…AND ON YOUR RIGHT AS YOU ENTER PENARTH…HERE’S THE NEW APARTMENT COMPLEX

The revised plans for the proposed new Cogan Hill apartment complex which would be on the right hand side as you enter Penarth from Cardiff Penarth

The revised plans for the proposed new Cogan Hill apartment complex which would be on the right-hand side as you enter Penarth from Cardiff  –  adjacent to Cogan Station

Penarth Town Council’s planning committee last night considered a revised outline planning application to build a 4-storey 44-apartment block at the “Gateway to Penarth” .

The chairman Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell) told members  “the new proposal looks somewhat different from the old one – which if you recall was red brick and sort of monolithic”.

The new apartment block as it would look heading towards the Tesco roundabout from Penarth

The new apartment block as it would look heading towards the Tesco roundabout from Penarth

The Town Clerk Emma Boylen said the number of proposed car parking spaces associated with the development had now been reduced from 40 to 31.

Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell) chairman of Penarth planning committee

Cllr Neil Thomas (Labour Cornerswell) chairman of Penarth planning committee

Cllr Thomas said half of 44 apartments would be 1-bedroom and the remainder 2-bedroom – meaning there would be roughly 66 bedrooms in all .He said   the developers had consulted with the Vale Council [ about the ratio of car-parking spaces to bedrooms] and that this would fit with their recommendation .

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said “It’s still an eyesore”.

Cllr Thomas said it was a “big thing” to his eye. It was wasn’t “quite as offensive[ as the previous design] – but this was a matter of taste.

It was – he said – a large building “right at the iconic entrance to the town”.

The rear of the new block viewed from the Cogan Station car park

The rear of the new block viewed from the Cogan Station car park

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell)

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell)

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell) said finding accommodation was a major issue in Penarth and 44 apartments would “help quite a bit”. However Cllr Wilson wanted to know how many apartments would have disabled access. He went on to say that one of his main concerns was air-pollution  and wondered what the council could do to mitigate that.

Cllr Philip Rapier (Labour St Augustines)

Cllr Philip Rapier (Labour St Augustines)

Picking up on Cllr Wilson’s comment , Cllr Philip Rapier (Labour St Augustines) said a recent report had linked air pollution to cases of dementia  within a one mile radius  – along with risks of other conditions such as asthma.  He urged the Vale of Glamorgan council to update on its website all recent pollution analysis on Windsor Road  [which is already an Air Quality Monitoring Area] . Cllr Rapier said pollution in the area was already at “borderline levels” . In the light of the recent findings he expected there to be closer scrutiny of this matter. 

Cllr Rapier also highlighted local road safety issues and said that  if there was a Section 106 developer’s mitigation payment to be made to the local authority then it might pay for some traffic lights in the area – which were desperately needed.

A view of the rear of the building looking towards Penarth

A view of the rear of the building looking towards Penarth

Cllr Thomas confirmed that there would – or should – be a Section 106 payment made by the developer and he felt that Penarth Town Council should be involved in a discussion about how this money would be spent. He also noted that there was now no community meeting place anywhere in Cornerswell Ward and he would like to see a centre identified for community use – which again could be funded by Section 106 money.

Cllr Anthony Ernest (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Anthony Ernest (Conservative Plymouth Ward)

Cllr Anthony Ernest (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said the proposed apartment block would be a “very substantial building  and would be massive over-development”. He said he was all for having affordable housing . However all the other buildings in the vicinity were of relatively low height – “and this is going to stand out as a great big block”.  

Cllr Tracey Alexander (Labour Cornerswell)

Cllr Tracey Alexander (Labour Cornerswell)

Cllr Tracey Alexander (Labour Cornerswell) said “The number of units worries me. I know we need them. ” Following Cllr Rapiers concerns about air pollution she said there was a case for “planting – for absorption to help the situation “. Overall she felt the building “does stick out like a sort thumb in my opinion”.

Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward) is a member of the Vale of Glamorgan Council and Penarth Town Council

Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward) i

Cllr Clive Williams (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said he personally did not like the design and picked up Cllr Wilson’s comments on affordable housing –  noting  that there were “ a hundred people in Penarth who could buy the apartments – cash out of their back pocket – and rent them out”  . He suggested there should be a restriction limiting sales to owner-occupiers.

The Mayor of  Penarth Cllr Mike Cuddy

The Mayor of Penarth Cllr Mike Cuddy

The Mayor Cllr Mike Cuddy said he understood that the development was to be for a housing association – he thought it was Hafod working with Jehu the developers  – which would have a waiting list for tenants. It would be affordable and the rents would be below those advertised by local estate agents  .

Cllr Williams said if the apartments  were to be rented by a housing association on an affordable basis then he would withdraw his earlier remarks. He now 100% supported the development.

Cllr Cuddy went on to say that what had been “very poor”  was that there had been  no analysis carried out of  the Gateway to Penarth. The Design and Access section of the planning application was “very shoddy”  – but on the whole he supported the development.

Summing up Cllr Thomas said the committee was broadly supportive of the development although there were concerns about the design, about air quality in that area and how that would affect the residents, about the need for planting to mitigate pollution and “soften the design” and about road safety . The council would also want to  consulted about the distribution  Section 106 cash received from the developer.

Cogan Community Hall in 2008 (left) and in 2013 (right)

Cogan Community Hall in 2008 (left) and in 2013 (right)

Cllr Anthony Ernest said the building would replace the existing “Cogan OAP Hall” – which had originally been built for the   American servicemen in WW2 . “It was a nice little hall when it was running and gave a lot of pleasure to the residents of Cogan – and they’ve lost out since that’s gone”.

Cllr Wilson pointed out there were other halls in the area but Cllr Thomas noted out that there were restrictions on Hebron Hall in Cogan as to what could take place there.

The committee – with the caveats above – is to recommend approval of the outline application for the proposed apartment development.

 

 

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . 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.

33 Responses to …AND ON YOUR RIGHT AS YOU ENTER PENARTH…HERE’S THE NEW APARTMENT COMPLEX

  1. Penileaks says:

    Blimey, I thought that the Billybanks flats had been demolished and removed, but obviously someone has stored the materials in readiness to build these. Nice.

  2. Frank Evans says:

    Over development and completely out of place. But planning applications is a game of many rounds let’s see what is actually built.

  3. Jane Foster says:

    And another iconic mature tree faces felling. However, I’m pleased to see this architect plan doesn’t pretend to be a mature tree oasis like most plans we have seen of late.

  4. Frank Bird says:

    Oh Joy, try getting out of Windsor road at the moment! Anyone noticed how much traffic is turning in from the flyover, only to spin around the Tesco roundabout and miss the long queues for Barry Road? I counted 5 this morning while I was trying to get out.

  5. Dave says:

    Four floors is to high for the area, unless you knock down the opposite units and match it with another four floor block, could even then arch it over the road as a proper gateway. Seriously a couple of floors is enough, curb your greed Mr Developer.

  6. Grey local says:

    Councillors are plainly living La La land if they think the parking allocation is sufficient. Gone are the days of one car oer household nowadays it’s one per person.

  7. Anne says:

    What an ugly ugly building. The housing association isn’t doing any future tenants any favours. This is a air pollution hot spot – will add to congestion – shortage of parking space – is there a lift? – where is the utility area? At the same time this ugly design is an insult to the people of Penarth and will stand out in all its ghastly glory to stigmatise its tenants for as long as it stands. I hope the people of Penarth let the town council know what they think of their decision to agree to this next May elections.

  8. BluesMan says:

    That land should be being used to improve the roundabout and access in and out of Penarth! They should widen the bridge, put a better roundabout in, and more lanes!

    This is just going to make getting out Penarth in the mornings even worse.

    • Matt says:

      I agree 100%.

      This proposed development is totally inappropriate for so many reasons: ugly, out of character, cramming, no amenity space, lack of parking, highways, pollution etc.

      Our representatives should be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that hideous and damaging developments like these are robustly rejected on numerous material planning grounds.

    • John64 says:

      Good point, BluesMan but there’s one drawback. This is private land and purchased for development at what cost? For highway improvements Vale of Glamorgan Council would need to purchase the land but I don’t think the Council has any capital resources. Best shot will be Section 106 for some improvements.

    • snoggerdog says:

      i personally dont own or drive a vehicle but im 100% with blues man here.

  9. Guy Wooles says:

    Urrgh!

  10. meliden says:

    OK help me here. My maths skills are clearly lacking.

    “Cllr Thomas said the developers had consulted with the Vale Council [ about the ratio of car-parking spaces to bedrooms] and that this would fit with their recommendation”

    So in other words the VoG are happy to see 31 car parking spaces for 44 apartments or 66 bedrooms.

    31 divided by 44 = 0.70
    or
    31 divided by 66 = 0.47

    So each flat can have 70% of a car or each bedroom 47% of a car.

    How does that reconcile to what was said by actiivist on Northcliffe application earlier this month.

    “Ms Greagsby also noted that only 30 car parking spaces were being envisaged for the 30 apartments – whereas the adjacent – and recently-built Mariners’ Heights development had been required to provide a ratio of one car-space per bedroom. That should have meant a parking provision of 65 spaces”

    What’s going on?

  11. Kevin Mahoney says:

    It’s hideous.

  12. Mgg says:

    A lazy design again. But authorities hands are tied. There is just no option to refuse on the basis of aesthetics.

    • Matt says:

      There is! You wouldn’t think so though. Council’s often moan that their hands are tied and that they have no choice but to accept damaging planning applications. Some of the time they ignore valid material grounds for refusal or refuse applications with weak reasons.

      The official government lines on design:

      “The planning system provides the means to encourage good design, not just in conservation areas and other attractive places, but everywhere. Securing good design is central to good planning. The appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are relevant to the consideration of a planning application and PPG1 makes it clear that local planning authorities should reject poor designs.”

  13. Mark Foster says:

    It looks like the British Embassy on Wilhelmstraße in Berlin. LOL.

  14. AK says:

    Cllr Rapier also highlighted local road safety issues and said that if there was a Section 106 developer’s mitigation payment to be made to the local authority then it might pay for some traffic lights in the area – which were desperately needed.

    We do not need more traffic lights in the area, we need the lights halfway over the flyover, and at the Ferry Road roundabout to be turned off at off peak times and traffic to revert to highway code priorities.

  15. AK says:

    Free parking at the park and ride, and at the leisure centre.

    Problem solved….

    • Robert says:

      Not solved at all. You obviously don’t live close to the planned building application. There are some nights during the week that both the leisure centre and park and ride parking are completely full. No chance for locals to find a space.

      • AK says:

        My comment was entirely flippant – I do indeed live close by and will be driving past daily.
        But I’m sure the residents will make full use of the available free parking !

  16. I agree. More traffic lights will increase the pollution as outside the peak periods motor vehicles will be waiting at the traffic lights rather than just passing through.
    I would love to see the statistics regarding the extra pollution caused by traffic lights which are not switched off when not needed.
    I’m sure they exist somewhere and the Department of Roads are frightened to release them.

  17. Louise C says:

    1 parking space per bedroom. Simple.

  18. Dave says:

    Traffic lights would make the Penarth marina rat run less attractive but not cure anything just redistribute the problem back to Windsor Rd. There is no cure and air pollution will keep going up for a few more years until electric cars become mainstream. Maybe smog filters in the aircon in the new flats will come as standard.

  19. Robert says:

    Have a look at the NEW vale of Glamorgan parking campaign. ‘PARK TIDY CAMPAIGN’ on their website! What a cheek. If this development gets the go ahead I’ll be asking plenty of questions.

  20. Cymry Llundain says:

    Where is the amenity space? The Vale of Glamorgan’s own guidance for gardens (amenity space) states that flatted dwellings of this size should have around 1000 square metres of individual or communal gardens.

    It’s in this document: https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/Documents/Living/Planning/Policy/Amenity_Standards_SPG.pdf

    “Provision of Amenity Space for Flatted Developments
    5.6 The provision of individual areas of amenity space per residential unit created in flatted developments may in practice be inappropriate and unworkable. In these circumstances developers should provide private communal garden areas which are clearly defined, controlled and accessible to all occupants. Design of these areas should be carefully considered to ensure that all functional requirements of the residents, such as relaxation, clothes drying, refuse storage, etc. are located and designed in such a way as to avoid conflicts.

    5.7 The size of any communal garden should
    relate to the number of people who have access
    to the space and are likely to use it. In flatted developments, developers should aim to provide
    a minimum of 20m2 amenity space per person.”

    If they followed their own planning guidance this development couldn’t be allowed, nor would any planning inspector overturn it on appeal.

    • AK says:

      This argument was tried to block the build of the appartments opposite the leisure centre – thankfully the Council recognised that the amenity space existed already on the other side of Andrew Road.

      They call it ‘the Rec’

  21. Lex79 says:

    This application, if it were approved, would be extremely harmful to Penarth . It is overbearing, out of character, has poor design, no amenity space and insufficient parking. It would increase traffic at an already saturated traffic bottleneck and add to documented poor air quality!

    So low quality housing in an inappropriate location which will have a negative impact on everyone in Penarth! Why would any council recommend this development for approval? What would their motives be?

  22. Ford Prefect says:

    I think developing this spot is a good idea. Being immediately next to the train station will encourage the residents there to use the trains, and not to be lazy and selfish in their cars.

    However, the design of the building is ugly and not exactly on the scale of surrounding buildings.

  23. Barry boy says:

    Nimbyism is alive and well I see

Comments are closed.