Northcliffe “high risk” of landslide

Northcliffe finally before its too late ....

The Report going to the planning committee has been too hastily prepared and fails to cover points FoE have raised in several letters.  The site on Penarth Head is very sensitive in landscape terms as well as the setting of individual listed buildings.

We asked for further documents and clarification early on 3rd January, but have received no answers.  Doubtless the holiday provides a reason for no reply as yet.  The officers scheduling the application over the holiday has meant that the requirement for documents 3-days pre-meeting has not been met.

 We therefore ask for deferral while the information and documentation are provided.

The Conservation Officer has reported only very late; there are quotations from his report, not his full report in the on-line file as required.

His comments quoted do not cover the policy in the adopted Conservation Area plan, that development proposals should conserve and enhance the appearance of Penarth Head.  A truthful assessment would have to say the modernist design and removal of tree cover detract from the appearance of the Head. If considered in due time (we pointed out the policy in August) the officers could have sought to amend the proposals to mitigate the damage. 

The Tree Officer’s consent to removal of the mature trees is invalid, in that she failed to comply with British Standards 5837:2012, which require regard to:

“1 arboricultural grounds;  2 Mainly landscape values and 3 Mainly cultural values, including conservation.” 

The VoG Tree officer (who has quit, no qualified replacement) and Treescene consultants did not consider aspects 2 and 3.

A late view of the Ecology Officer is quoted, again without the full document in the e-file necessary for context and verification. The quotation “The Council’s Ecologist has made an assessment of the likely impact of the development on protected species and habitats in full accordance with Council policy and national guidance” implies a specific assessment that is not supplied or even evidenced in the papers.  The required survey of trees for bat-roosts was never completed, as it omitted the parts of the site alongside the Northcliffe Apartments.  The ecological status of the site as Lowland mixed deciduous woodland means it is a Wales priority habitat in the Section 7 list under the Environment Act and under the Biodiversity Action Plans;the officers’ report fails to mention this.

The report  accepts “high risk” of landslide and potential “acceleration” due to the development.  The officers’ excuse for not requiring further investigation “This is considered unreasonable in planning terms” is contrary to Planning Policy Wales (13.9.1; development on unstable land), which  prescribes a specialist investigation to determine the stability plus remedial measures, and that the planning decision take into account the consequential hazard.

PPW (Planning Policy Wales) says  the hazard of a landslide has to be assessed; landslip of surface material is covered in the recent stability report , but not eg. the consequences of a landslide of 30-100cm layers.  Without further information, such a substantial landslide – known in the past on the Penarth Headland – has to be considered by the Committee.   Would it result in damage to the listed buildings?  Would it destabilize adjacent built-on sections (Northcliffe Apartments and Northcliffe Drive) ?   Would an insurer place some responsibility on the Vale Council for not following PPW in deciding to permit the development?

The Historical 1840 Summerhouse was mentioned in the original report as “derelict and in need of repair”.  Amending the site perimeter to leave this out would cut off access to this building, except by permission of the developer who claims not to own it.  The officers report fails to mention this ‘orphan’ building and access to it, despite  FoE asking for access to be secured and responsibility determined.  The  cultural-historical interest in repairs to this building and access to a unique viewing point should take precedence in spending S.106 funds, rather than the officers’ choice of public art and community facilities remote from the site.

Max Wallis

Barry & Vale FoE