Responses to our submission from MP, Councillors etc.

Owen Smith MP:

Dear Margaret,

No need to thank me (or Mick, I'm sure): this development is hugely significant, as I said the other evening, and it is vital that we exert what influence we have to get it right for the community.

The letter is an excellent distillation of the concerns voiced to date, but also provides positive ideas as to how the design can be improved and better integrated. I think the arguments made in respect of sustainability and the environment are particularly important.

One additional aspect, which was highlighted graphically by the comments of the shopkeepers present on Tuesday and which might be explored in subsequent dialogue with the council, regards the nature of the smaller stores intended to be attracted to the development - and the process by which they will be let. In particular, I think it is worth exploring the degree of control that the council might exercise over the type of shops to be attracted through the planning conditions placed on the developer. It is vital that those stores complement as far as possible, not substitute, established and valued shops in Pontyclun and Talbot Green.

Secondly, on reflection, I think we should think harder about the juxtaposition of the site with the school and consider how we might use the development to improve and make more sustainable the transport of pupils to the school. Many kids walk to Y Pant crossing busy roads and along main thoroughfares. Few cycle, due to the volume of traffic. And many are dropped by car at the hugely busy and dangerous bus stop at the front of the school. Opening up new cycle / walking routes along the valley bottom in both directions (Pontyclun to Southgate) would afford far safer and sustainable connectivity for the school and the shopping centre.

Lastly, it is vital that we expand to the maximum achievable the volume of people informed and engaged with the consultation. I would like to help in any way I can so please keep me involved.

All the best,

Owen

Councillor Clayton Willis:

Hello Margaret.

Thanks for your e-mail message.

It is always difficult to say anything publically prior to the Planning Meeting because of the Councillor Code of Conduct, but when considering the application, I will certainly give much consideration to local concerns.

Kind Regards.

Cllr. Clayton Willis.

Councillor Paul Baccara:

Hello Margaret,

Thank you for your e-mail. I have read the attached letter with interest and the points you have raised with Jane Cook have been noted.

I am in almost daily contact with RCT Officers who are, in turn, addressing many of the points I have raised with the developer.

I await Valad submitting its application where upon the RCT Development Control Committee can scrutinise it.

Best wishes,

Paul

Councillor Paul Baccara

RCT Ward Member for Talbot Green

From Councillor Gordon Bunn

Dear Ms Griffiths

Thank you for your E mail with attachments which i found to be very informative.

As you appreciate I am not able to comment, as to do so would automatically bar me from speaking or voting on the application when it comes to the Development Control Committee

Regards

Gordon Bunn

From RCT Regeneration and Planning Division

Amongst other things 'It is difficult for me to comment in detail as we do not have a proposal in front of us yet in the shape of planning application. However, I can asure you that the issues you have raised such as traffic congestion, phasing, modes of transport, scale and design, the impact on existing retail centres and the protection of the Pant Marsh, will be key matters that will be fully addressed before any decision is made on a future planning application.

' The council will undertake a full public consultation exercise should an application be submitted, and any submissions you make will be taken into full consideration'.

Notes of the Public Meeting held Tuesday 4 October, Pontyclun Community Centre

New Development Public Meeting

Notes of the meeting held Tuesday 4 October 2011

Chair Margaret Griffiths supported by Rachel Saunders, Claire Williams and Paul Griffiths, Pontyclun Community Councillor (PCC) from the working group, Mick Antoniw, Pontypridd Assembly Member (AM), Owen Smith, Pontypridd Member of Parliament (MP), Mark Jackson from Scarborough developments and about 60 in attendance from Pontyclun, Talbot Green and Llantrisant. Apologies had been received from the planning officers of RCT and a number of supporters.

1.    The Chair introduced the speakers and the order of the meeting and outlined the events which had taken place since the first public meeting, pointing out the RCT’s main justification for the development was to reduce retail leakages from the county. The next stage would be to evaluate the outline planning permission when it and associated documents were available and prepare further detailed submissions.

2.    Claire Williams introduced the working group and what had been undertaken to date. She explained that working group composed of people who volunteered from the first meeting had met fortnightly and had undertaken a survey, had consultations with officers from RCT, Mark Jackson a representative of the developers and the AM and had made two written submissions to RCT, Councillors and the Welsh Government. The intention had been to improve the proposal for the benefit of the community as opposed to total opposition which was made difficult by the adoption of the RCT Local Development Plan by the Welsh Government following formal consultation. Three main points had been made in relation to addressing highways issues and reliance on car access; that the development has to be only on the brown field site; and the local community benefits from the value created together with existing retail facilities being supported and sustained.

3.    Rachel Saunders presented the results of the survey using a power point slides. To date 170 questionnaires had been returned and these indicated that whilst around 40% could be seen to oppose the development the rest of the respondents ranged across a spectrum from conditional to complete support. The sample was reasonably representative of localities and age groups except for those aged below 20 and 80% mentioned traffic as a concern as well 70% supporting outdoor and open space facilities.

4.    Paul Griffiths draw upon the conclusions of the survey to propose that it indicated that it as one position was not clearly emerging from the local community that the best possibility was to work on an agenda that could unite most people in the middle. It was clear from the meetings that RCT shared some of our concerns and there would be scope to improve on the proposal. A major point that had emerged from the discussions so far was the critical importance of a satisfactory highway arrangement being put into place before or at the same time as the development occurred otherwise gridlock could ensue having a knock on effect both to the east west and north of RCT. He said that our understanding now was that the development would take place in two phases with a supermarket, and two departmental stores and this should only take place on the brownfield site. Phase 2 would take place after 2016 depending on new housing growth in RCT. Moreover it was the view of the working group that the development should be less reliant on cars encouraging access on alternatives such as pedestrian, cycle and train. Overall the development should be reduced to four or 5 stores and the brown field site with equal access to the Pontyclun and Talbot Green Centres.

5.    Mark Jackson reported on the long history behind the generation of the proposal pointing out that a lot of negotiation had already taken place with RCT. As the developers they were now moving forward following the adoption of the LDP to submitting their outline planning application. It was now expected that this would done the following week. To give a flavour the application would include everything within the land allocated; details on access; section 106 covering community benefits or mitigation. He expected that the real time for consultation would be at least 4 months and possibly.

         He expected changes to be made following comments from councillors and the community and that it was not necessarily the case that the rule book would restrict the scope of change. Following the outline submission detailed planning application would be submitted and he expected the first would be for the supermarket around January 2012. His company was still in negotiations with Leekes and which would affect the timing of the next detailed submission. He confirm that phase two would not be start until about 2016. His company aimed to have 70 – 80% of the income agreed before then it may move on to other managers. Within the proposal there was scope for open access and recreational areas.

The meeting opened out to comments from the floor which covered the following points.

o   Had RCT required the highways development as a condition as part of their approval? Mark Jackson explained that a £19m flyover was planned at the 4119 / 437 roundabout which would be financed by an RCT tariff on developers in RCT including his company.

     '(Questions and answer from Fred Pembridge) To Mark Jackson. He said that there had been on-going discussions with RCTCBC and that a planning application was to be processed in six weeks time. He was asked whether the planning officers were intending to recommend the imposition of a Grampian planning condition. (this was explained by me). This would require the highways works to be completed before the site was brought into use. Including compliance with any other conditions such as 106 agreements. He said he did not know. I then said there had been all these detailed discussions and that this fundamental condition was not discussed?

      Mark Jackson made the statement that the A473/A4119 roundabout was broken. In other words that it did not have sufficient capacity to cater for today's traffic. This is evident. I then said that Scarborough Developments had paid for an expert witness to make a case at the Mwyndy Business Park Planning Appeal to deny this to permit the development. That Scarborough had offered £11m to provide for junction improvements but then at the appeal said that they would only pay for the impact the traffic from the development had on the A4119 thereby reneging on previous offers. The impact on the A473 was not even considered. I also said that developer contributions should be paid for according to use i.e. the traffic impact generated and not by some debenture policy.(A Transportation Impact Assessment)'

o   Mick Antoniw AM pointed out that the Welsh Government had legal requirements to ensure sustainability and would ensure that RCT complies.

o   It was pointed out that if people wanted to seriously shop they would still go to Cardiff and what was really needed in the area was facilities for young people.

o   In response to a number of questions about the reason for the development it was pointed out that Tesco at Talbot Green was one of the company’s most profitable shops due to high use resulting in high rents per square metre. The same thinking was influencing this development.

o   The extent to which the development could really be considered a new town centre was raised as opposed to an ‘out of town’ retail site. It was generally felt this was a more appropriate description.

o   Pressure on the survival of the existing shops and village centres was expressed as a concern and that this should be addressed.

o   Profiteering by the developers at the expense of the community was expressed and received considerably sympathy from the meeting.

o   It was pointed out that there was an organisation called the ‘Open Spaces Society’ which could be drawn upon to provide advice and support.

o   Making sure we spoke to the right people was also considered important, making sure that those in RCT with responsibility for footpaths and the environment were not ignored.

o   Support for the current direction and output of the working group was expressed and the difficulties of total opposition at this stage and extent of public support appeared to be recognised.

o   Owen Smith MP informed the meeting that he lived locally and his children attended the local school and his family shopped in Pontyclun. He stressed that it was important for RCT to be more strategically interconnected with its proposed shopping developments and to ensure that all were balanced and sustainable. It was also critical that the development worked in a way to help existing shops.

The Chair thanked everyone for coming and for the speakers in providing the information. She said that minutes of the meeting would be produced and would be sent to those on the email list and would be posted on the website. People were invited to join the email list which already had over 100 names to be kept informed and to keep an eye on the website for information. Similarly anyone who is interested was invited to join the working group. The room cost £25 to hire and that sum exactly was collected in small donations.

The next public meeting would take place after the outline planning permission had been submitted and the working group had a little time to consider a draft response.

The meeting finished at 21.00.

         

Second letter to RCT

Pontyclun Residents New Town Working Group

Jane Cook                                                                     
Director of Planning and Regeneration                          
RCT County Borough Council                                            

6 Llantrisant Road
Pontyclun
CF72 9DQ
e-mail:marg.talygarn@btinternet.com
tel. 01433 229301

29^th September 2011

Dear Ms Cook

Proposed New Town Development north of Pontyclun

On Tuesday 13^th September, four members of the residents working group were pleased to meet with Simon Gale, Service Director of Planning and Jim Bailey, Development Control Officer to discuss the letter we sent to you on 23^rd August. We were grateful for that meeting and the open manner in which your colleagues considered our concerns, many of which they appeared to share and had been working on. Later that day we met with Mark Jackson, the managing director of Scarborough Development Group.

Following these meetings we have been able to crystallise further our thoughts about aspects of the potential development that we feel need to be considered as you appraise any planning application. We set those out as follows: .  

1.     A highways infrastructure needs to be put in place that ensures road congestion around Pontyclun, Talbot Green and Llantrisant is at no stage made any worse than it currently is ;

2.     The first phase of the development must be on the brownfield site and any future incursion on to the green field has to be justified by a rigorous appraisal of future need;

3.     The retail development should be far less reliant on access by car;

4.     The scale and height of the development should not be disproportionate to the surrounding residential, retail and business areas;

5.     The 14 acre green field site should not be included in the development and the area of 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

6.     The full value of planning gain should be paid by the developer to the County Borough Council for the mitigation of the impact of the development

7.     The existing retail provision of Pontyclun and Talbot Green should be supported and enhanced

1.    A highways infrastructure needs to be put in place that ensures road congestion around Pontyclun, Talbot Green and Llantrisant is at no stage made any worse than it currently is

We have previously shared with you the resident’s experience of severe congestion on the A4119, the A473 and the A4222. We have heard from local police officers at the Community Council meeting that the management of existing traffic is a major call on police resources and that this is due to the inadequate planning of existing retail developments.

If this further retail development were to take place without major investment in highway infrastructure, particularly at the intersection of the A4119 and the A473, then rather than create new jobs, the retail development will undermine all further economic activity in the surrounding area, the upper Ely and Rhondda valleys. If this retail development is allowed to increase congestion then it will undermine every other strategic objective of the Council.

Investment in highways infrastructure must go alongside the retail development. Any suggestion that it might follow from the congestion caused by the retail development would blight any investment in the county borough for generations to come. The argument of the potential developers that traffic will not increase but will only be redistributed is sadly self-serving and must be rejected.

2.    The first phase of the development must be on the brownfield site and any future incursion on to the green field, as allocated in the LDP, should be justified by a rigorous appraisal of future need and the capacity of the highway infrastructure

The potential developer is intending to make the supermarket development with its car parking the first stage of any development and to local this part of the development on the Greenfield of the Pant Marsh. The view of planning officials appears to be that any second stage would then take place after the completion of intended housing development in the south of the county borough and as a result, therefore, of demonstrably increased retail demand.

In our view, therefore, the location of the first phase is wrong. The supermarket would be in an isolated greenfield surrounded by an area of exposed derelict brownfield. We therefore strongly urge that as this is to be a staged development then the first phase of supermarket development should be on the Purolite brown field site.

3.    The retail development should be far less reliant on access by car

We have been told that the potential developer is intending to apply for 3000 car parking spaces. This is larger than any other out of down retail development in South Wales. It gives the lie to any suggestion that this development is not intended to increase local traffic flows and that this is anything other than an out-of town retail development which would be better located at a motorway junction.

The extent to which this proposed development is intended to rely on car transport can be seen by comparing it to other contemporary retail developments, In Westfield Stratford in East London there is one car parking space for every 25 square metres of retail space. In the Pontyclun development it is intended that there should be one car parking space for every 7 square metres of retail space. The Pontyclun development is intended to be four times more reliant on car transport. In truth the Westfield development really is a ‘new town’ development serving a local population which is properly connected through train, bus, cycle and pedestrian access. The Pontyclun development is intended to be a car based out-of-town development located in the wrong place..

If the Pontyclun development were to replicate the vision and innovation of Westfield it would not take place without rail connection. It would be linked with a full network of pedestrian and cycle ways. Westfield has 1180 bicycle lock up spaces whereas the view of the Pontyclun developer is that this retail development will not significantly be accessed by bicycle.

We ask again that this development should be planned with full input from Sustrans so that it could accord with the ambition of the Welsh Government for a country less reliant on cars.

The LDP proclaims that this development is a ‘new town’ and not an out-of-town car based retail park. Unless the development shares the same vision and ambition of Westfield with properly provided non-car access then the development will never deserve the designation of ‘new town’; it will be an out of town development wrongly located in a high density residential settlement.

4.    The scale and height of the development should not be disproportionate to the surrounding residential, retail and business areas;

We understand from the developer that the larger stores will be built at a 4 storey height. We do not feel that this is consistent with the scale of the adjacent residential  and commercial buildings. This development will tower above the existing buildings and will become an eye sore to existing 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.

We therefore believe that the development should be built to a height and scale that is consistent with the existing area.

5.    The 14 acre green field site should not be included in the development and the area of 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

Pant Marsh is an area of scientific interest  and we are pleased to note that the developers are undertaking surveys of the flora and fauna of the area. We believe that it is important that the development, which is in such close proximity to this area, should be developed  in such a way that it will have limited impact on the marsh.

We support the Countryide Council for Wales which objected to the LDP in this respect. We ask that the Council limits the development of the site, as suggested by the CCW, to the brown field site.

There is concern that the development may cause increased amounts of water flowing into a smaller area and therefore changing the nature of the Pant Marsh.  It is a beautiful area and we believe that making it more accessible will enhance the attraction of the retail park.

The Pant Marsh is partially protected by its SINC site status (sites of importance for nature conservation).The RTC local biodiversity plan adopted in 2ooo 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. We must fully implement the biodiversity action plan that has been agreed by the Council.

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;

6.    The full value of planning gain should be paid by the developer to the County Borough Council

As, 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. The first call on such funds must be the improved highway network and the foot, cycle and rail access which reduce the reliance on car travel.

7.    The existing retail provision of Pontyclun and Talbot Green should be supported and enhanced

The LDP designates Pontyclun as a ‘smaller settlement providing a limited range of services to meet local needs’’. It is important that the 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. We must be very deliberate in ensuring that any new development enhances rather than undermines local social relationships. It is a feature of almost all large scale out of town , car based retail developments that they individualise the shopping experience and undermine social relationships.

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. We have been told by the developer that money spent on the communities, not as a result of direct impact of the development, could be considered bribery. However, since the developer already has the blessing of the Council to develop the land we cannot see how money spent by the developer on our two communities can be considered bribery. We see this as the developer adding value to our communities as they will be making a considerable profit from the development.

Conclusion

When we last wrote we suggested that if there was a serious ambition to make this development anything other than a poorly located out of town retail development then we should aspire to its designation as Wales First Green Town. We continue to believe that the ambition for properly planned access with less use on cars, the ambition to minimise impact on the local environment, the ambition to sustain and integrate existing village centres, the ambition to use the best quality materials with minimum carbon footprint all make the ambition of a Green Town the best way of making this development successful, sustainable and in the interests of local people.

Yours sincerely

      Margaret Griffiths

Sixth meeting of the Pontyclun Residents’ Town Centre Working group

Sixth meeting of the Pontyclun Residents’ Town Centre Working group:  28^th September 2011

Present:               Rachel, Claire, Paul, Marg

Action Points

Open Meeting

The agenda for the meeting was planned.

Marg to chair,

Claire to introduce the working group,

Rachel to present results of questionnaire,

Paul to present group activities and letters

Preparations for meeting

Marg to invite the planners to the open meeting

to make copies of last letter

to have questionnaire comments printed 

invite councillors

contact Chris about the projector

Second letter to Council

The letter sent to the Council focused on the following issues that are of concern to the group and members of the public. These include:

·        The scale of the development

·        Traffic management

·        Ecology and the environment

·        A Car based retail park or a town centre

·        Cycle and pedestrian access

·        Sustainability

Notes of the Meeting

Len will distribute the notes of the meeting to all those at the public meeting who provided an email address

Public Meeting

The next public meeting is on 4^th October

 Next Meeting of working group

No date set