Sophie has supported the Reservoir Action Group's Campaign to Save Llanishen and Lisvane Reservoirs from development. Although Planning officers had recommended that the application should be refused there was concern that the reasons for refusal needed to be stronger in order for the decision to refuse permission to be upheld on appeal.
Sophie attended the meeting of the Planning Committee along with representatives from RAG and local residents to make these points (see the text of Sophie's speech below).
The representations made by Sophie, RAG and others were taken on board by the Committee and the application was refused on the basis that it contravened policies 7 and 8 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan
Commenting on the decision to refuse the application Sophie said:
"I am delighted that the Planning Committee have refused this application but whilst we may have won the battle we have not yet won the war as an appeal has been made to the Planning Inspectorate. It is therefore vital that the Council takes further action to protect the reservoirs from development and consider ways in which the reservior can be preserved and improved for future generations."
Text of Sophie's speech to the Planning Committee
I am sure many members have been approached by constituents and residents from outside their own wards about the proposals for development at Llanishen Reservoir. As a Cardiff Councillor I believe that at development at the site would not be in the best interest of the city and would contradict a number of the council's policies. Clearly the protection of this important strategic corridor will benefit residents across the city and is particularly important for the North of Cardiff.
It is clear that the site as it exists forms one of the most important areas of ecological interest in the city and I welcome the fact that this has been recognised by the Countryside Council for Wales. In this regard hard work that was undertaken by the Reservoir Action Group in assessing the importance of the reservoir as a nature conservation area and in identifying important varieties of grassland fungi must be commended.
Indeed the number of different types of wildlife which can be found at the site are considerable and it is my belief that the environmental impact assessment demonstrates some key areas for concerns about the impact the development would have on this wildlife. For example the sections of the embankment which it is proposed would be destroyed have been shown to support important assemblages of grassland fungi and there appears to no guarantees as to the success of the proposals to relocate them as mitigation for this, the suitability of the site for breeding the common toad would be reduced, the impact on lower plant communities would be adverse, grassland which support a number of species including green winged orchid would be lost, otters could face an increased risk of mortality, demolition of the houses would adversely affect bats, there would be a negative impact on glo worms on the site – the list goes on and clearly demonstrates that the proposals would be contrary to Policy 8 of the Local plan.
Whilst I am pleased that officers have taken this into account and have recommended that this application is refused, stating policy 8 as one of the reasons I am concerned that the other 6 reasons for refusal could be overcome if an appropriately worded unilateral agreement is submitted prior to any appeal hearing taking place. I believe that there are further substantial reason why this application should be rejected and that these should be included as reasons for refusal in the decision.
Firstly I wanted to touch upon the prematurity argument. Although I understand that that conclusions drawn in the report on this issue was that it is not a justifiable reason for refusal I believe that common sense dictates that that it surely should be included. Prematurity can apply where a development proposals are individually so substantial that to grant permission would predetermine decisions about the scale location or phasing of new development which ought properly be taken in the UDP context.
Whilst is it true that the council are not proceeding with the UDP, it has not been formally abandoned and the proposed development would go to the heart of that plan as it is so substantial in terms on the number of units and in terms of the impact on the green corridor. Guidance states that refusal would be justifiable if the development proposals went to the heart of a plan and surely the same principles should apply whether we have a UDP or an LDP.
It is clear that decisions on substantial development should be taken in the context of a strategic plan for the city as a whole and therefore it would surely be perverse for the Council to be forced to consider such a large development without a citywide development plan in place. I would therefore argue that a reason for refusal based on the principle that it is premature to make a decision without the background of the UDP or LDP should be included.
Turning to Policy 7 of the Local Plan, we have heard from RAG that policy 7 is critical and I would certainly support this view. I disagree with the Strategic planning Manger who believes that the development proposals are in accordance with policy 7 as they enhance the strategic recreational value. However can the strategic recreational value be enhanced when the proposals reduce the water are from 23 hectares to only 6 which would result in the reduction of sailing at this location and render the area unsuitable for the range of intermediate and advance level training course that are currently provided.
Furthermore how can the recreational value be enhanced when the proposals would destroy 1km of Llanishen and Lisvane Reservoirs, representing approximately 35% of the total area of the SSSI. Policy 7 is quite clear in that it protects recreational and amenity open space whether it is in public or private ownership and therefore surely must apply in relation to these proposals. I would strongly urge the committee to consider including this as a reason for refusal.
In conclusion I believe that it is essential that this area is given as much protection as possible and in the context of this planning application this can only be done by including all relevant reasons for refusal. The Council should support in the strongest possible terms the many thousands of residents who have objected to the development proposals by putting forward strong reason for refusal, they should identify other mechanisms for saving the site such as giving consideration to the ransom strip of land which is in the ownership of the council and should now move forward to release resources which would make the imaginative ideas which have been proposed for the future of the reservoirs a reality.
Recent Comments