Saturday, December 8, 2012

Working Group update - December 2012

Dear Colleagues
It has been some time since we last produced an email. Basically things have been quiet as we continue to wait for a date from RCT when they will be considering the outline planning application for the new town centre.
More recently some associated planning activity has taken place:
1. Sainsbury submitted a detailed planning application for their store. Essentially there is little that is new, but as a working group we did submit a response which can be accessed through our blog here.
2. The RCT website stated that both the outline and detailed planning application would be considered on 6 December but this was then withdrawn. We are preparing to make verbal submissions and generally lift campaigning activity if, as currently expected, they are put before the council in January or February.
3. Cardiff County Council has started consultation on their Local Development Plan which among other things involves a housing development of 2750 North of junction 33 see here.
4. Renishaw who have taken over the ex Bosch factory South of junction 34 intend to submit an outline planning application to the Vale of Glamorgan council to develop the site, increasing the size of the factory and in the longer term providing a warehouse / distribution facility together with one catering for training and R&D.
Although not part of RCT both the Cardiff and Vale development will impact upon access and life in and around Pontyclun. Some of us, however, can see considerable merit in the Renishaw application when compared to that of the New Town Centre. The problem we face is that we live on the boundaries of these three councils and close to the M4 so they impact upon us, but we are outside two of the planning areas. The Welsh Government is moving toward a planning strategy that be regionally based upon major urban areas. It would have been helpful to us if this was the current approach but it seems unlikely that the LDP system will change in the current cycle, going up to 2026.
However, despite living outside of Cardiff and the Vale it is possible for us to comment and we should do so. The Pontyclun Community Council should be invited to respond and this seems an effective way through which our comments could be made – especially as a number of us involved in the working group are now community councillors!
It would be very useful to bring people from Pontyclun together early in the New Year discuss how we might respond to these new developments. Let us know if you would be interested in coming to a public meeting.
All the best and seasonal greetings
Len Arthur and Claire Williams for the working group

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Our response to Sainsbury's planning application

Email sent on behalf of the Pontyclun New Town Centre Working Group

For the attention of Mr Jim Bailey

Representation on Planning Application 11/1330/13 (addendum and revised plans received August 2012) and the Talbot Green Town Centre (Phase 1) Design and Access Statement September 2012.

Land adjacent to Cowbridge Road and A473 (inc Leekes Dept Store, former Purolite works and Staedtler factory site), Talbot Green, CF72 8XU.

Dear Mr Bailey

This is the third submission from the Pontyclun New Town working group. The first two submitted in December 2011 and September 2012 should be read as providing the main response to the September 2012 Design and Access Statement taking forward Phase 1 of the proposed development in relation to the establishment of a new Sainsburys Supermarket.

We remain concerned that the September Phase 1 application again refers in detail to the discussions between the developer and RCT but has little regard to the issues we have raised on behalf of the community. We trust and hope that the councillors will have proper regard the issues raised in our submission when they consider the proposals on 6 December 2012.

In this submission we wish to emphasis two points made that we made in the earlier submissions.

1. The basic assumption of the plan is to encourage the diversion of local car based retail consumers from in RCT and other local areas to this development. Yet the plan still does not include a specific plan to improve the highway structure to accommodate your planned expected increase in traffic. The junction of the A473 and the A4119 is already a bottleneck at peak times, resulting in ‘rat runs’ through other largely residential areas. This will undoubtedly increase if this development progresses without prior attention to the highway infrastructure.

2. The plan for Sainsbury’s continues to include building on a greenfield area when sufficient space is available on brownfield land.

In addition to the points highlighted above we note under section 3.3 that contamination of the ex Purolite site was identified and ‘remediation work to the ground has been carried out’. We would wish to be provided with details of what this work entailed and how it is expected to cope with the contamination identified?

We attach for completeness our previous letters in response to the application(s).

Kind regards

Yours sincerely

Claire Williams & Len Arthur

On behalf of the Pontyclun New Town Centre Working Group

42 Heol Miskin

Pontyclun

CF72 9AJ

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Pontyclun Community Council's response

All

Below is the introduction to the Pontyclun Community Council response to the new town centre planning application. It was agreed at the September PCC meeting and has been sent into RCT. The response is a merger of the PCC first one sent in December and the working group's own latest response. The introduction includes all the main changes. It is important to stress that this is the formal response of the PCC and is a different document to the one submitted by the working group.


C/11/1330/13                                                  27 September, 2012

Service Director Planning
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council

Sardis House

Sardis Road

Pontypridd
CF37 1DU

For the attention of Mr Jim Bailey
Representation on Planning Application 11/1330/13 (addendum and revised plans received August 2012).

Land adjacent to Cowbridge Road and A473 (inc Leekes Dept Store, former Purolite works and Staedtler factory site), Talbot Green, CF72 8XU.

Dear Mr Gale,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the amended application and for agreeing to extend the submission date for the Pontyclun Community Council’s response so as to enable us to complete our democratic process.
We note that the amended application is almost exclusively responding to the points of negotiation between the developer and RCT. Consequently, we are very concerned, that an opportunity has been lost to respond positively, to the many points raised by the local community, in the first consultation process. This does not reflect well on the priorities of the developer or RCT and raises serious questions about the validity of the consultation process.
In our earlier response to this planning application sent to you 31.12.2011 we made the following points:

1.     That, in the event that Planning Authority is minded to award consent, the Borough Council be asked for its plans on how it intends to preserve the viability and vibrancy of the village of Pontyclun.

2.     That the Planning Authority be informed that the Community Council has grave concerns about the amount of traffic which will be generated by the development on an already overloaded highway system at peak hours.

3.     That the Borough Council insist that a traffic assessment, independent of the applicant, be carried out to take account of known major residential planning consents in the area and the likely impact of the new town centre proposals.

4.     That the cost of the report be borne by the applicant.

5.     That an environmental impact assessment be carried out, independent of the applicant, on the effect the developer’s proposals for the village of Pontyclun.

6.     That the cost of the report be borne by the applicant.

It is with great regret therefore, that we find ourselves in the situation of having to repeat all the points made during the first consultation period. In particular the Pontyclun Community Council wishes to draw the planning committee’s attention to our point number 1 above as we consider this to be the most significant threat to the community we represent. Since the first response the Pontyclun Community Council has now had more opportunity to reflect on the wider implications of the proposal and would now like to make additional comments relating to access, the environment, the design, thriving local communities, activity and safety and a fair approach for all. These are detailed in the rest of the letter.
The development does not look like a town centre, still resembling an out of town shopping park. Moreover, it appears to be one that is detached from the local community with a lack of pedestrian and cycle access. In short, it looks like a concrete walled and road moated privatised space, excluding people when the shops are shut or when they do not have much money to spend. Our proposals seek to address these points and we have every expectation that they will now be seriously considered.
The applicant has provided a Design and Access statement which states that the application should result in a town centre which would be
· Active, inclusive and safe
· Well run
· Environmentally sensitive
· Well designed and built
· Well connected
· Thriving
· Well served
· Fair for everyone
The Pontyclun Community Council is objecting to the application because the specific actions set out in the application do not meet in several crucial respects many of the above key attributes set out by the applicant.
We understand that the Local Development Plan makes provision for retail development on this site. Within the community our survey indicates that there is a majority of people who would welcome increased retail and leisure activity on this site. However a very large majority of residents want a development that meets key concerns that they have. Our objection is based on the fact that the application does not sufficiently meet those concerns.
We are making this representation within the extended period of consultation to 30 September agreed verbally with Mr Jim Bailey. Nevertheless as the discussion continues within the community we hope that you will be willing to receive further representations from the PCC.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

New Response to be in 18.09.2012



Claire Williams and Len Arthur
46 Heol Miskin                 
Pontyclun
CF72 9DQ

 
Service Director Planning
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
Sardis House
Sardis Road
Pontypridd
CF37 1DU

Pontyclun New Town Working Group

Representation on Planning Application 11/1330/13 (addendum and revised plans received August 2012).

Land adjacent to Cowbridge Road and A473 (inc Leekes Dept Store, former Purolite works and Staedtler factory site), Talbot Green, CF72 8XU.

Dear Colleagues
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the amended application.

We note that the amended application is almost exclusively responding to the points of negotiation between the developed and RCT. Consequently, we are very concerned, that an opportunity has been lost to respond positively, to the many points raised by the local community, in the first consultation process. This does not reflect well on the priorities of the developer or RCT and raises serious questions about the validity of the consultation process.
It is with great regret therefore, that we find ourselves in the situation of having to repeat all the points made in our first letter of consultation relating to access, the environment, the design, thriving local communities, activity and safety and a fair approach for all. These are detailed in the rest of the letter.

The development does not look like a town centre, still resembling an out of town shopping park. Moreover, it appears to be one that is detached from the local community with a lack of pedestrian and cycle access. In short, it looks like a concrete walled and road moated privatised space, excluding people when the shops are shut or when they do not have much money to spend. Our proposals seek to address these points and we have every expectation that they will now be seriously considered.
What follows is largely a re-submission of our objection sent to you in December 2011.  Additional commentary is included and is indicated in italics together with the date: 09.2012 in bold.

The applicant has provided a Design and Access statement which states that the application should result in a town centre which would be
  • Active, inclusive and safe
  • Well run
  • Environmentally sensitive
  • Well designed and built
  • Well connected
  • Thriving
  • Well served
  • Fair for everyone
The Pontyclun New Town Working Party is objecting to the application because the specific actions set out in application do not meet in several crucial respects many of the above key attributes set out by the applicant.

The Pontyclun New Town Working Party is a group of Pontyclun residents which has worked with the local community to identify their aspirations and fears for the development of this site. Two public meetings have so far been held. 340 responses to a local questionnaire have been received. Meetings have been held with the applicant, with other landowners on the site, with the Countryside Council for Wales and with RCT Council officials.

We understand that the Local Development Plan makes provision for retail development on this site. Within the community our survey indicates that there is a majority of people who would welcome increased retail and leisure activity on this site. However a very large majority of residents want a development that meets key concerns that they have. Our objection is based on the fact that the application does not sufficiently meet those concerns.

We are making this representation within the 21 days specified in the notice of application. Nevertheless as the discussion continues within the community we hope that you will be willing to receive further representations from the Working Group after the 21 day period.

1.0     Well Connected

The applicant has stated that the development should be well connected. There is strong evidence that the application does not meet this objective.
Road access from the A4119
The traffic projections provided by the applicant indicate that over 50% of the cars arriving at this development will do so from the A4119. This road, and in particular its intersection with the A473 is already heavily congested.
The attraction of further traffic through this intersection cannot be sustained without substantial gridlock which would blight this development. It would also blight other economic development opportunities within the area of Pontyclun and Talbot Green. Perhaps most significantly gridlock at this intersection would prove to be a major obstacle to economic development in the upper Ely and Rhondda valleys.

The problem of this intersection is admitted in the application. There is a reference to a strategic intention by RCT CBC to develop a grade separated intersection on this highway. This could well provide the necessary highways solution. There are however at least two problems in assuming that this solution can be met. Firstly there is the cost of £19 million which the applicant is not offering to meet. Second such an intersection would be substantial in scale and would be a major incursion into the exsting green field and settlements for which there is no planning consent and to which there would be objections.
The applicant is offering to make the existing roundabout at the intersection of the A4119 and A473 a signalled roundabout and claims that through this improvement the effect of the increased traffic would be more than mitigated. We question that such a substantial highways problem can be solved by such a simple and inexpensive solution. We ask that no planning consent is granted until the claim by the applicant to provide a solution to this problem is independently evaluated by an expert consultancy nominated by the Council but at the applicant’s expense.
09.2012: The new application of August 2012 does not appear to refer to this intersection. Taking the two applications together no acceptable resolution of the effect of increased traffic on this intersection is offered. On this reason alone it would be irresponsible to consent to a retail development on the proposed scale.

Road access along the A4222 and through Pontyclun Village Centre
The applicant estimates that 30% of the traffic to the new development will be through the Pontyclun Village Centre. This road is already congested for large parts of the day. It serves a village retail centre which the Local Development Plan is committed to sustaining. It provides access to the Pontyclun Primary School and Y Pant Secondary School. The applicant provides no solution or mitigation for the increased traffic on this road.

09.2012: Again, it is disappointing that the revised application offers no suggestion as to how steps may be taking to ensure that Pontyclun village can retain traffic flows that all residents ease of access to their homes, schools and services.

Pedestrian access

Recent retail developments in this area have suffered massively from not providing well planned and usable pedestrian access. They have been planned solely for car access and have then suffered from road congestion and a lack of parking.
This application states an intention to provide new and well planned pedestrian access but offers no specific investment into pedestrian access. There is a map with vague sketch arrows in all directions and an admission that specific routes are yet to be identified. Within 800 metres of this development there are substantial recent settlements that need to have a pedestrian link to the development but none are specified. These settlements include Cefn yr Hendy, Tyla Garw, Southgate and Cross Inn. An encouragement to pedestrian based retailing would link the existing retail parks (Talbot Green, Tesco Extra and Glamorgan Vale) to this development; but again the assumption appears to be that the consumer moves from one site to another by car, increasing road congestion.

09.2012: We very much welcome the new proposal in the revised application that there should be a pedestrian path from Cefn yr Hendy, through the Hendy Woods and across the River Clun. This will allow over a thousand residents pedestrian access to the retail development and to the Pant School. We are told by Sustrans that making such a path usable by cyclists also is quite compatible with the path being complementary to is environmental context.
We remain very disappointed that there is no pedestrian route from this proposed retail development to that already existing in the Vale of Glamorgan Retail Park and the Talbot Green Retail Park. A shopper who wishes to make at purchases at Marks and Spencer, Halfords and Sainsbury would be forced to make at least three car journeys. A reasonable definition of a ‘town’ is that it is a public space within which a citizen can walk from store to store. This application does not conform to such a criterion. It still appears as an out-of-town retail development, a private space accessed by car., sitting alongside but rigidly separated from two similar retail developments.
Cycle access

The applicant writes excitingly about an ambition to encourage a cycle culture and a modal shift from car to cycle. However no specific actions are identified which might provide safe cycle access and encourage such a modal shift.
There is support for the Sustrans proposal to use the disused rail temporarily as a cycle track pending the introduction of a working rail route to Beddau. This cycle route would be much welcomed but it is not good enough to rely on a temporary solution. Moreover this one cycle route is not sufficient to achieve the ambition of a development based on a new cycle culture. The requirement must be that the Council and the applicant work together to specify safe cycle routes to this development, and at the same time to Y Pant School, over a 5 kilometre radius. Such routes should provide safe cycle links to Pontyclun, Llanharri, Llanharan, Cefn yr Hendy, Miskin, Cross Inn, Beddau, Llantrisant and Talbot Green

09.2012: It is hugely disappointing that the revised application does not even include a proposal for the rail line to be a cycle route. It refers in passing to the RCT Council having as aspiration for such a cycle path but it should be noted that the Council recently withdrew its planning application for such a route. This cycle route must be provided as an integral part of this proposed development. It should have been included in the revised application. Without its inclusion the application makes not one single proposal for cycle access and on this point alone the application does not merit approval.
 
2.0     Environmentally sensitive

The Applicant has the stated objective that the development should be environmentally sensitive.

Development on the Greenfield is not justified
One of the most effective ways of achieving this objective would be to constrain the development to the existing brown field (the former Purolite and Staedler factory sites) and not include the incursion into the existing Greenfield site.

We note that the application is to provide 46, 323 m2 of retail space whereas the Local Development Plan includes provision for 23,400 m2. The replacement of the 8000 m2 of the existing Leekes store does not explain the difference between these two figures. Our arithmetic is that the application is for 50% more retail space than that provided for by the LDP. If that is right then the application must be rejected for its detrimental effect on the environment and on the local highway structure. In any case environmental sensitivity requires that the green field is fully protected
Protection of the Pant Marsh and the Coed yr Hendy

The Pant Marsh and the Coed yr Hendy should be protected and made accessible so that it is natural green area for visitors to the retail park and for local residents. We believe that it is important that the development, which is in such close proximity to Pant Marsh and Coed yr Hendy, should be developed in such a way that it will have limited impact on the marsh.
The Pant Marsh is partially protected by its SINC site status (sites of importance for nature conservation).The RTC local biodiversity plan adopted in 2000 covers the protection of priority species and priority habitats. We must do more than pay lip service to our understanding of the importance of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. It is crucial to our quality and variety of life. Species and habitats are threatened and lost to over development and poor understanding of how we coexist. Floodplain grassland in RCT is now only a tiny fragment of the original Pant Marsh is one such fragment.

To protect and enhance this area we propose that:      
·        the New Town Development should not extend beyond the existing brown field into the Site of Important Nature Conservation;

·        the required improvements to the highway intersection of the A4119 and A473 are not designed so as to reduce the area of the Pant Marsh.

·        the development is designed to bring the green areas into the town and facilitate walking access into the green areas.
There is much support in the community for a new supermarket to alleviate the pressure upon and provide competition to the existing Tesco store. In this respect with effective resolution of highways and environmental concerns there would be support for Phase One of the development. However there is no good reason why Phase One should take place on the green field whilst leaving the brown field vacant for a Phase Two development which is less certain to take place on the given timescale. Therefore we oppose the application for Phase One believing that a new supermarket as a Phase One development should take place on the brownfield site.
We note that the developer has provided a habitat management plan for the two areas of Pant Marsh and Coed yr Hendy. However we note that the plan does not state how the management will be financed and who will be responsible. The application should not be supported until this is agreed.
The importance of non-car access to environmental sustainability

We welcome the applicant’s commitment to achieve BREEAM excellent standards of construction as required by the Welsh Government. However, we argue that there is little purpose in reducing the carbon footprint of retail buildings if we do not make access to the retail development equally environmentally sensitive. It is for reasons of environmentally sensitivity that come back to our argument that the incentives to access this retail development by means other than cars are far too weak in the application.
We note that application is for 3000 car parking spaces. This is around 1 car parking space for every 7 m2 of retail space. Whilst the applicant states a desire to develop a modal shift away from car access the detail of the application continues to assume very high levels of car access. A recent large scale retail development around the Olympic site in east London very deliberately constrained car parking to one parking place to 25 m2 of retail space and then achieved commercial viability by investing in non-car access.

3.0     Well designed and built

We recognise that there is much in the exemplar illustrations for this outline application that would support an ambition for this development to be well designed and built. We recognise that this is a better design than in most other recent retail developments in South Wales. This is as it should be. The retail profit per m2 in this location is higher than anywhere in the UK. There is no reason at all therefore why the quality, the design and the scale of this development should not be as required by the community interest.
We welcome the illustrations of high quality materials, the design of attractive pedestrian walkways, the interesting design of public spaces. When there is a planning application for Phase 2 the applicant and the Council must not allow any of these design commitments to be sacrificed or bargained away, as so often happens.

09.2012: The original application focussed all its design commitments and illustrations on the internal space of the development and on the vista from the A4222. The revised application offers the public for the first time an illustration of the development as seen from the A473 and the north. The illustration is truly horrendous. From this vista the development will be a solid concrete wall over 20 meters high and several hundred meters long. It will invite comparisons with the Berlin Wall which was actually lower. The proposed design of this northern wall gives a clear message: “Keep Out unless you have a car and willingness to pay a parking charge”. It is not the design of a welcoming publicly accessible ‘New Town Centre’.
We note that the larger stores and car parks will be between 18 and 22 metres high. We do not feel that this is consistent with the scale of the adjacent residential and commercial buildings. This development will be significantly higher than any existing buildings. They will detrimental to the eye line from the local hills and will dominate the properties of nearby residents of the area.
The intended height of the development is designed to ensure that the 3000 car spaces can co-exist with the allocated retail space. If this development were less reliant on car access then the physical scale of the development could be much reduced.
The master plan refers to the view of the retail and industrial developments within the area from a number of high points encircling the development. In addition to Breeam we believe that the development could provide residents of apartments above the stores with roof top gardens or the roofs could be designed as green roofs. A living green roof supports wildlife, improves the view, insulates buildings and increases the lifespan of their waterproofing.

4.0     Thriving

The LDP makes provision for 23,400 m2 of extra retail space in anticipation of the extra retail demand expected from the projected extra housing area. The applicant defines the local catchment for this retail development to extend from Tonteg to Tonyrefail and Llanharan. The LDP makes provision for 4700 extra dwellings within this wider geographical area. The retail development justifies itself by the retail demand created by these extra dwellings.
In approving the LDP the Planning Inspector required that Phase 2 of this development should not be in advance of identifiable need. We therefore oppose the applicant’s objective to complete Phase 2 by 2016. A thriving development requires an assurance that the extra demand is in place and this requires evidence that housing suppliers can take up the extra housing provision by this date. The national context for housing developers is a very difficult. Because there continues to be a fear of falling house prices, mortgage providers continue to require historically high deposit to value ratios. The entry of first time buyers into the housing market continues to be at an historic low and this is stagnating all other parts of the housing market. The LDP correctly is based on a projection of housing need but for the foreseeable future demand is unlikely to equate with need.
Because Phase 2 should be deferred until such time that the extra local demand is in place through new housing, the case for locating local Phase 1 on the Brownfield site is all the stronger.
If Phase 2 were to take place in advance of new local demand then the incentive would be to market this development over an ever wider area, diminish demand for other retail centres and attract increased traffic flows along the M4 and increase the traffic congestion on the A4119. This was not the objective of the LDP not was it the intention of the Planning Inspector and the Welsh Government in approving the LDP
09.2012: Since the original application all the evidence is that the demand for out-of-town retail of non-food goods has been falling at a significant rate. This is in part the result of the recession and may therefore be cyclical and, in addition, there may be local demand factors offsetting this trend. However, most retail analysts believe that there is a very important structural change taking place as consumers switch their purchases to the internet.
It is unfortunate that no reference is made to these changes in the revised application. It would be irresponsible to provide a Phase 1 consent on the Greenfield whilst leaving the development of the former factory sites to the vagaries of a very uncertain and changing retail market.

5.0     Active, inclusive and safe

The application states that it will meet the objective of being active, inclusive and safe. To do this the development needs to meet the aspirations of all age groups within the community. The master plan includes a cinema and from our survey 60% would like a cinema in the area.
However, 34 per cent of respondents said that they would like to see an arts centre or theatre developed. Forty four per cent would like to see a community centre developed on the site.
The plan does not seek to provide facilities (other than a cinema) that residents of established towns would expect to have use of, for example a theatre, an arts centre, a youth centre, purpose built meeting rooms for community activities.
The master plan includes a civic office and yet we have been informed by councillors and planners that RCT Council does not have the finances to open a civic office on this development site. Should this plan be accepted it is likely that this area would be either left derelict or more likely developed for further retail or office units.
We believe that if this plan is to proceed and is to be considered to provide an inclusive development, that the development of an arts centre, with theatre and meeting rooms should be part of the developer’s contribution to public life in the area.
The Design and Access statement suggests that there are sufficient community facilities in the area. Talbot Green has one rather old community centre and community meeting rooms in Pontyclun are always oversubscribed; there is a local demand for extra community facilities.

6.0     Fair for everyone

The plan states that a sustainable town centre should be fair to everyone and yet this plan could have devastating effects on the villages of Talbot Green and Pontyclun.
The design and access statement makes no mention of the impact of the new retail development on the two village centres. We are going through a severe recession and although the retail assessment refers to two thriving villages, this is far from the truth. We can only assume that the developers would be very wary of making any assertions about the positive impact of the development on the village centres and it is not in their interests to list the negative impacts.
The LDP designates Pontyclun as a ‘smaller settlement providing a limited range of services to meet local needs’’. It is important that this new development does not undermine the ambition set for Pontyclun in the LDP.
The scale of Pontyclun is such that people can expect to meet friends and acquaintances as they use the village centre. There is well researched evidence that the local networks of social relationships sustained by such a village environment is the basis of achieving good health and wellbeing and this is a stated aim of the Local Development Plan. Without the local shops this will not happen.
In order that the new development enhances Pontyclun village we believe that the communities of Pontyclun and Talbot Green should benefit from a percentage of the increase in value of the site. The value of the land being used for this development has been hugely increased by its inclusion within the LDP as prime development land for a retail park. A high percentage of this increase in value should be ploughed back into mitigating the negative effect of this development on local communities. This would need to be discussed with the two communities of Pontyclun and Talbot Green.
Our original submission included a copy of the questionnaire delivered to all residents in Pontyclun and circulated widely in Talbot Green.
We trust that the points raised in this letter will be meaningfully considered and responded to by RCT and its officers. We look forward to your response and our invitation to make a presentation to the council meeting which will consider the application.

Yours etc.

 

 

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Working Group minutes 23 May 2012

Pontyclun New Town Centre Working Group

Date:            23rd May 2012

Attendees:    Len Arthur, Ann Bennett, , Claire Williams

Apologies:     Paul Griffiths, Margaret Griffiths, Rachel Saunders, Richard Billett, Jeff Woodington, Gwyn Jackson



Action
1.
Last times actions
Responses received back from Mark Jackson, Simon Gale and Emma Leeke.  Emma says she has a meeting with the developer shortly and will update us on the outcome of that meeting.


2.
Preparations for the Planning Committee Meeting(s)
Claire brought with her the spreadsheet, which has been set up to help the group to form our thoughts for the Planning Committee Meeting(s).

Specific Actions:

The “drop box” is now set up and working, if anyone has any problems accessing the information please let Claire know.

Anyone who would rather the data be put onto a USB stick to let Claire have one and she will sort this out.

In addition to this, Len has started compiling data from the Office of National Statistics, which could help shape our arguments.











Claire


Len
3.
AOB

Ann to try and obtain a letter sent by the community council to Sainsbury’s, and the group to draft a response to Sainsbury’s requesting that they consider moving their store to the brown field site. – Update – Claire to look through the documents handed over by Margaret to see if the letter is there, then scan and send to Ann.



Claire/Ann

Claire to ensure that she emails Jim Bailey in the Planning Office to outline the groups request to speak at the planning meeting.  Claire also to ask for clarification on whether the hearing will only deal with phase 1 (i.e. the Sainsbury’s detailed planning application) or the whole outline planning application for the entire development, as this will have an impact on how we prepare.  Claire also noted that the council only require 2 days notice to speak at the meeting.

Claire

Next meeting set for 7.30pm, 19th June 2012 – Len will be away so venue to be agreed.

Reminder – social night out – 14th June at the all you can eat Chinese restaurant – unfortunately Len will be unable to attend as he will be on holiday.

All


Friday, May 11, 2012

Working Group Minutes 9 May 2012

Pontyclun New Town Centre Working Group - minutes

Date:            9th May 2012

Attendees:    Paul Griffiths, Margaret Griffiths, Len Arthur, Ann Bennett, Rachel                          Saunders, Claire Williams, Richard Billett, Jeff Woodington, Gwyn Jackson

Apologies:     None




Action
1.
Introductions & Welcome
Two new members of the group were welcomed and introduced – Jeff Woodington and Gwyn Jackson


2.
The Way Forward
Following the election of Paul and Marg to the RCT County Borough Council, Marg explained their position regarding their involvement in the working group going forward.

Essentially, whilst they can attend meetings, they can only now attend in a listening capacity. 

We will continue to invite both Marg and Paul to attend the meetings and hope they can attend the best they can and listen to the ongoing progress of the group.

A new venue for future meetings was agreed – thank you Len.  Meetings will now take place at 44 Heol Miskin, Pontyclun.

A new “chair/secretary” was agreed, and Claire will now take over from Marg with regards to chairing the meetings, setting agendas, taking the notes, circulation of outputs and comms.

Marg will send Claire a list of the third parties that have been contacted regarding the activities of the group so that Claire can make contact, explain the change in dynamics of the group and explain that further correspondence will be received via her going forward.  Claire to ensure the handover is properly documented so that no issues can arise over this matter when it comes to the planning committee meetings later this year.

Claire took the opportunity to thank both Paul and Marg for getting the group up and running and for their hospitality, contribution and enthusiasm over the last two years.  A date is to be agreed for a drinks/meal/social event for the group.













Len


Claire



Marg/Claire







Claire to circulate dates
3.
Preparations for the Planning Committee Meeting(s)
Claire brought with her the spreadsheet, which has been set up to help the group to form our thoughts for the Planning Committee Meeting(s).

Specific Actions:

Claire to look at the possibility of a “drop box” to store the documentation, as it would be too large to send via email attachment.
Claire to re-circulate a copy of the groups response letter so that we can all re-familiarise ourselves with the points we have raised (copy of letter appended).
Anyone who would rather the data be put onto a USB stick to let Claire have one and she will sort this out.














Claire

We agreed the following split of the “responses”:

Well connected – Richard (N.b. need to include traffic issues on the Pontyclun high street)

Well designed & built – Claire

Thriving – Rachel & Len (Len will pick up on the future angle)

Accessible, Inclusive & Safe – Gwyn

Fair for everyone – Jeff

Environmentally sensitive - Ann

All






4.
AOB

Ann to try and obtain a letter sent by the community council to Sainsbury’s, and the group to draft a response to Sainsbury’s requesting that they consider moving their store to the brown field site.



Ann

Claire to ensure that she emails Jim Bailey in the Planning Office to outline the groups request to speak at the planning meeting.  Claire also to ask for clarification on whether the hearing will only deal with phase 1 (i.e. the Sainsbury’s detailed planning application) or the whole outline planning application for the entire development, as this will have an impact on how we prepare.

Claire

Next meeting set for 7pm, 23 May 2012 (apologies received from Gwyn and Richard).

All