A graphic impression of what the proposed new apartment development on the site of the former Monty Smith Motorists Centre might look like . Th public is now being invited to have a say

The company proposing to demolish the former Monty Smith Motoring Centre in Windsor Road Penarth and replace it with a 4-storey apartment block containing 21 dwellings – has dismissed criticisms of the scheme  made by Penarth Town Council and by local residents .

Penarth Town Council’s planning committee  – and some local residents –  had responded to a “pre-application consultation” made on behalf of the  developers X Stream Holdings and its consultants WYG .

The derelict Monty Smith Garage as it looks now

Despite having received a long letter from Penarth Town Council following a planning meeting on  December 6th 2018 –   and having received a number of objections to the plan from local residents  – WYG say they’re NOT going make any major changes to the scheme as it stands .

WYG say “No specific comments were received which were felt to warrant alterations or variation to the proposed development scheme as consulted upon during the pre-application consultation period. Therefore, the submitted plans and drawings remain unchanged.”

The firm has now submitted a full formal planning application – with unchanged plans –  to the Vale of Glamorgan Council – which will make the final decision,

Penarth Council had claimed the scheme constituted over-development of the site was out of scale with the surrounding houses and detailed a number of other issues:-

‘OVERDEVELOPMENT’ On “overdevelopment”  the developers say “In our view, the proposal is not considered to represent ‘overdevelopment’ of the site, particularly in the context/baseline of the extent of the existing garage premises.

SCALE: On the scale of the scheme the developers say ” In our opinion, the scale of the proposals is not out of scale with the surroundings, and the height in view of its ‘stepped back’ nature is not unsuitable or dominating, particularly on this prominent route in and out of the town of Penarth. The introduction of landscaped gardens at the front of the residential apartments provides an appropriate separation distance and buffer from the main road and assigns a comparable distance between the dwellings on the northern side of Windsor Road to that present elsewhere on Windsor Road. The height of the building frontage facing Railway Terrace is, in our view, entirely acceptable and has limited impact on surrounding dwellings given the secondary nature of the street”

APPEARANCE : The developers counter Penarth Council’s objections by saying “The contemporary nature of the scheme and introduction of high-quality materials and façade treatments (which takes cues from the surrounding architecture) is considered to create a high building which will significantly improve the overall street scene.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING : On the vexed issue of whether so-called  “affordable housing” should be incorporated in the scheme – this , the developers say ” consideration of an appropriate ‘off-site’ planning obligation provision will be discussed with Council officers in due course.”

ALLEGEDLY OUT OF DATE BAT SURVEYS: The developers say their  Ecology Surveys remain relevant as they were undertaken within the last two bat survey seasons. They confirm that no evidence of roosting bats were recorded during, with also no emerging bats seen during the survey. There is not considered to be a need to update the surveys.

CHARACTER : Penarth Council didn’t think the appearance of the apartment block would chime with the existing character of the area . The developers refute this saying that “The view is taken that the full height glazed balconies will create an active frontage and high levels of natural surveillance onto Windsor Road. The design rationale is not to implement a pastiche design, however, to respect the Windsor Road surroundings whilst introducing new  quality architectural approaches to the locality. Therefore, the introduction of rhythmic bay windows is not deemed necessary. The fenestration and façade treatment is deemed to integrate successfully with its surroundings. The stepping back of side elevation at second storey level is not deemed necessary.”

PARKING : Penarth Council had queried the number of parking spaces and the “sustainability” of the site. The developers say “It is maintained that the application site is served by frequent and well-utilised bus services, and is also within short walking distance of the Dingle Road railway halt that provides regular services to Cardiff and the surrounding hinterlands. As such the provision of 21 car parking spaces is considered to be more than sufficient.”

Railway Terrace residents have  complained about the potential danger to pedestrians safely for  on the narrow rear lane and a loss of privacy to the rear of their properties

ACCESS: A local resident in Railway Terrace had said that access to parking via a lane which runs at the rear of Railway Terrace would present significant dangers to pedestrians and increase the likelihood of collisions  – but the developers discount this concern –  saying that   “it is considered the vehicular access arrangements via the rear lane from a
highway safety perspective represents a safer access route than via Railway Terrace itself. This is in view of the opportunity for visibility splays to be blocked by parked cars on Railway Terrace itself – and the potential for these to be ‘lost’ if double yellow lines were required to maintain visibility.

LOSS OF LIGHT : A local resident had also complained of a potential loss of light – but again this concern is dismissed . The developers say “Any loss of light is not considered to be of a degree which would cause harm the existing residential amenity. In terms of overlooking of the rear gardens, a glazing approach to ensure that there are no direct views into the rear dwellings on Railway Terrace can be discussed in due course if required.”

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. Christopher David says:

    Well why would they take any notice of PTC? The VoG makes all the decisions regardless. Best just drop Goldsworthy a line eh!

    • Confuseddeanus says:

      Hi Chris baby you pop up like a bad penny everywhere. Vale of Glamorgan supplementary planning guidance parking guidelines one space per bedroom = 21 minimum number of spaces one visitor space per 5 Dwellings another four spaces provision should be made for disabled and probably would be at least one space reserved. I make that 27 spaces minimum. God help the residents in the local area. They have tried to mitigate their 21 spaces by reference to good public transport a load of nonsense.

      • Christopher David says:

        Oh Hello Dean Mears. What has your little post got to do with my little post?

      • Kevin Mahoney says:

        The Vale abandoned any pretence at insisting on parking provision at new housing developments many years ago and now use the coverall…”We’re encouraging property owners to convert to bimodal transport methods instead now”

        This from a council which has car parks for it’s own employees at every major council building.

        Translate, ‘encouraged to adopt bimodal transport methods’ to …….’do as I say, not as I do’…. I think the policy is called

    • Philip Rapier says:

      “In my experience, if you have to keep the lavatory door shut by extending your left leg, it’s modern architecture.”
      – Nancy Banks-Smith
      Cram them in tight as an All Blacks queue for a pint of Fosters mate!
      Remember the All Black motto as well “get your retaliation in first” !!!

  2. Birkett says:

    Maybe the developer picked up on the constant bitching about the Town Council on here and decided they don’t represent the will of the people.

  3. Denzil says:

    What a shock. Developers ask for comments then ignore all concerns as will impact profits. Hopefully VoG will impose a substantial S106.

  4. Derek@44 says:

    Doesn’t the present owner have a responsibility to maintain the present eyesore? Not to mention the fuel and oil contamination currently under the building! Digging underground for parking and underpinning the surrounding houses will be costly. I imagine immediate residents will need to be rehoused for the duration of this.

    It seems to be a dumping ground for his builders. Only clearing it up recently when it needs to be presentable for an application.

    21 flats is unacceptable on all fronts, the sheer height and scale of the design is out of keeping with the houses on all sides. Not to mention a total lack of privacy. I expect it will be passed in order to reduce the councils expenditure on the Windsor rd rejuvenation scheme. Although I hope the planning and council departments put the needs and wishes of the long-standing residents before a star struck committee.

  5. Cogan nomen says:

    The government said that brownfield sites
    Do not need planning permission if
    Used for social housing !

  6. Peter Church says:

    Anything is better than two derelict garages on the way into Penarth.
    Creates a great impression for visitors.
    Welcome to Penarth!!

  7. George says:

    Looks ok but whats the point of the balconies, nothing to see from them really. As for car parking don’t buy one if you intend to own a fleet of cars. 21 new lots of council tax is a great result.

  8. Alan Peters says:

    Monty Smith’s is an eyesore and should either be developed or at least maintained. I do not live in location to this site therefore I cannot comment on the pro’s and con’ of the proposal. People who live close to the building must be given a voice and their comments must be considered before any development goes ahead. In the mean time PTC should clean up the site.

    • Max says:

      Well we’ve all had a letter sent to us. Pretty comical reading the parking feasability section of the planning application. 5 separate times had been surveyed, 4 on a Saturday and once at 1am on a Wednesday. Shows a ridiculously poor understanding of the parking issues around this part of the town. Where residents parking is regularly taken up by shoppers or more often than not people who work in town. Peak time for families is midweek at 230-400 pm where I’m pretty certain there are 0 spaces available available for residents collecting their children. The idea that stating there is good public transport and thereby people won’t have a car is frankly ridiculous. They state in the application that a high percentage of people living in flats do not own cars in the area, but neglect to mention that most of the flats are occupied by social housing or used as halfway houses to support people with health issues. The rear elevation towers above the current building, and dwarfs the houses behind on railway terrace. The idea of a traffic light entry/exit to the undercroft parking is frankly ridiculous – to be noted they haven’t looked at the number of cars parked along railway terrace or indeed a traffic survey along said Street which is often used as a rat run at peak times. Oh and the houses along here are built on relatively soft ground with fairly insubstantial foundations, and were not designed to withstand the amount of vibration they currently receive let alone the digging and I assume pile work that will be involved to underpin such a large building. However if the kind fellows agree to underpin my house substantially, and the surrounding houses in the vicinity then that point would be moot. Will have to see what the letter stays!!!

  9. Big Davey says:

    Another story or two on top actually might improve the design and aesthetics.

  10. penarthblog says:

    I love the design, but I would have preferred a multi storey car park. Unlikely.

Comments are closed.