DEVELOPER RE-SUBMITS REJECTED NORTHCLIFF LODGE “LITTLE BOXES” SCHEME

 

The 3 proposed new apartment blocks for the Northcliffe Lodge site. The original artistic impressions were criticised in the previous planning committee hearing for giving “almost a misleading” impression of how much tree cover would actually be left after the building work was complete. It was pointed-out that buyers of the high-priced luxury flats would demand unobstructed views

Celtic Developments (Penarth) Ltd – HAS now submitted a new bid to  get planning permission for its controversial 30-apartment development at Northcliff Lodge on Penarth Head overlooking the listed Custom House  restaurant.

The firm has formally re-submitted proposals to the Vale of Glamorgan Council for the demolition of  Northcliff Lodge itself and its outbuildings and for the building of  30 luxury apartments in three staggered blocks on the steeply-sloping wooded site.

North Cliff Lodge – a Swiss-style mini-mansion in its own right valued at £1,200,000 –  was once the “lodge” of the main house “Northcliff” . It would be demolished to make way for the new development. The developer’s submission spells Northcliff with an “e”

The scheme involves the land outlined in red and will involve the removal of trees from the iconic headland. Three separate blocks of apartments would be built.

The scheme had been thrown out by the Vale Council planning committee in January, The committee criticised the  architectural style, density, and loss of green distinctive green wooded area of Penarth Head . Some local residents described the scheme as “little boxes”. A full report of the original planning decision in January is on   https://penarthnews.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/vale-planners-group-think-is-attacked-as-councillors-unanimously-reject-northcliff-lodge-scheme/

Just three months after that rejection, it appeared that the developers already preparing to submit a SECOND planning application.

This has now turned out to be basically only a slightly-modified revision of the original scheme  .(See http://tinyurl.com/yabxx2eq) – but with some reduction in the “massing” of some of the blocks.

Now this “MarkII” planning application for the 30-apartment scheme at Northcliff Lodge has been formally submitted to the Vale of Glamorgan Council .

The apartment blocks would be positioned so that each apartment has a view of the sea. Most existing trees on the headland site would be removed but some replanting would be carried out on completion.

Penarth Town Council was sent details of the new second application on June 15th – but, for some reason,  is was not discussed in the council’s planning committee on June 22nd.

Celtic Developments’ planning consultants LRM Planning say in a letter to the Vale Council “As a resubmission of a previously refused application (LPA Ref 2015/01449/FUL), made within the requisite timeframe and being of a similar character and description to the original and made by the same applicant, this application benefits from an exemption (free go).”

A computer-generated image of one of the proposed new Northcliffe Lodge apartment blocks

A computer-image of view between two of the apartment blocks

The developers say of their original ( rejected) application :-

” The application was written up for approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement, and the planning committee made a site visit on 5th January 2017. The application was presented to planning committee on 5th January, however the committee resolved to refuse the application, initially objecting to the scheme on the grounds of architectural style, density, and loss of green space. The committee meeting had to be adjourned on the recommendation of the chief planner in order that the Committee could be advised on how to word their reasons for refusal, to avoid exposing the authority to the potential of costs at appeal. Eventually reasons relating to size and massing and form of the development were given as reasons for refusal, as the committee considered the scheme as not having regard to site context, appearing out of scale and incongruous within the coastal headland context, and failing to either preserve or enhance the character of the adjacent conservation area or listed building.”

“Following the previous decision notice, the design team have reviewed the scheme and are submitting a modified and updated scheme as a new planning application, which takes on board the more relevant comments aired during the committee meeting. This document outlines the modifications to the scheme.”

The developer’s artificial photo-montage of what the new apartments might look like – set into the existing headland. The existing Northcliff flats are on the upper left, the old “French Renaissance” style Marine Buildings are on the right . Critics say it is doubtful whether, in reality, this much tree cover would actually remain in front of the new apartments as their views would be obstructed

The developers go on to say that “The Design Commission for Wales is supportive of development of this site which would ‘deliver much needed housing on an urban infill site’. The report commended the ambitions of the client and design team to deliver a high quality, innovative residential scheme, and suggested minor improvements to the scheme to increase already high quality and add further value.”

The “Mark II” application for the ‘Northcliffe Lodge’ development is now in the consultation phase and it will be some weeks before it comes before the Vale of Glamorgan Planning Committee for consideration.

 

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.

46 Responses to DEVELOPER RE-SUBMITS REJECTED NORTHCLIFF LODGE “LITTLE BOXES” SCHEME

  1. Frank Evans says:

    Re submit until you get approval. Greedy developers cost council tax payers a fortune.

    • Philip Rapier says:

      Please PDN use your considerable influence with Andrew RT Davies, constructively and request that he campaigns to ” call in” this application to the Assembly by applying pressure on the Environment Minister. There will be abstentions should it come to a vote and I know Plaid and UKIP would vote against it.
      If your contributors object to this application they should write by e mail to Vaughan Gething -and- Andrew RT Davies AM your local Assembly Members. In my opinion it matches all the criteria for referring to the Welsh Assembly Environment Minister to intervene.
      Plaid Supporters should write to Mr. McEvoy and there is also a UKIP Member for South Wales Central who are allowed to take this up on your behalf)

      The criteria are stated on the Welsh Assembly Government Website
      “What kinds of issues would normally be considered justification for “calling in” an application?”
      “The key issue for the Welsh Ministers is whether or not the application raises issues of more than local importance. If it does, then it may be “called in”.
      “The key issues for “calling in” an application can include:”……………
      Does it conflict with national planning policies, as set out in ‘Planning Policy Wales’ and
      the relevant Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statements?
      YES (part of the vista of the Wales Coastal Path)
      Could it have wide effects beyond the immediate area?
      YES (Spoiling the Vista will damage the Tourist Economy)
      Could it give rise to substantial controversy beyond the immediate area?
      YES (The view from Cardiff Bay is the intellectual property of the people of Wales)
      Is it likely to significantly affect sites of scientific, nature conservation or historic interest,
      or areas of landscape importance?
      YES (All seabirds are protected species and this is a nesting area)
      Does it raise issues of national security?
      YES (Obstructs a strategic observation point for Police and Coastguards)
      Does it raise new planning issues?
      YES (adjacent to a listed building)
      An application may be “called in” for other reasons at the Minister’s discretion.
      When an application is “called in”, we issue a direction in a letter to the council.
      Further guidance on the Call In process is available on the Welsh Assembly Website.

      • NewsNet says:

        PDN understands that this application is to be considered by the full Vale of Glamorgan planning committee and is not to be considered by a council officer on a delegated basis.

      • Jeremy Clickson says:

        Having finished you rant, perhaps you would enlighten us as to the reasons for your extreme prejudice against this development. You may or may not have a valid point or sixty, but your overreaction makes me wonder if you have some personal involvement that you have failed to declare? Do you have any history with the architects or developers that we should know about? Where do you live in relation to The Lodge? Do you ever partake of refreshments in The Custom House?

        Having looked carefully (with an open mind, something a few contributors on PDN should try once in a while) at both the original and the revised applications, the objections from the previous planning hearing seem to have been addressed by the developers. But from your attempt to whip up reaction to support your own prejudice, I say your hysteria makes no sense and at best opens you up to some questions about your motives.

        If councillors do their duty regardless of pressure from individuals like you, then the proposed development should stand or fall on its merits, and surely that would be in the interests of us all? My understanding of the previous planning hearing was that the developers could have chosen to go to appeal and that they might have won with costs awarded against the Vale Council, that would have meant us ratepayers bearing the cost.

        So please confirm Mr. Rapier. If you succeed in sabotaging the application and it subsequently goes to appeal and the council looses with costs awarded against them; are you prepared to indemnify the rest of us against the costs? Are you so certain of being in the right that you will put your money where your mouth is?

    • Jeremy Clickson says:

      Sorry Frank, your comment makes no financial sense, 30 homes paying rates comes to a lot more than just one paying?

      • Frederick says:

        You sound rather well up on the whole thing, Jezza. Let’s hope people don’t ‘question your motives’ too.

  2. winston wolf says:

    An attractive development which compliments the existing Northcliffe apartments , and contrasts with older architecture in a similar way………
    So– let the moaning , whingeing , bickering , snooty , sarcastic , po-faced , faux intellectual ,spell check obsessed nimbys , begin their inevitable prattling tantrums on why this ,- like just about anything else in Penarth that involves change,- is a REALLY,REALLY, BAD IDEA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Frederick says:

      What a way to describe anyone who dares to have an opinion which differs from your own, you tasteful, stylish, hip, live-and-let live, effortlessly erudite, interesting, cultured, progressive clever dick you.

  3. Ivor Bagman says:

    If they allow this development then I propose
    a 10 storey block of flats behind the dock buildings.
    This of course would include the facade and
    balconies on the existing buildings.

  4. sjleworthy says:

    I’ve personally no issues with it.

    The existing site is more or less alien and unseen to the majority of Penarth residents, (i bet more didnt even know the lodge existed than did), it’s hidden and unobtrusive and the new development now looks pretty sympathetic to it’s environment and a decent place to live.

    My only issue is, as with all new developments proposed for the general area, is the influx of more and more traffic, overloading the current state of play which is already at bursting point.

    • Daniel says:

      So you do have an issue with it and it’s an issue many people are concerned with. Not only would you have to deal with the inevitable increase in traffic volume (let’s admit it, the people who’d live in Northcliffe 2 will have more than one car), you’d have to start extending the already packed-out Albert Primary. As far as I’m aware, the Penarth schools are all at bursting point as it now.

  5. The Tax payer says:

    Just looking at the area marked in Red which I think you will find is incorrect. And I must say the proposed new flats look so much better than the new Billy Banks above Tesco and they have only been up a few years and not in keeping with any thing else on the skyline

    • NewsNet says:

      The aerial photo with the boundary of the site marked in red is an illustration included in the developer’s planning application.

  6. Cogan nomen says:

    Woodman spare them trees !

  7. OB says:

    What provision is made for car parking?

    • NewsNet says:

      The developers say that ” Parking for the proposed Northcliff development has been designed to have as minimal visual
      impact as possible. There is provision for 30 residents’ car parking spaces, 3 of which (10%) are
      disabled car parking bays. 20 of these bays are located within the undercroft to Block A. An additional 10 parking bays are
      located underneath a planted pergola framework.There is provision for 6 no. visitors car parking spaces, 1 for every 5 apartments. These are situated on the approach driveway, and opposite the undercroft parking to block A.
      The proposal also considers improving the car parking area at the Northcliff flats by reconfiguring
      and re-structuring the current parking arrangements. This would increase the number of parking
      bays currently held at Northcliff flats. This car parking provision would remain solely for the use
      of the residents at Northcliff flats. The plan below indicates 25 no. car parking spaces in total.
      The proposed access driveway will be screened from the car parking at the existing Northcliff
      flats by hedge planting and additional tree planting. These landscape elements will also help to
      structure the new parking arrangement, and are detailed in the landscape architects proposals
      included towards the end of this document”

  8. AK says:

    The computer images look good, but I’m never keen on Flat roofs.

    I see the new appartments on the other side of the Tesco swing bridge, and by the flyover, all have scaffolding back already and ongoing work to their flat roofs.

  9. Old Penarthian. says:

    Do all he Homeowners of Northcliff Flats still get a Cash Sweetener for their agreement regarding Re-structuring of their Car park.

    • Jeremy Clickson says:

      Is this not the same rubbish that was promulgated by Cllr Roberts at the previous planning hearing? He was wrong then just as you are wrong now. He quickly became invisible when called to task for his smear. Do the proper thing, man up and apologise to the families at Northcliffe for your ill-informed comment that bears no relation to the merits or otherwise of the proposed development

  10. Jean Thomas says:

    My first reaction to this development was, will it get closer and closer to the edge and end up in the sea.

    • Frederick says:

      One can only hope.

      • Jeremy Clickson says:

        That’s a very spiteful and unpleasant comment of which you should be thoroughly ashamed. Whatever your views of the issue, why on earth would you wish 30 dwellings with occupants such a fate. How would you feel if someone wished for the same for your family? Shame on you Frederick, shame on you.

      • Frederick says:

        I’ll get my sackcloth rig on now, Jeremy.

  11. The Deputy Headmaster says:

    There is no need for this development.
    There are brownfield sites a-plenty in Cardiff Bay and Barry, with water views.
    These sites need developing before established woodland is lost. Woodland, the green lungs of our town.
    Car parking is also inadequate.
    The Vale Council needs to reject again.

  12. Anne Greagsby says:

    Disgraceful example of greedy developers garden grabbing to build overpriced flats. Do we want to keep Penarth as a Victorian town or do we want to merge with the Bay as an extension of poor high rise/endless flat/apartment ‘modern’ architecture and living? Say NO to this aberration on the Penarth landscape.

    • Jeremy Clickson says:

      Erudite comments from Planet Greagsby are always welcome, but I’m struggling to understand how a resident of Ely, Cardiff can have such an interest in what happens in Penarth

      • Anne Greagsby says:

        Fake news. I live in Penarth. Why do some loons keep saying I don’t? It isn’t a very original smear!

      • Victor Y says:

        No Jeremy, Anne has moved to Penarth and now lives in a delightful circa 1950’s property just outside the Conservation Area boundary.

    • Blue says:

      Doesn’t your opposition to this scheme run counter to Plaid’ s policy of regenerating brownfield sites rather than digging up greenfields? As you are an environmentalist I would have thought that you would applaud this kind of scheme. The land has zero utility right now and developing this site will provide homes which, as you will have undoubtedly noticed being a newcomer to the town yourself, are in great demand.

      • Frederick says:

        Zero utility? Says who? What an ignorant attitude.
        The site is home to a variety of wildlife.
        Zero utility, my rear end. The word environment is not fit to come from your lips.

      • Anne Greagsby says:

        Still having a go at me..troll….haven’t got the nerve to say it to my face.

    • The Tax payer says:

      So who are you Anne ? And if you don’t live in Penarth what the —– has it got to with you anyway ???

      • Frederick says:

        This ‘not living in Penarth’ business is getting very provincial.
        If I don’t live in London does that mean I can’t have an opinion about the Grenfell Tower tragedy, for example?

      • Blue says:

        How is pointing out that Plaid’s policy is to regenerate brown field sites having a go at you? If I wanted to have a go I’d say that you’re a NIMBY, given that this development is very near to where you live. I’d also say that I find your attachment to Penarth a bit questionable given that you’ve only lived here a few months. I believe that you are on a mission, given to you by proven bully McEvoy, to “get involved” in civic life in Penarth as part of his vendetta against the Labour Party.
        I notice that he (and now you) have been involved in a row with Friends of the Earth Cymru over FoE Cymru sharing a platform with a Labour politician. How does this square with you being a member of FoE Penarth and how does Plaid Cymru CEO Mr Clubb feel about this spat given that he was a former CEO of FoE Cymru?
        I’d imagine that the imminent investigation into proven bully McEvoy will take a dim view of his latest egotistical and childish tantrum.
        Oh and by the way good luck with Penarth Matters. You’ll need it as very few people seem interested in joining with you to “save” Penarth.

  13. winston wolf says:

    Frederick, SERIOUSLY — thanks for the compliments man. Thankfully, there are more and more tastefull , stylish, hip , live- and- let live, effortlessly erudite , interesting, cultured , progressive ,”clever dicks” moving into this area . I hope more move in if the development is approved too , because they’ll help to water down the type I described above…..
    Thanks also for being the first response to (partly) fall into that description. You were so keen to show off that you didn’t even mention the pros or cons of the proposed development !
    What about the need for more housing ? What about some of the questions that are being raised , and the solutions to them which I’m sure will be provided ?? What about YOUR opinions ???
    I’m guessing you probably just think it’s a REALLY , REALLY , BAD IDEA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Frederick says:

      Ha ha Winston, thanks to you I’m halfway to urgent surgery for the splits in my sides – it’s made my day being accused of ‘showing off’. How I love that phrase. Do you use it often?
      As you ask, I don’t support this development. That cliff area seems friable and, more importantly, there are scant areas of greenery left in the town for wildlife – who I’m afraid I regard as infinitely more precious than all these poor homeless tasteful, stylish, hip, live-and-let-live etc types you seem to think would be attracted to living there (It seems to me there are quite enough of that type of w*n*er strutting about in this town already.)
      In my opinion – which I appreciate is not yours but are we both allowed to have one? – it is not enough to use the ‘need for more housing’ argument, which if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean building on any remaining land left in the town. Where does one draw the line? I think that line has already been crossed in Penarth and I believe there is a balance, a responsibility to preserve habitats for wildlife as well as hand on space to breathe to future generations. Sorry if that sounds pious or moaning or unfeeling of these stylish, hip etc types you hope will live in the development and ‘water down’ people like me but that is how I feel.
      I’m afraid that in being so ready to jump in – perhaps you too are ‘showing off’? – to ridicule my response, you rather missed my point. I was trying to highlight the fact that you appear to think anyone who doesn’t support this development is a hillbilly and by default, anyone who does support it is not. I’m afraid I don’t agree. I think people have good reason to oppose this development and should be able to do so without being dismissed or insulted for their views.
      I also objected to your dictatorial superior tone and replied in kind, though without the capital letters and endless exclamation marks which I find give the impression of a froth-mouthed maniac who is not prepared to accept that others may have a valid opinion if it differs from his own.
      Despite everything, you do sound a laugh so I hope we don’t have to carry on the fighting.
      Live and let live, ‘man’, that’s what we say here in Prattling Tantrums Towers. Just off to have a fit of pique.

      • Ron Foxton says:

        Why are ‘Winners’ so looked down upon by the cardigan-wearing Penarth Victorian cognoscenti?

      • Frederick says:

        Probably because we’re not all hip-to-trip foxes and wolves.

  14. snoggerdog says:

    these posts above, friends of the earth or friends of the developers,you decide.

  15. winston wolf says:

    Philip Rapier , just read through your comments. Agreed , all points of view should be aired and discussed , but — WOW !! The site of these flats are gonna damage the Tourist Economy ?
    It causes controversy against the intellectual property of the people of Wales ?? It raises issues of NATIONAL SECURITY ?!?!
    What next? Don’t tell me – the Russians are behind it ! It’s just a development Philip , its not the Seat of Lucifer ……….
    P.S. Jeremy Clickson – A joy to read your comments here. Like a breath of fresh air -Effortlessly erudite, interesting , and progressive ( you listening Fredrick ? )…. I didn’t know Anne Greagsby lived in Ely ? Oh , that reminds me :
    Anne Greagsby – PLEASE , PLEASE , PLEASE —— GO HOME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. winston wolf says:

    Frederick – That-a-boy ! That’s the spirit !!! Best post of the day and a joy to read . You made some good points there , and with style too!! Far more interesting (AND FUNNY) than some of the verbal cholesterol blocking up the pipes of spirited debate here !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    “PEACE AND RESPECT TO YOU , MAN” , as we say here in Hips-ville
    …….Now , I’m off for a strut around town.

  17. Anne Greagsby says:

    Reality check. Goodbye Penarth tree canopy and biodiversity…
    The officers can no longer allow little parking on the excuse that the development is “highly accessible” to facilities, like town centre locations. The LDP now adopted says the once hourly bus service with none after 6pm or on Sundays is sub-standard, and that a church and pub within walking distance does not meet the necessary range of facilities. The standard of one parking space per bedroom has to apply.
    The officers can no longer accept an assertion of little impact on the setting of the listed Custom House, but have to require the developer to provide photo-montage evidence and that the tree cover is maintained.
    Under the new Council leadership, who recognise over-generaous housing allocations in the LDP, we expect a tougher attitude to greedy developers.

    P.S. I support using brownfield sites but dispute classifying gardens as brownfield sites. This leads to overdevelopment and congestion in neighbourhoods and the destruction of heritage buildings and biodiversity.

  18. The Captain says:

    Having spent a lot of my childhood playing in the grounds or Northcliffe Lodge, I am surprised that any development can go ahead on the site. The entire plot is geologically unstable. Even in the few years I went there, there was a lot of ground movement. The old wine cellars alongside the orchard in the gardens were becoming unstable, a large portion of the orchard itself was slipping toward Dock Beach. Other areas of the garden were sinking and I believe that the House itself (Northcliffe Lodge) has become impossible to insure because of ground movement in that area? The whole site is slowly slipping North Eastwards. Good luck to anyone taking it on!!

    • Lucie says:

      Your right in it all going to end up in the Sea!Do we need anymore horrid buildings to ruining our lovely town.

      • snoggerdog says:

        lucie,youve got the word slightly wrong its not “need”the developers were thinking but it certainly rhymes with it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s