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. 

Cardiff Bus 'Station' farce - A masterclass in incompetence

From  Cardiff and the Vale Bus Users

The squandering of public resources on Cardiff’s central bus station site is now becoming clear. We’re left with still higher costs for the cramped and inadequate replacement, according to the business analysis in Neil Hanratty’s Director’s report to Cabinet this week (http://cardiff.moderngov.co.uk/…/CAB_Bus%20Interchange_FINA…).

Russell Goodway and the new regime say they will deliver “a new transport interchange which will be at the heart of the Cardiff Metro”. But their plan is driven by car-parking for the BBC (217 spaces), on top of the 83-space operational car-park under the BBC-building.

Their car-park access on Saunders Road prevents its use as a bus station access (except on event-days). It forces buses to rely on the congested access from Wood St; it prevents a Metro-tram system accessing a proper ‘interchange’ via Saunders Road free of traffic congestion.
The “interchange” (no longer “world class”) has no integration with future metro-trams, no integration with the 50% of bus services that will use stops on St Mary’s Street, Custom House St, etc. and no integration with the rail station except perhaps a covered walkway.
Why persist with massive BBC car-parking atop the bus station? They decided not to put it underground, because of time and cost in moving the main water pipe. Now they say we have to meet very high costs of building it above, because supporting columns in the bus movement area are ruled out. Also, roofing over the bus station causes high pollution levels, estimated at several times the legal NO2 limit, which has forced a restriction on bus numbers.

No apologies from the Director for the concept, nor any indication of the costs of failing to deliver the BBC’s 217 parking spaces on time. What’s the cost of getting out of the lease and scrapping this stupid commuter car-parking in Central Square? Replacements if needed can go south of Central Station.

Why propose to make a bad scheme viable by switching to student accommodation towers? The area was supposed to be an Enterprise Zone with special incentives for financial and business services.https://businesswales.gov.wales/…/about-central-cardiff-ent…. So quickly has that prospectus turned sour ! No subsidies to student bedsits!
Let’s see a focus on “a new transport interchange at the heart of the Cardiff Metro”, drop spec developments of offices or student bed-sits and go for the basics.

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?

Penarth Town Council SECRET groups

CHRIS LOYN ARCHITECT of
the controversial Northcliffe
Development and member of the 
secret advisory group 
Future Projects Partnership 

Can you tell me why it is acceptable or even necessary to have secret groups such as the Future Projects Partnership and the Strategic Review Group that have town council officers attending  but the membership, meetings, agendas and minutes are not open to public scrutiny? Who appoints these people? Members of this group do not need to declare any interests as do elected members yet influence policy and spending decisions. I believe controversial architect Chris Loyn is a member and that Martin Gossage chairs the Future Projects Group. Members of the community cannot  attend these meetings or make comments on the decisions. There is no means of knowing if there is a gender balance. Town council meetings are open to the public but this seems to be a mechanism to enable decision making  on the QT by a select few.  This system is unacceptable and undemocratic. I do mWill you agree this practice has to end now? I can not accept that this is 'normal' practice. 

MARTIN GOSSAGE  
Chair of the secret advisory group 
Future Projects Partnership 

I think Penarth Town labour Council practice of having secret advisory groups is undemocratic. 

Recently I made a FOI request to the Penarth Town Council but the town clerk justified having secret advisory groups. So I have written to my town Cllrs and AM....

FOI answer. This is an excerpt from the town clerks reply  

Additionally, we discussed your opinion of "secretive" groups. This infers that a Council cannot hold internal and private meetings aside from the public committees, which is completely wrong. I advised you that the Future Projects Partnership and the Strategic Review Group are advisory groups and can forward proposals to the official committees. It is for those committees to make the decisions and members of the public are welcome to attend these public meetings to hear what is being said. This is common practice in any efficient organisation or company that is proactive in its approach to working for the people it represents, whether they are town residents and visitors or stakeholders of another kind.

Therefore, as the Strategic Review Group meetings are not part of the Council's official public committee structure, they are not subject to FOI requests. The groups you perceive to be "a closed shop and secretive" are very much working hard for the community of Penarth and dealing with matters at the sharp end. This process makes any organisation that adopts such an approach much more effective in meeting targets and achieving goals and outputs in a set period of time, which I am sure you would support.

Thank you for contacting me and enabling me the opportunity to advise you of the reality of the situation.

Kind regards,

Emma Boylan 
Town Clerk

Full answer here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/where_can_i_find_the_agenda_and#incoming-994298

Would you not agree that action is required to strengthen the inclusiveness of community and town councils. Community and town councils should actively seek to increase representation from women, ethnic minorities, disabled communities and other hard-to-reach groups. Councils should review the influence of their structures, working practices, meeting times and locations, and communication and consultation strategies in facilitating or restricting participation by different groups within the community. Councils that are inclusive are more responsive to the needs and interests of their community and can more effectively serve that community. Having 'advisory' appointed groups meeting in secret is contrary to these aims. 

SAY NO to wakeboarding at Cosmeston Lakes Country Park

Please tell Vale of Glamorgan planning committee of the VoG council to reject the proposal for wake-boarding at the tranquil Cosmestson Lakes Country Park and nature reserve. The VoG council owns the park.  You can send your objection to the planning committee by email to developmentcontrol@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk                            

What is wakeboarding?                                  The sport of riding on a short, wide board resembling a surfboard and performing acrobatic manoeuvres while being pulled by a pulley on a raised wire.                                           

The proposal requires installation of an electric cable wakeboarding system equipment and a mechanical store, new male changing facilities + a Wake Park Reception; conversion of park’s store room for a female changing area at Cosmeston visitor centre.” It includes a 6 square metre shipping container behind the southern pylon to house the power supply and controlling equipment for the wakeboarding cable system, floating features to be tethered in position with anchors lines to the lake floor, a pontoon and trees may be felled.  The peace and tranquility of Cosmeston country park would be seriously disturbed by commercial cable-wakeboarding where wakeboarders are towed by a wire steer around obstacles. 

Object to the visual impact of ugly 'tower-supports for the towing wires, also noise from wakeboards hitting the water and from the PA system. This will be worse during the competitions as scheduled. The Council claim of environment-friendly is false, when such noisy water activity will scare off many if not all the visiting and resident birds.                         

 Danger to wildlife 

The lake has a resident population of up to 60 Mute Swans. some of which nest, occasionally a similar number of Canada Geese, 100's of Gulls and Coot, other wildfowl from autumn through to spring, birds such as Reed Warbler, Sedge Warbler, Reed Bunting which nest in the reed bed and would doubtless be disturbed by the wakeboards' wash. 

Cosmeston Lakes has 25.6ha designated as a SSSI to protect a rare plant called Starry stonewort (Nitellopsis obtuse).  Cosmeston country park and nature reserve is a success story and loved by the community. Please scrap the whole idea of wake-boarding at Cosmeston.          

 For more information contact Anne or Max Womensvoice@gmail.com

VoG website http://vogonline.planning-register.co.uk/PlaRecord.aspx?AppNo=2017/00315/FUL

Discuss saving our Penarth Heritage Wed 31st May

We have reserved space in the Albion on Glebe Street, next Wed. evening 31st May, from 7pm.   Do come along and discuss saving our heritage!

Save PENARTH’s HERITAGE – we’ve recently had some bad decisions and officer recommendations on the Coastguard Tower, Ashdene and Northcliffe Lodge. Fortunately Councillors were alert to the last-named and turned it down.  Our Victorian street lights have been replaced by ugly modern ones, the Town Council itself is replacing Victorian seats with ‘brutalist’ concrete ones.  Pernarth Civic Society opposed some of these but too weakly and politely.

With the election of new councillors on the Vale and Town Councils, there’s need for a public pressure group to defend our conservation areas and heritage from a planning department too complaint with developers.

The Mint-&-Mustard (Windsor Place) alterations are a prime example. This application in a conservation area should have been thrown out by the Vale planning officers right from the start. There is no report from the conservation officer. The Town council approved it just pre-election!  It hasn’t been called in. We fear the Vale officers will give it the nod.

Then there is the Northcliffe development.

Will you make preservation of Penarth conservation areas a priority?

Will you stop the Vale highways department having carte blanche to do works changing our pavements and street ‘furniture’ without consultation or checking? Issues are replacing traditional lamp-posts with miscellaneous designs, replacing paving with various different materials not appropriate for our central conservation area.

Conservation areas are 'areas of special architectural or historic interest'. The special interest does not only relate to buildings but also includes how all the features (listed or otherwise) of a place come together to make a distinctive environment.  It includes:

• the mix of uses
• the historic layout
• characteristic buildings
• paving materials and street furniture

Conservation areas have extra planning controls applied to them to help preserve or enhance their character and protect their settings.

Yet the Vale Council’s conservation officer for the Vale supported modern extensions to the side and rear of Penarth’s historic Victorian coastguard tower on Tower Hill; approved new wings on Ashdene Manor on condition that they did not closely resemble the existing, and who argued that modern box-flats at Northcliffe Lodge would not affect the ‘setting’ of the listed Custom House just below. He even approved a flat-roofed extension to Cotterell Lodge the 300 yr-old listed thatched house on the main A48 between St Nicholas and Bonvilston. 

The Vale officers generally have little regard for street trees, refusing to replace ones felled due to hazard or age, despite their being part of our ‘distinctive environment’.  Nor do they restrict huge gaudy shop-frontages.  The Town Council decided to fell the mature Robinia tree in front of their West House offices, despite a good-health assessment.

What can be done to defend our town’s character and historical streets?  We propose an informal meeting of people wanting to take a stand for Penarth to discuss possible Penarth ‘Heritage’ co-ordination or an information/pressure group.

Now we have wake boarding at Cosmeston going to VoG planning soon….

We have reserved space in the Albion on Glebe Street, next Wed. evening 31st May, from 7pm.   Do come along and discuss saving our heritage!

  

Anne Greagsby womensvoice@gmail.com

Max Wallis 07783 330956