2017/00541/FUL Northcliffe Lodge Penarth going to the VoG planning committee cmte on Thursday
I wrote to the Planning committee today after reading the report shocked at the sloppy inaccurate reports from VoG council officers.
I wrote to the Planning committee today after reading the report shocked at the sloppy inaccurate reports from VoG council officers.
I wish to oppose this development and draw attention to bias and misleading inaccurate statements in the report to the planning committee. Inaccurate and misleading reports should be challenged and this application rejected again or at least the reports of council officers should be rewritten in an objective honest manner. The developers' reports are clearly biased (see that on accessibility below), making objective reports by the officers vital.
1. The CADW report states "We do not provide an assessment of the likely impact of the development of the development on listed buildings or conservation areas, as these are matters for the local authority.
The report actually states "Cadw were consulted and having carefully considered the information provided with the planning application, confirm that the advice given in the pre-application response to LRM Planning on 13 April 2017 remains unchanged. The proposed development is located within the vicinity, c300m to the south, of the scheduled monument known as Penarth Churchyard Cross (Now in St Augustine’s Church) (GM227); as the name suggests located within the church itself. There are no other designated historic assets in the vicinity and so no historic assets will be affected." This statement in the report suggests that CADW approves the application . The CADW report is not on the Planning website http://vogonline.planning-reg
2. The comments from the 'Councils Housing strategy team' are misleading. The number of units of affordable housing should be 40% = 12 which may or may not include 2 units of actual social housing and there is no explanation why onsite contributions are 'usually favoured.' or any statement of the amount. 'Contributions' are a developers massive get out clause permitting them to carry out financial viability assessments for their proposed developments, which often conclude that meeting the affordable housing targets set by local authorities would reduce their profits to a point that the scheme would be worth their while. However those assessments are kept confidential, with even Councillors unable to see them. In order to make sure schemes goes ahead, the local authorities typically reduce their targets or accept payment from the developer in lieu of the affordable homes. That money is supposed to be invested into social and community projects, or the council’s own affordable housing schemes.
The 'Councils Housing strategy team' give no amount, however a report to the Penarth town council put the offer at a mere £300,000. Penarth Cllr Luxton said that “no real evidence” had been provided regarding the issue of the ground and footings which was one of the reasons which the developers had given for reducing what would ordinarily be a Section 106 payment of £1,100,000 - £679,000 should be the contribution towards social housing . On top of that should be £209,000 for education, £29,000 for community facilities, £68,000 for open spaces, plus another 1% for art.
The inadequate misleading statement in the report to the planning committee -
"The Council’s Housing Strategy team were consulted and have advised that there is substantial need for housing in the Penarth area. One bedroom Two bedroom Three bedroom need Four bedroom need Penarth 261 175 68 16 There is a need more affordable housing in Penarth, and an onsite contribution is usually favoured. However on this site we would prefer to take the full off site contribution if approved by Members. The reasons for this are that it would be very difficult for a social housing landlord to manage two units within a large block of market properties and also the service charges could over time with unrestricted increases make the units unaffordable even if they were not at the point of purchase"
3. Highways response is misleading and inaccurate on 'sustainability' They state that the councils parking standards allow for a relaxation of the site if the location has good access to local services and other modes of transport but this site has NOT good access to local services and other modes of transport and with extremely steep routes to services.
This evaluation has been made by Vale planners contacted the developers, who submitted a “score-sheet”. This claims that there are public facilities “within 200 metres walking distance of the site (>two)” but FoE points out that there are none. Headlands School is 250 metres away and that is not a public facility. The Clive Pub and Paget Road pocket park are both 300 metres walking distance away. The developers say Windsor Terrace bus stop is“750 metres walking distance” away from Northcliff – yet tracing the route on Google maps gives a distance of 850m – which is above what is 800m maximum scoring distance. The developers’ claim for exemption from parking standards on grounds of ‘sustainability’ is wrong: their allocation of 42 parking spaces is over 21 below the “one-parking-space-per bedroom” standard (plus 1 casual visitor-space per 5 units. The Highways statement "scores well on sustainability points" is wrong (copied/pasted from the January officers report which was challenged). The only evidence provided is the developers score-sheet shown as above to be false. How is it that the officers have brought the report to Committee without making their own check on the sustainability claims? Let us see their own list of facilities and their own scoring as we asked in our objection.
Highways statement in the report to the planning committee "The Council’s Parking Standards SPG require one space per bedroom, and this equates to two spaces for each of the 24 two bedroom flats and 3 spaces for the 6 larger units. Six spaces are required by the standards for visitor parking, based on a requirement of 1 space per 5 units. However, the SPG allows for a relaxation if the site is located sustainably, with good access to local services and other modes of transport. The site scores well on sustainability points due to its close proximity to bus stops, a public house, schools, a restaurant, public open space, community hall and a church. Consequently, the parking requirements are reduced in accordance with the SPG to 1 space for the 2 bedroom units and 2 spaces for the three bed units, which is a total of 42 spaces including visitors."
Proper enforcement of the Council's parking standards (as was done for the adjacent development in Mariner Heights) require 72 parking places. These proposals are short by 30 parking spaces. This shows the developer has tried to cram over-many apartments onto the site. The failure to provide adequate parking space - and the overflow implied onto neighbouring roads - is a further reason for rejecting the application.
4. Stunned by the 'conservation' officers report.
He acknowledges a presumption in favour of preservation of a listed buildings settings then proceeds to ignore that advice, without any reason of "public interest" for ignoring that presumption. He fails to refer to the photomontages showing trees above the Custom House replaced by apartment blocks. He is misled by the developers assurances and perhaps the developers own report on heritage matters, which wrongly prefer English Heritage guidance than the new Welsh Guidance in force since 31 May 2017. He also ignores the contrary view of the Penarth Town Council. I would ask that the committee question the accuracy and dimensions in any photo-montages. Look at what the controversial architect Chris Loyn has to say re the Northcliffe development
"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."
The setting of the listed buildings, particularly Penarth's admirable Custom House, damaged forever.
Planning Policy Wales - 6.5.11 There should be a general presumption in favour of the preservation of a listed building and its setting, which might extend beyond its curtilage. For any development proposal affecting a listed building or its setting, the primary material consideration is the statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
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.
NEW PLANNING-BATTLE LOOMS AS CONTROVERSIAL NORTHCLIFF LODGE SCHEME RE-EMERGES