Northcliffe Lodge: Faulty assessment for “sustainability” of the location

Northcliffe Lodge: Faulty assessment for “sustainability” of the location

The Council planning report (5 Jan 2017 committee) shows officers willing to reduce parking spaces:

 “The Council’s Parking Standards SPG require one space per bedroom, and this equates to two spaces for each of the 23 two bedroom flats and 3 spaces for the 7 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. The development makes provision for the necessary visitor parking and each of the 30 units would be served by a single parking space. This equates to a shortfall of 7, when compared against the Council’s Parking Standards”

The Planning officer calculated 37 parking spaces – at one space per two-bed flat, 2 per 3-bed flat.  The new scheme has 24 two-bed and 6 larger; including visitor spaces (1 per 5 flats) the requirement is now said to be 42 (Highway Authority Observation Sheet, 23 June 2017).  In comparison, the original 1984 approval for 30 units (84/0206) required 55 parking spaces; that was recognised as inadequate in the adjacent Mariner Heights decision (~2005) when 1 space per bedroom plus visitor spaces at 1 per 5 units was prescribed.

The Parking Standards SPG says they follow the CSS Parking Standards 2008, but they categorised the whole north Penarth area and Penarth Haven as:

Zone 3 - Urban - Very much part of a substantial built up area with a number of basic local facilities within 400m walking distance.  (400m from the Clock reaches the top of Albert Rd).

Objective people would look at the dearth of “basic local facilities within 400m, and categorise Northcliffe and Penarth Haven as

Zone 4 - Suburban or Near Urban - This zone comprised the outer edges of the largest towns; suburban locations in towns.

The CSS Parking Standards 2008 document is restricted to CSS members, but can be found on the internet.  Its Appendix 5 has a prescription for allocating “sustainability points”, which must total 7 or more for a “sustainability” reduction.

Local facilities (a foodstore, PO, health facility, school etc.): access to two of these within a 400m walking distance scores 2points, access to more than two – 4 points.  For two within 400-800m walking distance, the score is 1 point, or for more than two - 2 points.

Access to a bus stop or railway station: 300m – 3 points; 400m – 2 points, 800m 1-point.

Frequency of public transport: if does not operate consistently between 7am and 7pm, deduct 1 point.

The planning officer states “close proximity to bus stops, a public house, schools, a restaurant, public open space, community hall and a church”.   Let’s measure distances using the google-map facility, though real distances are further than the map projection, because of the strongly sloping ground.

► Bus Stops – about 100m, on Paget Place

► A public house -  The Clive in John St is about 300m

► Schools – the officer apparently included Headlands special school (250m), which is not available to the local public;  Albert Rd primary school is 450m.

► A restaurant – the Custom House is close as the crow flies, but the walking route round by road is 450m; the Pilot on Queens Road is 500m away.

► Public open space – the Paget Road play area and pocket park is 300m away

► Community Hall – St Pauls is closed; Belle Vue Park hall is hardly used except by the Bowling club and for special events; it is 580m away

► Church – St Augustines is 480m by the most direct route (plus some increase for the steep slopes)

Sustainability Score Within 400m – a Pub and Play area -  scores 2 points. The officer wrongly included Headlands school and/or the Custom House restaurant to score 4 points.  

Within 800m, there is a school, GP surgery (unmentioned by the Planner), restaurants etc., but these still score only the two points.

Rail stations are too far away (1000m), regular buses near the roundabout are 850m away, but anyway score just 1 point – the Paget Place bus-stop scores just 2 points, because of limited hours (first bus to Cardiff workplaces is 9.25am) and no Sunday service.

Total Sustainability Score  - 4 points: does not qualify for any reduced parking spaces.   Even if the Officer included Headlands school and the Custom House restaurant within the 400m facilities, the score is only 6 points.  The Officer might have wrongly taken the bus service to meet the 7am to 7pm standard (to gross 7 points), though objectors wrote in on the point.

Walkability the steepness of hills needs to be taken into account (above assessment assumes it’s flat, when 400m is a brisk five minute walk).   The standard for high accessibility to the range of services is 10 minutes walk.  The  850m walk to the Town Centre bus-stops, foodstores is

a)      Well over 10 minutes for fit adults, due to the hill (eg. via St Augustines Cres)

b)      The very steep hill is challenging, even impossible for many elderly people or parents with laden buggies; routes avoiding the steep hills via Paget Road are much longer  to the town.

Building more and more houses & flats is not the answer!

Build, build, build is not the answer to the housing crisis.....
Local people most in need of a home can't afford the market price of housing, no matter how many houses are built. Lack of mortgage finance availability for first-time buyers and the weakness of this group’s income growth has been mainly responsible for the slump in the home ownership rate. Building new homes doesn't necessarily mean homes for those who need them. Given the huge inequalities in wealth, the market is more likely to furnish more second homes for some UK residents, and investment opportunities for wealthy foreigners looking for a safe haven for their money, than to provide homes for people in need. To make housing more affordable, new housing developments would have to reduce house prices in their local area. But a recent study by the LSE which looked at eight large new developments built in the last five years, found that prices in the local area did not fall after completion, and in some cases they went up.* 

And for those who can afford to buy the exemption from capital gains tax for main residences, inheritance tax breaks, a grossly unfair and regressive banding of council tax: all create powerful incentives to pour your money into a bigger house than you need, and then hold onto it. These incentives also drive up prices, by ensuring that all the gain accrues to the owner. The results include unaffordability, unsustainable levels of debt and speculative bubbles.

Before anyone points out developers have to provide a % of affordable homes, at least 50% of housing schemes failed to meet local affordable housing targets in Bristol, Bradford, Cardiff, Manchester and Sheffield**

Developers have a 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.

Councils are tempted into pressing for more housing as section 106 has become a primary means of funding essential public services, public parks, health centres to highways, schools to play areas. The bigger the scheme, the fatter the bounty, leading to a situation not far from legalised bribery – or extortion, depending on which side of the bargain you are on. Vastly inflated density and a few extra storeys on a tower can be politically justified as being in the public interest, if it means a handful of trees will be planted on the street. 

Northcliffe Lodge not enough parking & dodgy sustainable report

Northcliffe Lodge: Faulty assessment for “sustainability” of the location

The Council planning report (5 Jan 2017 committee) shows officers willing to reduce parking spaces:  “The Council’s Parking Standards SPG require one space per bedroom, and this equates to two spaces for each of the 23 two bedroom flats and 3 spaces for the 7 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. The development makes provision for the necessary visitor parking and each of the 30 units would be served by a single parking space. This equates to a shortfall of 7, when compared against the Council’s Parking Standards”

The Planning officer calculated 37 – at one space per two-bed flat, 2 per 3-bed flat.  The new scheme has 24 two-bed and 6 larger, so the total requirement is now said to be 42 (Highway Authority Observation Sheet, 23 June 2017).  In comparison, the original 1984 approval for 30 units (84/0206) required 55 parking spaces; that was recognised as inadequate in the adjacent Mariner Heights decision (~2005) when 1 space per bedroom plus visitor spaces at 1 per 5 units was prescribed.

The Parking Standards SPG says they follow the CSS Parking Standards 2008, but they categorised the whole north Penarth area and Penarth Haven as:

Zone 3 - Urban - Very much part of a substantial built up area with a number of basic local facilities within 400m walking distance.  (400m from the Clock reaches the top of Albert Rd).

Objective people would look at the dearth of “basic local facilities within 400m, and categorise Northcliffe and Penarth Haven as

Zone 4 - Suburban or Near Urban - This zone comprised the outer edges of the largest towns; suburban locations in towns.

The CSS Parking Standards 2008 document is restricted to members, but can be found on the internet.  Its Appendix 5 has a prescription for allocating “sustainability points”, which must total 7 or more for a “sustainability” reduction.

Local facilities (a foodstore, PO, health facility, school etc.): access to two of these within a 400m walking distance scores 2points, access to more than two – 4 points.  For two within 400-800m walking distance, the score is 1 point, or for more than two - 2 points.

Access to a bus stop or railway station: 300m – 3 points; 400m – 2 points, 800m 1-point.

Frequency of public transport: if does not operate consistently between 7am and 7pm, deduct 1 point.

The planning officer states “close proximity to bus stops, a public house, schools, a restaurant, public open space, community hall and a church”.   Let’s measure distances using the google-map facility, though real distances are further than the map projection, because of the strongly sloping ground.

► Bus Stops – about 100m, on Paget Place

► A public house -  the Clive in John St is about 300m

► Schools – the officer apparently included Headlands special school (250m), which is not available to the local public;  Albert Rd primary school is 450m.

► A restaurant – the Custom House is close as the crow flies, but the walking route round by road is 450m; the Pilot on Queens Road is 500m away.

► Public open space – the Paget Road play area and pocket park is 300m away

► Community Hall – St Pauls is closed; Belle Vue Park hall is hardly used except by the Bowling club and for special event, is 580m away

► Church – St Augustines is 480m by the most direct route (plus some increase for the steep slopes)

Sustainability Score Within 400m – a Pub and Play area -  scores 2 points. The officer wrongly included Headlands school and/or the Custom House restaurant to score 4 points.  

Within 800m, there is a school, GP surgery (unmentioned by the Planner), restaurants etc., but these still score only the two points.

Rail stations are too far away (1000m), regular buses near the roundabout are 850m away, but anyway score just 1 point – the Paget Place bus-stop scores just 2 points, because of limited hours (first bus to Cardiff workplaces is 8.25am) and no Sunday service.

Total Sustainability Score  - 4 points: does not qualify for any reduced parking spaces.   Even if the Officer included Headlands school and the Custom House restaurant within the 400m facilities, the score is only 6 points.  The Officer might have wrongly taken the bus service to meet the 7am to 7pm standard (to gross 7 points), though objectors wrote in on the point.

Walkability to Town Centre facilities, over St Augustines hill

The steep hills and poor-quality pavements have to be considered in assessing  walkability to facilities**.  The town centre clock roundabout is 850m away, with main buses and general food stores (Post Office slightly closer).  The IHT Guidelines give the ‘preferred maximum’ walking distance to Town Centres as 800m.  The Manual for Streets says a range of facilities within 10 minutes walking distance (around 800 metres). 

The route over St Augustines hill puts the town centre 15 minutes distance for fit people, more for those less fit or with a pushchair and/or shopping, and scarcely possible for those with mobility problems.   Observation shows relatively few people currently living in the Northcliffe area actually do walk.  One mobility scooter user lives near the top of Paget Road, where the route to the town centre is less steep.  Crutch/stick users and scooterists from Northcliffe would probably take the route up Arcot Road, but dropped kerbs are lacking.

** The LDP background paper on Sustainable Settlements says (s.3.6) “the general safety and nature of the walking environment in accessing these services will therefore need to be considered” – it cites the ‘Manual for Streets’ that sustainable ‘walking neighbourhoods’ are typically characterised as having a range of facilities within 10 minutes walking distance (around 800 metres). It also notes that the propensity to walk is influenced not only by distance, but also by the quality of the walking experience in terms of safe, accessible, attractive and stimulating walking environments.

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?

Plaid Cymru says NO to a BUS Priority Lane through Penarth

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

NO to Penarth Northcliffe lodge "LITTLE BOXES" SCHEME

NORTHCLIFF LODGE "LITTLE BOXES" SCHEME - OPPOSED BY PENARTH COUNCIL - GETS VALE PLANNERS OK - VoG planning Cmte THURS, 5^TH JAN 2017 AT 6.00 P.M. 

Venue  COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC OFFICES

Our historic mature woodland in St. Augustine’s Ward would be trashed for spec housing on the side of the cliff.
►high risk of landslide, just above the Custom House hotel - See here
►rich reserve of up to 40 trees and wildlife to go
►a big gash in Penarth’s iconic wooded headland
►the developers refuse their share of affordable housing
►the developers pretend new residents will walk or bus to town, so plan few car-spaces, creating a parking problem

Planning papers here More details  Details for : 2015/01449/FUL 

Lab CLLR LIS BURNETT
ST AUGUSTINES
WARD PENARTH
@lisburnett

VoG planning cmte - those in bold also St Augustines Ward and members of Penarth Town Council 

Chairman: Councillor Fred Johnson @CllrFred

Vice-Chairman: Councillor Margaret Wilkinson

Councillors: Rhiannon Birch, Jonathan Bird, Bronwen Brooks, Lis Burnett @lisburnett, Pamela Drake, John Drysdale, Chris Franks, Eric Hacker, Howard Hamilton, Val Hartrey, Nic Hodges @NP_H13, Jeff James, Peter King @CllrKing, Andrew Parker, Bob Penrose, Anthony Powell, Audrey Preston, Gwyn Roberts and Clive Williams.

Penarth Town Council SAYS NO  

Penarth Town Council –

That the application should not be approved for the following reasons:- 

1. Overdominant form of development that could threaten the future of the listed buildings, Custom House and Marine Building. 

2. Overcrowded form of development. 

3. Detrimental to this iconic headland known as the Bears Head believed to be where the name of Penarth is derived.

4. Request the Vale Council’s own ecology officer carry out a comprehensive ecology survey as it is considered that the submitted survey is inadequate. Local Knowledge is aware of an extensive and active bat population. 

5. The loss of so many mature trees is also of concern. If the Vale Council is minded to approved the application the Town Council wishes to reserve the right to comment at a later date with regard to any S106 agreement and the community needs within the locality. 

Cllr Lis Burnett disses petition asking not to bring Wakeboarding to Cosmeston Lakes Country Park

Wakeboarding scheme was announced by VoG council on 1st December 2016 

Anne Greagsby started the petition on the 5th December 2016 signed by 14,000.  

Cllr Lis Burnett called the
petition inaccurate -
spurious - untrue- fabricated
So thats a NO I won't listen then

Cllr Burnett mocked the petition making accusations of exaggeration and deception, accused Anne of fabricating stories to create spurious petitions Cllr Burnett "I would reassure members that if just a small fraction of the some of the tales of impending carnage and destruction in our much-loved Country Park were actually true then I’d probably signing the wholly inaccurate petition  launched and handed in by the recently announced Penarth Plaid Cymru candidate for next year’s local government elections …..But it’s not true and so I won’t be signing" 

Cllr Burnett claims this wake boarding scheme was discussed and consulted on but that is not true. Water activities and a zip wire do not equate to WAKEBOARDING. Discussion at cabinet is not consultation. Dec1st 2016 was the date of the press release.   
The VoG council is keen to introduce commercial activities to our parks and Cllr Franks and Cllr Ernest raised objections and alarm at potential plans.  We've already experienced rowing competitions with loud PA system, showing a failure to control noise. They promised not to disturb bird-life on the lake, so few would have envisaged wakeboarding with splash-noise, back-wash and PA-led competitions in the peaceful nature reserve. Money-making activities despite the intrusion scaring off wildlife from the lake is Burnett's agenda (answer at Council meeting of 15 Dec. - video clip).  She talked of working with Natural Resources Wales, whose only concern is the special underwater algae, not the normal resident and breeding birds. The proposal hasn't been to planning yet, but worryingly the council could just grant itself permission.

Here is a time-line of items for reference, including Vale Council meetings.    

11th Jan 2016

The Vale of Glamorgan Council Cabinet Meeting: 11 January, 2016 Report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration Tourism and Commercial Opportunities at Countryside Service. 

To seek authority to invite tenders from potential commercial partners in order to create new tourism and commercial opportunities at Porthkerry Country Park, Cosmeston Lakes Country Park & Medieval Village. 

12th April 2016
The Vale of Glamorgan Council Scrutiny Committee (Economy and Environment): 12th April 2016 Report of the Managing Director Tourism and Commercial Opportunities at Countryside Service Sites. To report the progress made with regard to the engagement of third party operators in relation to commercial opportunities at Countryside sites.

Oct 27th 2016
VALE COUNCIL REVEALS MORE DETAILS OF PLANS TO CASH-IN ON COSMESTON 

Cllr Chris Franks (Plaid Dinas Powys) has already demanded that the public should be given full details of the Cosmeston proposals .“It is not right that this much-loved country park is facing potentially disruptive activities but the public are denied a say on matters. We recognise that there are financial challenges but that is no excuse for this secrecy.”

Penarth town councillor, Cllr Anthony Ernest (Conservative Plymouth Ward),  who represents part of the Cosmeston Park area, says “Whilst I recognise there may be some need to raise a reasonable income from this much loved country park, which presently attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, the proposals do seem completely over the top in their scope, and I am not convinced that we need to turn this haven of wildlife into the latest theme park in Wales. There seems to be a hell-bent wish on behalf of the current Labour administration in the Vale of Glamorgan to do away with those natural facilities that so many of our residents and visitors really enjoy, and I remain to be convinced that this is little more than a cost cutting exercise... with grandiose ideas for fun fairs, cable wires and the like.”

September 11th 2016 

VALE COUNCIL SET TO GENERATE CASH FROM COSMESTON COUNTRY PARK 

1st December 2016 
Vale of Glamorgan press release 
Wakeboarding could be first new activity on offer at Cosmeston Country Park

1st December 2016
Cable Wakeboarding Application Submitted at Cosmeston Lakes Country Park 
As well as bringing new visitors to the country park the activity is likely to attract interest in Cosmeston from across the UK as from 2017 it will be used as part of the UK competition circuit. Gareth Stevenson of Cosmeston Lakes Wake Park said:......
http://businessnewswales.com/wakeboarding-application-submitted-cosmeston-country-park/

1st December 2016 

Plans revealed for wakeboarding park at Cosmeston Lakes - Wales ...

www.walesonline.co.uk › Business › Business News › Vale of Glamorgan Council

1 Dec 2016 - Vale of Glamorgan council has submitted plans for a wake park at ... Gareth Stevenson of Cosmeston Lakes Wake Park said: "We have chosen ...

5th December 2016 - Vale Council (@VOGCouncil) tweeted at 1:00 pm on Mon, Dec 05, 2016: Wakeboarding could be first new activity on offer at Cosmeston Country Park 
(https://twitter.com/VOGCouncil/status/805758750011326464?s=03)

9th December 2016
6,000 people back petition against 'horrific' wakeboarding park plans 

11th Dec 2016 
9,000 SIGN ON-LINE PETITION OPPOSING COSMESTON WAKE-BOARD PLAN  

12thDecember 
NO WINTER WAKE-BOARDING TO BE ALLOWED AT COSMESTON - SAYS VALE 

14th December 2016 
VALE COUNCIL TO RECEIVE COSMESTON COUNTRY PARK PETITION TONIGHT 

15th December 2016 
COSMESTON ROW: 'WAKE-BOARDING' ISN'T LIKE 'WATER-BOARDING' - SAYS BURNETT 
Cllr Burnett tried to joke about waterboarding and answered Qs she wasn't asked “No pylons will be erected across the lake".  Seeking to minimise the potential impact of the scheme, she said that it involved a “slim A-frame set on land in tall wooded-areas on each of two sides at one end of the Eastern lake.” She continued: “a small area of the lake would be set aside for  safe and managed use”. Emphasising the word “quiet” Cllr Burnett said  “a quiet electric motor would pull users across the lake on a wire”.  Nothing about splash and boat noise, or loud speaker/PA systems, or crowds of spectators for wakeboarding competitions.

16th December 2016 COSMESTON ROW: VETERAN COUNCILLOR SLAMS VALE'S "FUNFAIR BY THE LAKES" 

Find your local Cllr here - Write to them  
You can contact Cllr Burnett 

• 029 2025 6295 / 07736 771017

• lburnett@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

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