The Beachcliff Development includes a restaurant, an hotel and £600,000+ apartments - but no dedicated parking

The Beachcliff development on Penarth Esplanade  includes a top-class restaurant, a boutique hotel and a number of £600,000+ apartments – but no dedicated parking

The Vale of Glamorgan’s ruling ‘cabinet’ has backed a planning officers’ report which recommended rejection of an objection from property developer Richard Hayward about new parking restrictions to be installed outside his Beachcliff development on Penarth Esplanade .

The Vale Council wants to install 13 new “echelon” parking bays in front of Beachcliff which would allow any motorist to park there for up to 2 hours – and overnight from 17:00 to 12:00 the following day  – but is refusing to allocate 6 of these parking slots specifically for the dedicated use of Beachcliff residents.

Beachcliff Developer Richard Hayward

Beachcliff developer Richard Hayward

Richard Hayward says these proposals are nothing like the deal which was originally reached with the council prior to the development of Beachcliff – and claims that if the Vale Council had made its parking plans clear at the outset, the Principality Building Society – which bankrolled the project – would never have put up the cash for the development in the first place.

Mr Hayward has written to the council saying that “It was confirmed by way of emails dated 21st December 2012 from the Vale of Glamorgan Council that 5 parking spaces would be allocated to the development.  This was a pre-requisite condition of our funder, The Principality, without which the development would not have commenced”.

The Vale Council countered this by claiming It was not confirmed that spaces would be authorised and allocated solely for residents of the Beach Cliff development” – although the council does acknowledge that “this was the developer’s wish.”   The council goes on to say if any residents’ scheme were to be introduced it would be for all residents of the Esplanade to apply, not solely for the Beach Cliff development”.

Mr Hayward also points out that the requirement for 6 allocated car parking spaces was included in the original planning application. The Vale Council admits this requirement was spelled out and was received and acknowledged but was never approved as being a final and agreed plan” . The officers argue the “loss of further public parking should not be favoured over the potential benefits in providing additional parking for tourists and visitors to the area”.

The original alfresco dining area outside Rabaiotti's (before the cafe was demolished) extended onto the pavement and roadway

The original alfresco dining area outside Rabaiotti’s (before the cafe was demolished and Beachcliff was re-developed) occupied part of the pavement and the roadway (Photo Richard M Marshall)

Mr Hayward also reminds the council he removed a decked alfresco dining area  originally installed on the pavement and the roadway in front of the old Rabaiotti’s cafe to make way for additional parking spaces – devaluing the commercial unit in the process because he was “mindful of the car parking“.Now the Vale Council is  – in effect – appropriating this space for general parking and not retaining the area for Beachcliff parking.

The Vale Council’s officers counter this by saying the decking would have to have been removed  regardless of any reserved spaces in order to “revoke the existing double yellow lines” and to install the new echelon parking spaces.

The Vale of Glamorgan Council relished demolishing the multi-storey car park built by Penarth Council . If they left it alone there would have been no parking problem

In 2001 the Vale of Glamorgan Council eagerly demolished the 215-space multi-storey car park (right of picture) built by Penarth Council in 1968. Now there is a shortage of parking on the Esplanade

The Vale Council report says “There is significant demand for parking on the Esplanade which is particularly high during the summer season. Whilst the requirement for designated residents’ parking to service the new Beachcliff development is recognised after due consideration and deliberation, it is considered that the demand for visitor parking should take precedent.” (sic)

The council  says  residents and visitors will now be able to “park from 17:00 on any one day until before 12:00 the  following day” . It says whilst these parking bays would not be reserved exclusively for [Beachcliff] residents, they would add to the overall provision of public parking in the area, and may also provide additional overnight parking for residents or visitors after a specified time”.  [i.e 17:00 to 12:00]

In the report, the Vale Council officers go on to suggest that maybe Beachcliff residents  and visitors shouldn’t be using cars anyway – and drop a strong hint that these people should really be taking a bus or walking.

The officers say  Beachcliff  “would be served by alternative means of transport that would offer alternatives to residents than the private motor car alone”.

The Vale suggests that the use of the 50- space Cliff Top Car Park off Cliff Parade should be promoted to Beachcliffe residents and visitors - and suggests that walking to this car park would be good for them

The Vale suggests that the use of the recently enlarged 50-space Cliff Top Car Park off Cliff Parade should be promoted to Beachcliff residents and visitors – and implies  that walking uphill to this car park do them the world of good

The council officers’ report appears to suggest that at the very least Beachcliff residents and visitors should be walking further to  reach their cars and says that “Promoting the use of the nearby Cliff Parade car park as opposed to increasing on-street parking would encourage walking and healthier lifestyles”.

The £3,000 costs of setting up the new “all-comers” echelon parking arrangements outside Beachcliff  – including road-painting –  are to be met by the developer.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. leighA says:

    I cannot believe the arrogant and ignorant comments made by the council members! How many of them would be happy walking half a mile up and down a hill to get to their own homes, NONE! I appreciate the parking difficulty on the esplanade but the planning officers obviously approved the intended parking provision when they gave planning permission. Yest another example of our incompetent members! Role on the elections!

    • badger says:

      good for the council, why should they take parking from visitors? Developer knew there was no “dedicated” parking when he started. Now that is Arrogant

  2. Tony says:

    I think Richard Hayward has made a huge error by not dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on his application- one possible solution-
    I overlook the Alexandra Court flats and there is ample parking with spaces that seem to be unused-perhaps he could negotiate with the freeholders to rent some of those spaces-if not he may have some properties on his hands!

    • Willy Wonka says:

      It is highly unlikely that someone as commercial as RH would not have sought re-assurance from the Vale before commencing a risky development such as this. Moreover, the conditions of the lender would have meant he would have to have sought confirmation of the dedicated parking.

      Looks to me as though the Vale have back tracked on this one. I would be extremely peed off if I were the developer or an owner of one of these flats.

  3. Martin gossage says:

    What a sorry mess . Personally I can’t believe that the council can’t afford to offer up six private spaces especially as it appears they were part of the plans accepted. Pity developers didn’t build a six car garage and then plead forgiveness . What seems more worrying is that council didn’t keep to a rambling and unintelligible official speak to justify the decision but added a ridiculous caveat of walking and health etc .Didn’t someone at that meeting comment ” What would that comment look like on the front of The Western Mail ( PDN) ? With regard to losing six spaces for the public ,does anyone know why there are double yellows on the stretch by the pier .It must be the widest bit of road in Penarth ? Whatever one thinks of the practice certainly when people park there it doesn’t actually get it anyones way .Any ideas?

  4. Christopher David says:

    I feel sorry for Mr Hayward if he’s been “stitched” by the VOG- but as recorded here it doesn’t look like he’s tied it all up legally does it? Hence formal “permissions” asked now instead of last year. Having said that not in a million years should spaces on our beach front be allocated for private residences. This is not Dacha Russia (unless one is a Labour councillor) 🙂 . The beach front is for all- everyone. That would be very wrong, especially in crowded tourist season when locals and visitors are clamouring to park and some of these spaces are laying empty. Are the £600k flats not selling?

  5. Ralf says:

    It’s impossible to post an informed comment without seeing the exchange of e-mails between the VOG council and the developer.

  6. Kevin Mahoney says:

    I don’t really see why a private development should be allowed to commandeer a stretch of public road for it’s own parking requirements. If you require a parking space buy a property with parking provision not one without and then start whining about it.

    A more pressing problem for me is the transformation of the entire beachfront into a mass parking lot since the introduction of the herring bone parking system. This not only obscures the front by the mass of cars parked end on but causes all sorts of problems to traffic flow as parkers have to drive past the current parking spaces before attempting to reverse back in against the flow of traffic behind them which had no idea that the car in front was suddenly going to jam the anchors on and reverse back before pulling into the space that they spotted as they drove past.

    Quite often the car behind is too close to the car now trying to reverse back because they had no idea that the car in front was about to stop and reverse back against the flow of traffic thus causing chaos on a regular basis.

    Surely a better scenario is to revert back to the old parking method in addition to leaving a few dropping off zones for the elderly or infirm to be dropped off whilst the drivers then drive up and park on the hill or beach top car park and walk back down to the front?

    • Ian Perry says:

      Most of us learned to reverse park, into parallel parking spaces, as this was part of our driving test, and a much better way of parking than driving forwards into parking spaces, and mounting the kerb in the process of parking… 🙂

  7. Christopher David says:

    Sorry Ralf- its quite proper to object to private parking just on the principle discussed.

  8. Andy says:

    On this argument we should then take away the residents parking on Plassey Street, so vistors to our town centre can park.

    • Bobby says:

      You could be on to something there Andy. Why not put the same parking restriction on 6 of the parking bays outside Beachcliff so that the residents can park there if they have a permit, which is the same as many other streets around Penarth too.

  9. RosyB says:

    Serves the developer right! He should have included parking spaces behind/underneath the building. What does he expect? That fewer visitors come to the beach because he didn’t plan ahead? We said right from the beginning, when the building started, where are the owners going to park?
    And now we know! It’s on the Cliff Top!

    • Willy Wonka says:

      To be fair you can just imagine the conversation with the Vale who no doubt were very keen to see the Beachfront redeveloped from the sorry ruin that it was. They would probably have said that they would give hm permission to develop the flats and that they would see no reason why 6 places could not be allocated at some future date but it would of course have to go the through our formal planning process (wink wink) and the developed would have thought it was in the bag.

  10. Mark Foster says:

    It is so nice to read all these wordly, foresightful comments from the Gallois qui était assez stupide to install Windows 10 on his PC and even stupider to ask a UKIP w****r to send him an email to solve the problem. If he replaces his operating system with one which needs administrative privileges to update, that will stop viruses.

    That photograph of the apartment block and the Scharnhorst car park looks like a wonderful picture from Deutschland in the 1930s, and thanks to the Aussie for rebuilding your Pier, pity you couldn’t do it yourselves. Note the skirt length of the obviously Germanic woman walking along the front when you British were still a proud and honorable people instead of the bastardised race you’ve become.

    Will the Muslim Lord Mayor of London ban POTUS from Downing Street? That is the question M Cabane de Plage.

  11. whatsoccurin says:

    There is no solution-parking will always cause arguments-I worked for a time on the “blue badge scheme”-routine processing task-er no!-numerous argument about eligibility, then people wanting a designated disabled space outside their door, then wanting a social worker to speak to the neighbour who kept parking there!-it would be the same outside Beachcliff-on a pleasant summer week-end do we honestly think that visitors would say “Oh that’s residents only,I cannot park there” when there is virtually no traffic enforcement locally.

    (hI PDN-have changed my name because you have two people posting as “Tony”)

  12. Christopher David says:

    Well as long as you’re the one that’s worked for the last thirty years whatsoccurin Tony. Hey Big Davey I wouldn’t foster favour with mad mark- the only window 10 he knows about is the one with bars on- outside his 10th floor unit 🙂 Kiss x mein fuhrer foster. Oh jollity. Anyway yes I think someone may have been given the gypsies nod by someone but its undeserved to think one can nick 5 spaces off the public.

  13. M davies says:

    I have no sympathy with a developer who builds accommodation with no parking then complains
    This is not the first time
    Albert Rd community centre and church was developed with little parking so the surrounding streets have had to put up with their vehicles
    The council should Not give planning permission without suitable parking being arranged

  14. Fishhenge says:

    I think the council should rebuild the multi storey car park purely for the use of Mr. Wayward.

  15. Fishhenge says:

    Just noticed that Beachcliff bears an uncanny resemblance to the Barry Island beach huts in the picture at the start of this story.

  16. The Tax payer says:

    Never seen so many comments on a issue 👍 But glad see the VOG with some back bone and not taking the cash for a change !!!! 😎

  17. Colin says:

    Why did the car park go? over 200 spaces?

    • whatsoccurin says:

      the car park was a monstrosity-even when it was there drivers avoided using it-traffic will always be too great for available resources-years ago traffic on Penarth Road backed up to the Barons Court roundabout during rush hour-now there is the by-pass and flyover and traffic still backs up on Penarth Road on most mornings,

  18. AK says:

    The precedent has been set throughout Penarth with ‘resident only’ parking bays (although they always seem pointless to me as they mainly lie empty during the day when more spaces are needed for shoppers!)

    We have only recently got the spaces back on the esplanade, as they were previously taken up by outdoor seating areas for the pub/restaurant, so no net loss anyway.

    I always said if I had that money to spend on a property, I would want one with a garage and/or onsite parking.

    Poor planning by someone.

  19. Christopher David says:

    Shak Beach Frank?

  20. In-The-Know says:

    There is talk that a new car park will be included when the walkway to the Barrage is built. Fingers crossed!

  21. Christopher David says:

    Well AK you’ve opened a can of worms there. Personally I think residents only is a scam and unfair. Motorists pay road tax (what the pedantic call emissions tax) so why should the council section off road for private use? Consider too some residents don’t actually want to pay for this.
    Parking is a huge problem in Penarth et al and its galling to see rows of empty spaces when you have to drive to the town.

  22. AK says:

    Do residents pay for residents’ parking permits from VofG? If not, they should. Maybe a missed opportunity for our cash strapped Council.

    Pay for a permit if you park during the hours where others are restricted. Free if you park outside of those hours.

    And don’t bother telling me they pay through road tax!

  23. Christopher David says:

    Yes AK…………………haven’t quite got to grips with it all eh. Never mind. Its best to get the facts and have a good think about the bigger picture before forming an opinion ……in my thought out opinion heh. 😉

Comments are closed.