The campaign to save three houses on Church Road, Whitchurch from demolition and replacement with 61 private retirement apartments continues. I have been working with the residents' Action Group to oppose this development on a number of grounds. Firstly, replacing three houses with 61 apartments would, in my view constitute a huge over development of the site, the traffic congestion and over spill parking would cause chaos in an already congested area at the heart of Whitchurch Village. But perhaps most importantly I believe we should protect our local heritage. Church Road is a fine example of Edwardian properties which we should protect.
Along with the Residents Action Group and many residents from Church Road and further afield, I attended the Planning Committee to argue against granting permission for this development. We were unsuccessful in convincing the planning committee that this development should be refused. See below the text of my speech to the Committee.
Unfortunately the developers have now appealed. We will be fighting this appeal which is due to be heard in May 2006 and in the mean time I am pressing the Council to start work on designating Church Road as a Conservation Area which would provide it with protection from demolition and insensitive development in the future.
TEXT OF SPEECH TO PLANNING COMMITTEE:
Can I first thank members of the committee for attending the site visit in Church Road. I clearly do not need to explain the level of public opposition to these proposals to those of you who were there. The proposals have sparked an outcry amongst the whole community of Whitchurch who cannot believe that such a monstrous building could be allowed to be constructed in the place of three properties which are fine examples of the overall character of this road. Clearly the argument to maintain this area from this type of insensitive development will form the basis of the case that I intend to put to the Committee to refuse this application, but before detailing these reasons I would like to touch upon some of the issues that have already been raised by the petitioners and my ward colleagues.
Linda has mentioned the impact that this development will have on Whitchurch as a whole. This cannot be underestimated. The site is probably the closest to Whitchurch Village of any residential development and is situated in an area which already suffers from horrendous parking and congestion problems. Those of you who attended the site visit will have witnessed the fact that the road is heavily parked at the Village end around the same area as the application site and will have noted the difficulty that many vehicles had in passing each other.
To say that 61 new apartments in the place of three residential properties will not result in “any material increase in traffic on Church road” is clearly absurd. When you actually consider the calculations that have been used this assertion become even more bizarre. Apparently these additional 61 dwellings will only lead to an increase of 0.4% traffic on Church Road, which based on a calculation of 5000 vehicles per day is only 20 movements, only one traffic trip in and out for only a sixth of the residents on the site (and that’s if you count each couple as having only one car) and of course does not take into account the possibility of anyone visiting the residents (who may just stay in the visitors suite that hasn’t been mentioned), or the staff who will work in the Estate Managers officer, the cleaners who will clean the communal areas, or the gardener who will maintain the external areas.
The Traffic and Transportation Officer seeks to argue that car ownership in retirement homes is less than would normally be expected but it has clearly been forgotten that these so called retirement homes are for the active retired, in other words those over the age of 55. I wonder how many people over the age of 55 in this room own and use a car regularly. I would suggest that it is likely to be a good 80% if not more. Even when the residents do get older and therefore are possibility less likely to own a car can we really expect the traffic movements associated with them to decrease. On the increase will be visits from the friends, relatives, the doctor, the district nurse, the prescription delivery service. Can we really believe that all of this is going to be accommodated in 20 additional traffic movements a day?
I would argue that the traffic movements are likely to be substantially greater and the impact on the road as a whole will be exacerbated because of the location of the application site. For example 50% of the movements are likely to be turning into the development across the traffic thus holding up traffic behind them which due to the proximity to the main traffic lights in the Village is likely to result in queuing and congestion backing into the village itself.
The safety issues outlined by Acorns Nursery in their petition clearly needs to be a key consideration in assessing the impact the development will have.
The absurdity of the calculations on traffic movements translates just as easily into the absurdity of the contention that 30 parking spaces will be sufficient for 61 apartments. Despite the fact that common sense would dictate that a higher level of parking is required, the proposed level is actually contrary to our own policy which stipulates and I quote “where there is evidence of low car ownership levels a relaxation of the parking guidelines may be considered BUT a minimum of one space per residential unit should be provided plus visitor parking at one space per three to five units depending on location i.e. suburban locations would require visitor parking at one space per three units”.
On the basis of this policy a minimum of 80 parking spaces should be provided. I’m sure officers will come back and tell us that the emerging parking guidelines adopt a different approach but even taking these into account 45 spaces should be provided. I could carry on with the argument on traffic congestion and parking but as my colleagues and the petitioners have covered much of this ground I will move on to addressing the key issues in relation to the over development of this item and the inappropriate nature of what is proposed when considered with the surrounding area.
I fundamentally disagree with the comments of the Strategic planning Manager on this application and in fact his comments do appear to be contradictory. He states that “the use of three storey elements would not be considered to be dominant within or harmful to the surrounding area and street scene” and yet just a couple of sentences before states that the three storey elements of the proposal would be noticeably taller than surrounding properties”. This is a vast understatement. The proposed development would tower of existing properties being some 4 meters higher that the roof of the number 8 next door to the site. Coupled with this the building is some 50 metres wide so how this can fit in with a street scene of detached and semi detached properties I don’t know.
In my view the proposals are in clear conflict with policy 11 of the city of Cardiff Local Plan which states “all new development should be of a good design which has proper regard to the scale and character of the surrounding environment and does not adversely effect the aesthetic quality of the area”
The supporting text to this policy is perhaps even more relevant as it states “New development proposals must have regards for the established scale and pattern of the local built environment in terms of height, massing, space and character” How it can be claimed that a building which is 4 meters (12ft) taller, 50 (150ft) meters wide and 45 (135 ft) meters deep has” regard for the established scale and pattern of the local built environment in terms of height massing space and character” I do not know.
Policy 11 offers a clear reason for refusing this application as the supporting text states “insensitive development, out of scale and character with their surroundings will be rejected as will designs which adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the area”
In addition to this policy 30 of the Local Plan is critical. Policy 30 states “At appropriate locations existing residential units characterised by high standards of privacy and spaciousness will be protected against over development and insensitive or inappropriate infilling” It is clear to me that Church Road is exactly the sort of location that would be protected by policy 30. Church Road is characterised by substantial properties which have high levels of privacy and spaciousness. The properties also form a key element of the character of Whitchurch which myself my colleagues and most importantly local residents as so keen to protect. Indeed the support for the protection of these properties goes wider than Whitchurch as we have received statements of support from other parts of the City and as far afield as Essex!
Although these properties are large in comparison with other properties across the City we must put this in the context of a desire to protect these properties of character and also recognise the fact that the construction of a block of 61 apartments at this location which would be some 50 meters wide, 45 meters deep would clearly amount to an insensitive filling of the site. Indeed even the developers admit that for these purposes the site is small. If I can refer members to paragraph 5.4 of the report it seems that the developers have managed to convince the Council that on site affordable housing should not be provided as mixing private and public sector housing in the same block on a small site would be inappropriate. Have the developers scored an own goal in their attempt to avoid (quite inappropriately in my view) the Council’s requirements in affordable housing?
In my view this development is clearly too large for the site which should in any case be protected by the provisions of policy 30. However, I am not just asking you to take into account my assertion that Church Road is protected by policy 30, we do in fact we have even better evidence of the intention of Policy 30. The policies contained in the local plan are open to a subjective interpretation, as someone who works with the law, albeit a different field, I am well aware that lawyers can spend a vast amount of time and a vast amount of money arguing amount the interpretation of a particular section in a piece of legislation, making arguments one way and the other for what the intention was of the policy makers in parliament when it was drafted.
Although our local plan it not quite at the same level, the interpretation of it’s policy and an appreciation of what the policy makers intended when it was drafted is just as critical. It is fortunate therefore, if not perhaps a little unusual that in the context of the intention of Policy 30 we have actually been able to obtain evidence from one of the individuals who was responsible for developing it. Many of you will know that Sue Essex AM is a former Chair of this planning committee during the 1990’s. Sue was had a professional background in planning, having been a lecturer on the subject at Cardiff University. Sue has written to me to and I understand has copied this letter to you which has confirmed the following
“As one of the two people that was closely involved with the development of the local plan (during my days as a City Councillor and Chair of the Planning Committee) I would like to explain the background to the policy. It was included in the plan due to a specific worry that unless a specific policy was include dot help safeguard traditional, larger houses in the City we would loose some of the vital character of the City. It was recognised that there were certain roads in Cardiff that had houses of real historical merit and this was reflected in their individual character and indeed plot size. Church Road certainly falls into this category.”
In my view it is absolutely clear that Church road should be protected from this type of development by the provision of Policy 30 in the local plan. In fact I believe that there are two clear and justifiable reasons why the committee should refuse this application. Firstly and most importantly it does not accord with policy 30, and secondly it does not accord with policy 11.
In addition to this the committee may wish to consider the impact of traffic and parking as we have all outlined I hope that the committee will take on board the issues we have raised and will send a firm message to developers that the committee intends to support the residents of Cardiff wherever possible by protecting our areas of character. I urge the committee to refuse this inappropriate insensitive development.
Comments