PENARTH COUNCIL’S PLANNING CONSULTANT IS OVER-RULED ON CONSERVATION-AREA SCHEME

The external stone finish of “The Coach House” (in the centre-left of the photo) would be retained but the cream-rendered walls would be covered with cladding. Existing PVC windows would be replaced with timber casements

Penarth Town Council’s planning committee have over-ridden a recommendation from their new freelance planning officer on a proposal to install cladding on a property in the Penarth Conservation Area.

The planning officer Emma Langmaid, of the Prospero Planning Consultancy, –  who now (on behalf of the Town Council)  vets all planning applications made in Penarth – expressed reservations about the a planning application to clad the sides of “The Coach House” at Beach Lane, Penarth.

The Coach House in Beach Lane is within the Penarth Conservation Area. It’s proposed to put cladding on the outside walls of the building which are currently finished in cream

The property is  divided into two, and the proposal is in respect of the part nearest the camera in the shot above.

What “The Coach House” in the Penarth Conservation Area would look like with the new proposed cladding

It was explained that the scheme would involve the cladding of all sides of the building (excluding the area of the stone wall) from the first floor up with  Marley Eternit Cedral cladding in “Silver Grey”.

It is also proposed to change the windows in the front of the dwelling from the existing PVC to sliding sash windows and install a stainless steel flue for a log-burning stove projecting above the flat roof.

Giving her recommendation against the proposal Ms Langmaid said she thought building was  “at odds with the character of the area anyway” – which comprised smaller coach-houses –  and she was of the opinion that “putting the cladding on it is going to   highlight its presence even more  and perhaps isn’t the right way to go”.

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative St Augustines)

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward) asked “So this is purely a cosmetic change? “  and received confirmation that it was and that the property was already being lived in.

Ms Langmaid said the majority of the dwellings in the area are “coachhouses as we would imagine coach houses to be – they’re small and in stone “.

Cllr Nigel Humphrey (Labour St Augustines)

Planning chairman Nigel Humphrey (Labour St Augustines)  queried whether the building was in the Penarth Conservation Area. Ms Langmaid confirmed that it is in the Conservation Area – but was more of a “secondary frontage than a primary frontage”.

Cllr Humphrey said that ” If it was me I would want a better render or even a stucco  – but that’s just me”

Ms Langmaid said her opinion was that the proposed cladding would “highlight the building even more” and  that the scheme would be “detrimental to the immediate  context and character of where the dwelling is” .

Cllr Humphrey in the chair suggested that if the cladding was done “in larch – a much softer silvery grey” would Ms Langmaid have the same objection?

Ms Langmaid replied it was only possible to judge planning applications on the basis of the scheme as submitted.

Cllr Martin Turner said “It is sticking out like a sore thumb in the Conservation Area at the moment – what they are doing is making it look like two sore thumbs” .

Cllr Angela Thomas (Labour Plymouth Ward )

Cllr Angela Thomas ( Labour Plymouth Ward) disagreed – saying that the cladding would make the building look better than it now did.

Eventually the committee decided that it would not recommend rejection of the scheme but would make “No Comment”.

It will now be left to the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s planning officers to make the final decision.

 

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.

13 Responses to PENARTH COUNCIL’S PLANNING CONSULTANT IS OVER-RULED ON CONSERVATION-AREA SCHEME

  1. Plainjane says:

    With local authority budgets stretched this demonstrates how pointless PTC really is. No one can tell me what value it adds for the people of penarth. PS this is not about individual councillors or employees, it’s about the body itself

    • John64 says:

      Sorry, but I can’t agree, Plainjane. It is about 5individuals. If PTC was abolished the cemetery, Kymin, Paget Rooms, some leisure gardens (allotments) and some open spaces would still have to be managed. That would probably be VoG Council. There could be some cost savings in that but would the PTC precept be spent on Penarth? By passed performance I would imagine it being creamed off to Barry. There is nothing wrong with PTC as a body; it really is about the councillors we elect. It is the councillors who have let the wages and salaries bill soar, it is the councillors who chose to use a planning consultant and, now, ignore her, it is the councillors who have consistently chosen to increase the precept way above the rate of inflation. A few years ago this not happened and at that time there was hardly any comment on PDN. PTC was well managed.
      The real fault lies with us the electors; the 30% of whom voted put the councillors into West House and over recent years clearly have put their crosses in the wrong boxes.

  2. Paul Lewis says:

    It seems like a lot if time and expense to end up with “no comment”

    So why on earth are we wasting precious resources on such a pointless exercise in the first place.

  3. Zapper says:

    What a waste of good air…..totally pointless…..

  4. Anne Greagsby says:

    Congratulations to all those who voted for these Penarth Cllrs who can’t defend our conservation areas. What a waste of our time and money to say ‘no comment’. A planning consultant is always on the side of the developer. There is no written report so we must rely on PDN The role of the cllrs is to represent the people of Penarth, none of whom when asked about any planning issue would say ‘no comment’!!

  5. Anne Greagsby says:

    Disgraceful that there are still no minutes from the last town council planning meeting online or an agenda for this latest planning meeting.

  6. Chris David says:

    Yup- what’s the point when the VoG will do what they want anyway. Phil E Stine and gang will prevail.

  7. Less is more says:

    People don’t know what to do next.
    Bored and endlessly potching with their houses for the sake of it.
    Why don’t they just sit still and read a book?

  8. cogan nomen says:

    Why is everyone parking on
    The pavements in Beach Lane?

  9. Andrew Worsley says:

    Because they have found out they can get away with it cogan nomen why else ?

  10. John Powell says:

    Oh dear me, is this what the local Cllrs were doing while the town’s traders were getting on with rescuing the popular late night Xmas shopping event? They spent ages playing at aesthetes and architects and didn’t even show face at the shopping event yards away, to agree ‘no comment’?!

    Agree though that we need a PTC – we just don’t need this one!

  11. lindi says:

    who allowed that monstrosity to be built in the first place!

Comments are closed.