MONTY SMITH DEVELOPERS ARE “RIDING ROUGH-SHOD” OVER PENARTH COUNCIL

The derelict former Monty Smith “Motoring Centre” in Windsor Road. It’s proposed to demolish it and build 4-storey 21-apartment residential block on the site

Penarth Town Council’s planning committee has formally criticised the developers of the proposed new 21-apartment residential development on the site of the former Monty Smith garage  for “riding roughshod” over the council.

As reported by PDN on January 3rd 2019, the developers – via their agents WYG – had invited comments on the Monty Smith scheme  from local residents and from Penarth Town Council  in a what was described as a “pre-application consultation“.  [See PDN http://tinyurl.com/yaock6g9 ]

A graphic impression of what the proposed new apartment development on the site of the former Monty Smith Motorists Centre would. Penarth Town Council has now voted to oppse the development

In response, Penarth Town Council had sent a long letter to the developers which said that the scheme constituted over-development of the site,  was out of scale with the surrounding houses and listed a number of other issues …. but didn’t get so much as the courtesy of reply from the developers.

It’s now clear that the developers have airily dismissed all the comments made by Penarth Town Council – and by local residents – and has lodged a full, unchanged and unamended  planning application with the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

In that formal planning application the developers 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.”

…This has not gone down at all well with Penarth Town Council.

Cllr Nigel Humphrey (Labour St Augustines)

Planning committee chairman Cllr Nigel Humphrey (Labour St Augustines) said Penarth Town Council’s  letter had given the developers the opportunity to address the council’s concerns but  “as far as I can see nothing has changed”  . 

He said that the developers had asserted in their Consultation Report (to the Vale Council) that a “robust pre-application process  has been undertaken to ensure the content of the application is suitable. As such the application can be validated and registered properly”. Cllr Humphrey said I would say this is not the case”

Cllr Humphrey went on to say “The intention of the legislation is that local communities should have an early opportunity to influence development which they then have to live with.  Our comments have been dismissively ignored and the legislation rendered meaningless”.  Cllr Humphrey proposed to send his comments to the Vale of Glamorgan Council planning committee.

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell)

Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell) said he saw very little change in the developers’ proposals and very little consultation.  He reminded members that the site was a key frontage on Windsor Road”. The developers had been given an opprtunity to have a development which would be “much more consistent with what’s there at the moment“.

Cllr Wilson added “They’ve ridden roughshod over us to be honest. They’ve ticked some boxes. This is what it feels like.They’re not going to listen to us. They’re just going to steamroller it through  .  To say that the application has been validated is a big statement and I think it’s totally unjustified.” He “strongly supported” the Town Clerk’s view that the council should oppose this application .

Cllr Martin Turner,

Cllr Martin Turner (Conservative Plymouth Ward) said the developers should at least have acknowledged council’s comments . The Town Clerk confirmed that the council had not received the courtesy of a response,  nor had the developers responded to the invitation to attend a planning committee meeting to give a presentation explaining the development to the council.

Penarth Town Council will now formally object to the development at 56 Windsor Road . The final decision will be made by the Vale of Glamorgan Council.

 

 

 

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address newsnet@sky.com. 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.

19 Responses to MONTY SMITH DEVELOPERS ARE “RIDING ROUGH-SHOD” OVER PENARTH COUNCIL

  1. Christopher David says:

    They can only “ride roughshod” if the council has no powers and no relevance! So what is the point of a powerless council? We all know that all you have to do is talk to Goldsworthy.

  2. Andrew Worsley says:

    Hmmm does money talk in this instance?

  3. Anne Greagsby says:

    Isn’t this a conservation area? Shouldn’t it be? Reducing the size of many areas classified as conservation areas is allowing this sort of building to happen.

  4. snoggerdog says:

    one of the developers would not be allowed to do that in his own country,new zealand,too many rules & regs, but here ,pound to a plnch it will go thru.

  5. Graham Vodden. says:

    doughnuts

  6. mikeyorke says:

    Unfortunately, as I’ve said before, you can’t say it’s out of place. What was there before want exactly pleasant to look at. You only have to look across the road also to see that this argument is flawed.

    However, I do think that the parking provision is a massive problem. 21 flats and 21 spaces. It’s highly likely that there will probably be at least 30 residents cars thus making parking around the area even more difficult. And what’s to happen when the council turn the streets in to permit parking. Will the residents get passes? I’d argue that perhaps they shouldn’t because the developers said there is enough provision. Bit more then likely, they’ll get a pass accepted.

    I wonder if the council can consider constructing a multi-storey car park in the grounds of the police station car park. After all, the wall surrounding it isn’t stable and they’ve bought and installed 40+ huge rock filled metal frame cubes so there is a huge amount of waisted space to save a wall! So much so that there vehicles are now taking up valuable roadside spaces. . In the multi-storey carpark, the police could have a number of spaces on the ground floor. Then a certain number of spaces could be offered to local businesses at a reduced rate if “rented” over a 3, 6, 12 month period perhaps. The rest, for shoppers etc. Make it cheap for up to 6 hours then double the price for over this time (they do this in the John Lewis carpark in Cardiff? Just an idea. They aren’t going to put a carpark anywhere else as all available land has been sold off. And there are numerous ways of saving space with space saving carpark entrance/exit technology.

    • penarthblog says:

      The idea of a car park here is ok, it’s a bit far for those with mobility problems, but it would be better than nothing.

    • Frank Evans says:

      Your argument is b*ll*cos
      A victorian mid terraced 3 bedroom house in penarth might have 3 cars with room for only one immediately outside the property. The saving grace is not every house has 2 or 3 cars. New build however for 300k is likely to have two high earners which will have two cars.
      Problem is the cars and not the flats so don’t blame the developers

      • mikeyorke says:

        Thank you for your response Frank. Victorian terraces we’re here long before households had so many cars, and even when they did they were much smaller than they are now.

        However, new developements should be taking this in to consideration instead of making the problem worse.

        I’ve come up with an idea which you can (hopefully politely respond next time), what ideas do you have for Penarth parking problem? Over to you Frank

  7. RetailGuru says:

    Funny that, PTC don’t respond to their constituents or businesses either! How does it feel guys?!

  8. Mrs Grayson says:

    I love it – what a massive improvement to the derelict mess that the old petrol station has left behind

    Huge improvement to the drive up to our Main Street in Penarth

    Yes it’s modern, yes it’s big

    Wake up people things need to be changed for the better

    • no point says:

      and i’ll bet you think Dubai is a sophisticated holiday destination too.

    • Peter Church says:

      Agreed, anything is better than two derelict garages.
      Nimbys all around.
      No Point to their arguments

  9. no point says:

    it has seemed for years nobody can raise issues about anything to do with planning.
    they may have valid points but are always called nimbys or “jealous” and thus any valid contributions are dismissed and we end up with the town looking a right mess.

  10. StAugustinesResident says:

    PTC themselves ‘airily dismissed’ exactly these concerns from residents over the development of St Paul’s in Arcot Street.

  11. cogan nomen says:

    I wonder why the council doesn’t compulsorarily buy these places .
    They could build a high rise like opposite the Kymin
    And house loads of people , too poor to own cars .

  12. Peter Church says:

    Is Cllr Mark Wilson (Labour Stanwell) on a Gilets Jaunes protest?
    If so will the PTC be giving out the Yellow Vest to others.

Comments are closed.