Showing posts with label Penarth Town Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Penarth Town Council. Show all posts

Friday, 24 February 2017

Open letter to my Councillors re daft £1,080 bench

'Penarth Bench' outside Barclays Bank
now removed 
Why is the 'Penarth bench' not on the agenda for the next meeting of PENARTH TOWN COUNCIL on TUESDAY, 28 th FEBRUARY 2017 at 7.00 p.m?

Where is the report on the consultation?
Who made the decision to allow the secretive unelected group ‘Future Projects Partnership’, who failed to create a suitable bench at a £1,080, to be funded to create yet another version without this being discussed at thPenarth Town council e Town council meeting. Not only is it useless for elderly or disabled people, it isn’t even appropriate for a conservation area. Will you discuss why can't we have traditional benches that are more appropriate and cheaper for Penarth? 
Designed by unelected Chris Loyn who specialises in brutalist style architecture who has scant regard for the preservation of our conservation areas in Penarth and failed to get his recent concrete creations past planning.

The town council has to be open and transparent by law but is breaking that requirement by allowing this sub group to make decisions and spend tax payers money  although they are unaccountable. They should advertise their meetings, publish agendas and minutes. If this group members want to be involved let them stand for election. 
  
I look forward to your answers and explanation.
 Lis Burnett lburnett@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Mike Cuddy mikecuddypenarth@gmail.com
Philip Rapier Philip.rapier@hotmail.co.uk
Rosemary Cook Rosem.cook@o2.co.uk
Gwyn Roberts groberts@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

Tuesday, 3 January 2017

Penarth Council want feedback on £1,080 bench

Penarth Council want feedback on 'Penarth Bench' You can do that here 

The new locally designed, locally commissioned, local manufactured Penarth Bench is now available for the public to try out in Bradenham Place -
£1,080 Bench by Barclays bank 
Its a great idea to have more benches in Penarth especially on the hills! However I am concerned that this new 'Penarth bench' does not  conform to standards for disabled and elderly people. The bench is too low at 16 inches to allow people to sit and rise with ease. The 'arm rest' is too high and wide to enable one to use it to enable sitting and standing. A back is an necessity. A small back section on either side is insufficient as a mistake while sitting down could lead to a life threatening fall.  Concrete is cold and unpleasant to lean on. The 'decoration' is barely visible unless photographed and enlarged. It is not fitting in any conservation area. You might have consulted the 50+ forum on the design or any group of older people first. 
 The Town council wants to buy and install more of these “Penarth Benches “ in other locations around the town centre  even though it’s £300 more expensive than the Vale Council new Penarth Esplanade benches  

Please say no to more of these unsuitable benches. 


Tuesday, 4 October 2016

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.  

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

GOT TO WED to SAVE HEADLANDS TREES with Tree Protection Orders - TPOs

Penarth Town Council Planning Committee will be discussing this application on Wednesday evening, following the Town Council meeting at West House 27th July at 7.00pm.. You are able to attend the meeting. However if you wish to speak, you need to contact the Town Council offices on 02920 700721 as soon as possible, so that you can be "booked in" to speak that evening. You are given 3 minutes. You can object online here   
There is an application to fell NINE Penarth Trees with TPOs. This is part of a scheme to fell 19 trees and reduce the crowns on many others which will radically change this historic parkland landscape up to the cliff-edge of Penarth Headland although it’s a habitat for owls and perhaps other protected species, the relevant species assessment has not been  done.

Seven Reasons why you should refuse this application

 1. Require the applicants to supply proper information, sufficient to identify the individual trees, and allow independent persons to inspect the TPO trees and enable judgement in context of their amenity value and listing critieria. The original TPO documents should be provided.

2. Consider making TPOs to cover all or most of the 40 trees that are intended for felling and lack protection at present. The scale of the felling of mature trees means probably significant impacts on both landscape and biodiversity.  Both should be assessed. 

3. Habitats Regs assessment is also needed for protected species, given that owls are known to forage and inhabit this area.  These would inform and support the decision on further TPOs.

4. The Council's biodiversity officer should be consulted, specifically over protecting the area under ancient and semi-mature woodland/parkland of Welsh government policy, in consultation with NRW specialists.

5. If any TPO trees are in the end to be felled, the Council must consider issuing treereplacement notices for each tree lost.  
  
6. Given that more time is needed for these assessments and decision, the Council should re-start the 6-week period once the proper required information is received for identifying the TPO trees.  That information should include the reasons given in each TPO notice. 

7. One could suspect that this tree clearance is in advance of any planning application for building on MG 2(25) Headlands School, St. Augustine’s Road to avoid the more difficult checks and balances as in  POLICY MD 3 - DESIGN OF NEW DEVELOPMENT like environmental impact assessments etc  

Adjacent to the Headlands site. This other planning application 2015/01449/FUL/ has recently been re-submitted by the developers and the application still proposes the felling of 38 mature (and for the most part, healthy) trees. This I believe is an important consideration in relation to the proposal to fell trees on the Headlands site because if both proposals went ahead - 57 mature trees would be felled within a very small area . I am arguing that this % loss of habitat would be significant and could have a devastating effect on wildlife and birds.