Major questions on traffic issues at proposed Northcliffe development yet to be answered

As sent to Yvonne Prichard VoG planning officer re Northcliffe development 2017/00541/FUL

Request for information on the Highways assessment of the Northcliffe Lodge development, re. the Highway Authority Observation Sheet, by Paul, D Harrison, of 23 June 2017

1. Please supply details on this statement of required parking spaces: 

“the amended scheme requires the provision of 42 car parking spaces in accordance with the councils adopted parking standards”.

The Officers’ planning report to the January 2017 Committee said the site scores well on sustainability points. Please supply details of that scoring.  Under Appendix 6 to the 2008 Wales Parking Standards, there are none of the cited facilities (foodstore, PO, health, school (Headlands special school is not public)) within the 400m walking distance, the bus stop does not have a service between 7am-7pm.

2.  Please say if the Highways officers have considered improved siting and access to the local bus-stops, including their relocation and safeguarding from parking and the need for a safe crossing of the road (Paget Terrace).  Also have they considered the need for bus-shelters at both stops?

3. The requirement in Mr Harrison’s sketch for tactile paving at the new access (aligned with the current pavement line) is good, but the access is shown with an unnecessarily wide splay (when regard is given to the north of Paget Place being used for parking and bus stop). The new drawing (Shear Design 15025-106) is even more splayed over the pavement.   Can Mr Harrison explain the apparent departure from best practice of the Manual for Streets?  Why require a “rumble strip” rather than the preferred road-table?

4. Restructured car parking for the Northcliffe Apartments, re-alignment of access to modern standards.  Have the Highways Dept. considered the opportunity to narrow that access to Manual for Streets standards, like for the new access?  Why not require the two accesses to be combined?

5.  Why have Highways Dept. accepted the concept design of a “shared surface” access driveway, with textured walkway but no kerbs, as known to encourage parking on the footway?  How would such parking be controlled and stopped when it’s non-highway under private ownership?  In particular, how would extra parking adjacent to the 3 visitor spaces be prevented?

As far parking adjacent to the flats, how would parking be limited to the designated spaces, and spill- over into the shared-space street between eg. Blocks A and B (computer visual 03) be prevented?

6. Inadequate access driveway.    While the footway on the access driveway is required to be 2.0m, the swept-path drawing shows vehicles over-riding the (1.8m) footway.  This surely implies the design is inadequate and unsafe for walking.   The separation from the Apartments site appears to be minimal – why not adjust the design to give sufficient space for a fence and planting including trees which will mature into replacements for the present TPO-covered trees?    

7.  Ramped accesses:  have the Highways Dept checked the pedestrian accesses, including ramps, for wheelchair accessibility, particularly in regard to the slopes?

8.  Permeability of the development for walking/cycling -  some permeability to adjacent Mariner Heights, Northcliffe Drive and Northcliffe Apartments could be achieved; what consideration have Highways given to implementing policy for high permeability?  The planning officer offered the Secured-by-Design excuse last time, but that cannot be taken to over-ride policy on permeability without specific reason.

8. Lighting for the footway/access road.  Have the Highways Dept. considered the need and standard for such lighting; also other features for pedestrian safety as under the Police authority’s Secured-by-Design programme?

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

Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards to Northcliffe Penarth

  Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards

In their promotion of new homes – for the housing market rather than for need – the Vale Council leaders must have told their planning officers to by-pass car-parking standards. 

The Northcliffe Lodge developers are allowed to propose just 30 car-spaces for 30 dwellings, though the ‘standard’ is one space per bedroom, which would total 67 for the 2 and 3-bed apartments proposed**.  They are allowed to claim in their transport statement that the new dwellings would be within “easy walking distance” to the town centre and a foodstore (over the St Augustine’s hill) and public transport (no bus service after  6pm and on Sundays).

People living close-by have objected that it will result in parking on-street in Paget Place and potentially in their own cul-de-sacs.  Vale Officers still indicate 30 spaces plus 6 spaces for visitors are sufficient**.  In a case in Barry (housing on the Windsor Rd church site) the officers suggested people could give up their cars if they find it difficult to park; presumably they give the same excuse in Penarth.

Labour politicians do argue for going easy on parking standards when there’s ‘affordable’/social housing.    Yet at Northcliffe Lodge, the developer is wriggling out of the obligation to provide 40% affordable housing on the argument that the service charges they plan to levy would be over much for social tenants.  

Cllr Lis Burnett, deputy leader, knows this well as Northcliffe is in her ward – curiously, she has not told the officers to stop leaning over backwards to assist this crammed yuppy development.

** Table 1: Accommodation Schedule

Apartment Type-    23 dwellings,  2 bedroom 90 m2 

                                7  dwellings  3 bedroom duplex 126 m2           Total  30

 http://vogonline.planning-register.co.uk/PlaRecord.aspx?AppNo=2015/01449/FUL

** see the Council Highway comments of 18^th August

Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards to Northcliffe Penarth

  Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards

In their promotion of new homes – for the housing market rather than for need – the Vale Council leaders must have told their planning officers to by-pass car-parking standards. 

The Northcliffe Lodge developers are allowed to propose just 30 car-spaces for 30 dwellings, though the ‘standard’ is one space per bedroom, which would total 67 for the 2 and 3-bed apartments proposed**.  They are allowed to claim in their transport statement that the new dwellings would be within “easy walking distance” to the town centre and a foodstore (over the St Augustine’s hill) and public transport (no bus service after  6pm and on Sundays).

People living close-by have objected that it will result in parking on-street in Paget Place and potentially in their own cul-de-sacs.  Vale Officers still indicate 30 spaces plus 6 spaces for visitors are sufficient**.  In a case in Barry (housing on the Windsor Rd church site) the officers suggested people could give up their cars if they find it difficult to park; presumably they give the same excuse in Penarth.

Labour politicians do argue for going easy on parking standards when there’s ‘affordable’/social housing.    Yet at Northcliffe Lodge, the developer is wriggling out of the obligation to provide 40% affordable housing on the argument that the service charges they plan to levy would be over much for social tenants.  

Cllr Lis Burnett, deputy leader, knows this well as Northcliffe is in her ward – curiously, she has not told the officers to stop leaning over backwards to assist this crammed yuppy development.

** Table 1: Accommodation Schedule

Apartment Type-    23 dwellings,  2 bedroom 90 m2 

                                7  dwellings  3 bedroom duplex 126 m2           Total  30

 http://vogonline.planning-register.co.uk/PlaRecord.aspx?AppNo=2015/01449/FUL

** see the Council Highway comments of 18^th August

Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards to Northcliffe Penarth

  Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards

In their promotion of new homes – for the housing market rather than for need – the Vale Council leaders must have told their planning officers to by-pass car-parking standards. 

The Northcliffe Lodge developers are allowed to propose just 30 car-spaces for 30 dwellings, though the ‘standard’ is one space per bedroom, which would total 67 for the 2 and 3-bed apartments proposed**.  They are allowed to claim in their transport statement that the new dwellings would be within “easy walking distance” to the town centre and a foodstore (over the St Augustine’s hill) and public transport (no bus service after  6pm and on Sundays).

People living close-by have objected that it will result in parking on-street in Paget Place and potentially in their own cul-de-sacs.  Vale Officers still indicate 30 spaces plus 6 spaces for visitors are sufficient**.  In a case in Barry (housing on the Windsor Rd church site) the officers suggested people could give up their cars if they find it difficult to park; presumably they give the same excuse in Penarth.

Labour politicians do argue for going easy on parking standards when there’s ‘affordable’/social housing.    Yet at Northcliffe Lodge, the developer is wriggling out of the obligation to provide 40% affordable housing on the argument that the service charges they plan to levy would be over much for social tenants.  

Cllr Lis Burnett, deputy leader, knows this well as Northcliffe is in her ward – curiously, she has not told the officers to stop leaning over backwards to assist this crammed yuppy development.

** Table 1: Accommodation Schedule

Apartment Type-    23 dwellings,  2 bedroom 90 m2 

                                7  dwellings  3 bedroom duplex 126 m2           Total  30

 http://vogonline.planning-register.co.uk/PlaRecord.aspx?AppNo=2015/01449/FUL

** see the Council Highway comments of 18^th August

Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards to Northcliffe Penarth

  Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards

In their promotion of new homes – for the housing market rather than for need – the Vale Council leaders must have told their planning officers to by-pass car-parking standards. 

The Northcliffe Lodge developers are allowed to propose just 30 car-spaces for 30 dwellings, though the ‘standard’ is one space per bedroom, which would total 67 for the 2 and 3-bed apartments proposed**.  They are allowed to claim in their transport statement that the new dwellings would be within “easy walking distance” to the town centre and a foodstore (over the St Augustine’s hill) and public transport (no bus service after  6pm and on Sundays).

People living close-by have objected that it will result in parking on-street in Paget Place and potentially in their own cul-de-sacs.  Vale Officers still indicate 30 spaces plus 6 spaces for visitors are sufficient**.  In a case in Barry (housing on the Windsor Rd church site) the officers suggested people could give up their cars if they find it difficult to park; presumably they give the same excuse in Penarth.

Labour politicians do argue for going easy on parking standards when there’s ‘affordable’/social housing.    Yet at Northcliffe Lodge, the developer is wriggling out of the obligation to provide 40% affordable housing on the argument that the service charges they plan to levy would be over much for social tenants.  

Cllr Lis Burnett, deputy leader, knows this well as Northcliffe is in her ward – curiously, she has not told the officers to stop leaning over backwards to assist this crammed yuppy development.

** Table 1: Accommodation Schedule

Apartment Type-    23 dwellings,  2 bedroom 90 m2 

                                7  dwellings  3 bedroom duplex 126 m2           Total  30

 http://vogonline.planning-register.co.uk/PlaRecord.aspx?AppNo=2015/01449/FUL

** see the Council Highway comments of 18^th August

Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards to Northcliffe Penarth

  Planning Officers fail to apply car-parking standards

In their promotion of new homes, the Vale Council leaders must have told their planning officers to by-pass car-parking standards for the yuppy housing market. 

The Northcliffe Lodge developers are allowed to propose just 30 car-spaces for 30 dwellings, though the ‘standard’ is one space per bedroom, which would total 67 for the 2 and 3-bed apartments proposed**.  They are allowed to claim in their transport statement that the new dwellings would be within “easy walking distance” to the town centre and a foodstore (over the St Augustine’s hill) and public transport (no bus service after  6pm and on Sundays).

People living close-by have objected that it will result in parking on-street in Paget Place and potentially in their own cul-de-sacs.  Vale Officers still indicate 30 spaces plus 6 spaces for visitors are sufficient**.  In a case in Barry (housing on the Windsor Rd church site) the officers suggested people could give up their cars if they find it difficult to park; presumably they give the same excuse in Penarth.

Labour politicians do argue for going easy on parking standards when there’s ‘affordable’/social housing.    Yet at Northcliffe Lodge, the developer is wriggling out of the obligation to provide 40% affordable housing on the argument that the service charges they plan to levy would be over much for social tenants.  

Cllr Lis Burnett, deputy leader, knows this well as Northcliffe is in her ward – curiously, she has not told the officers to stop leaning over backwards to assist this crammed yuppy development.

** Table 1: Accommodation Schedule

Apartment Type-    23 dwellings,  2 bedroom 90 m2 

                                7  dwellings  3 bedroom duplex 126 m2           Total  30

 http://vogonline.planning-register.co.uk/PlaRecord.aspx?AppNo=2015/01449/FUL

** see the Council Highway comments of 18^th August

Why we should say NO to Northcliffe development

NorthCliff Lodge housing development – what’s the position?

Objectors include the Town Council, but the officers look to be discounting them

• Over-dominant form of development, above the listed buildings (Custom House and Marine Hotel).
• Overcrowded form of development – far too many units, too little car and amenity space
• Detrimental to the iconic headland – modern blocks replace trees
• Comprehensive ecology survey required – only a part survey for reptiles and bats so far; ignore bat roosts in the trees; NRW officer (Lindy Barratt) believes no bats are present and was unaware of the loss of tree habitat; now looking at again
• Loss of some 40 mature trees – Tree Protection Order changed [TPO No.11 2015] to cover only a group of 6 sycamores and  7 trees (an oak, holm oak, magnolia, pine, yew and 2 sycamores); the pine and yew are to be felled. The VoG should not permit it without a felling license, as is required for the total and needs to be granted by NRW.

Historical significance: 

no proposals to save the unique 1840 Summerhouse “derelict and in need of repair”, part of the original Cliff Villa/Northcliff estate of mature woodland and parkland

Cliff Stability:  “The site is therefore considered to be at High Risk of ground movement associated with landslide” said technical consultants, and the risk will “need to be assessed”.  The landslide hazard could affect adjacent sites/properties and the Custom House below. Nevertheless, the Council has dropped its requirement to establish site stability and risk to adjacent properties, proposing instead to set a Condition on the development (not covering adjacent land), contrary to Planning Policy Wales (“Planning decisions need to take into account the potential hazard that instability could create to the local environment”).

Nature Conservation: it’s part of a green corridor of ancient/mature woodland along the cliff edge; bats disappeared in the summer, apparently scared away (illegal measures used) but it is still a bat habitat.  The species of bats that used it have not been identified, nor other protected species of animals/plants. Mature woodland (‘Lowland mixed deciduous woodland’) is a priority habitat in the “Section 7 list” under the Environment Act (Wales) Act, not just for the trees but their special and diverse plants.

New access is unsafe for pedestrians: the new access has very tight bends for goods vehicles, while space for a pavement (unclear that one will be built) disappears on the upper bend.  Generally, the walkway to Paget road/bus-stop is discouraging and unsafe for walkers with limited visibility.  

Objection by Highways officers the 18 August Memo retains objections to details including the 4 visitor parking places on the access road.  It requires car-parking spaces at 2.6m wide (none wider for disabled). The plan now shows 30 places plus 2 visitors, but the Highways comment implies they are sub-standard in size.

Use of Private Road as access:  They have said no pedestrian access to Northcliff Dv., and the track appears shut off at the Lodge entrance (contrary to policy that urban development is to be permeable to walkers and cyclists).  But demolition and construction equipment and vehicles would use the private road - would this use be legal/acceptable to other owners of the track? 

Planning ref. on the VoG website 2015/01449/FUL   

Our local labour Councilors appear to be taking no action.