

Why NO winter and summer studies to assess the wooded backdrop to the Custom House

Thankfully Penarth Town council oppose this yet again. There will be NO affordable housing provided although there should be 40%.  

Instead the VoG officers did a deal for £300k Lab Cllr Luxton says the going rate is much more £1.1 million plus 1% (public art). Vale officers have apparently agreed only £300k for this second application, not even scaled up for inflation, but rejigged it from the whole £300k going to ‘community facilities’ to most going to social housing (£270k instead of £670k Luxton says, but the real requirement for 40% means 12 housing units – £140k each makes £1.7million).
Why?? The officers’ £300k is based on a secret “viability report” – they normally accept the developers’ viability report without independent scrutiny. It doubtless includes notional construction costs and contingency for the difficult cliff-side site, which are essentially unknown but have been maximised. The officers do not propose a claw-back arrangement in case the secret assumptions turn out to give the developers huge profits.
What the Council should do is say the development scheme is wholly “unviable”, being unable to provide the necessary S106 funds and failing include the 40% social housing needed for developments in Penarth (under the newly adopted LDP). Good rounds for rejection, on top of ecology, landscape, heritage, land instability and all the other reasons.

Our Penarth Heritage is as risk. NOTE the Penarth Civic society have made no comment as they are cosy with the architect Chris Loyn having had him as president of the society and fail yet again to object to his inappropriate brutalist designs for Penarth.  

Ambitious Northcliffe flats plan is rejected by Vale planning committee 

NEW PLANNING-BATTLE LOOMS AS CONTROVERSIAL NORTHCLIFF LODGE SCHEME RE-EMERGES