Ann Bennett
SOLD FOR A CAULIFLOWER!
Ann Bennett - local resident
Pant Marsh runs along the river Clun, between Talbot Green and Pontclun, and is
one of the very few natural marshlands left in Wales. It is a valuable open
space, and part of what makes Pontyclun a good village to live in and to bring
up children.
But at a meeting on the 28th of February, RCT planning and control committee approved
the development of a new town retail centre at Talbot Green. This, despite some
very sound objections raised by me and many others including your own councillors
M and P Griffiths. The eventual decision was obviously a foregone conclusion,
and nothing was going to impress them. Councillor after councillor spoke for
the development, one councillor in particular made the comment that she and her
neighbours wanted to be able to buy a fresh cauliflower at Sainsbury, hence the
heading.
What I find seriously bizarre and unreal is the article in RCTs newspaper
OUTLOOK, the article headed "town centre transformation" where the
same people crow about the huge sums of money invested, about 11 million in
all, in regenerating both Pontypridd and Aberdare, and at the same time
rationalizing the reason for allowing Valad’s development to go ahead, is that
it will stop money leaving the valley's to shop in Cardiff and divert it instead
to Talbot Green. The thinking being that will generate wealth within the valleys.
WRONG. What impact is that going to have on both the existing Talbot Green complex,
and on Pontypridd, Aberdare and all the little villages and towns in between?
RCT has spent our time and money on a "shop local” campaign to keep
villages functioning, there is a blinding contradiction here, don’t you think?
Valad has no interest in our little valley, they have profits to make, but I
expected more from the people I knocked doors for to get them elected.
The lack of long term joined up thinking beggars belief.
I and others have asked the Welsh Government to "CALL IN”
this development, in a last attempt to save us from this monstrous development.
I am very fond of Pontyclun, I just wish it had the
representation it deserves,
and a bit more fizz in its pop to realize the price of a cauli is not worth
risking the things that make Pontyclun worth living , as the telly tells us
"because we’re worth it ".
I have resolved never to give my hard earned cash to line Valad's pockets, despite
the fact that I love the cinema, I will shop local and try and get our own
cinema in Pontyclun. Why not ? Cowbridge has.
Claire Williams:
I am a resident of Pontyclun village
and a representative of the Pontyclun New Town Centre Working Group. The Group was formed in response to Valad’s
announcement of their plans for the development of a “New Town Centre” at land
on the A473.
The Groups public meetings were
attended by well over 100 residents, and the mailing list is subscribed by xxx
people, who keep in touch with the progress of the Group and the Developers
application by way of newsletters and published minutes of the Groups meetings.
I request that the council does not
approve the application today. I ask for further considerations to be
made, for a number of reasons:
· The scale & size of the proposed
development;
· The impact on the existing road
network; and
· Whether the application fulfils the
RCT’s guidelines of a “New Town Centre”.
1. My objections are based on key differences
between the approved LDP and the current application.
The LDP states “total
additional non-food floor space of between 24,350 and 28,850m2 net” for Rhondda
Cynon Taf... with the “largest proportion of the proposed additional floor
space at Talbot Green”. The
applicant is seeking approval of 35,522m2 gross of non-food retail floor
space.
The LDP further states “The
Retail Capacity Assessment (2007) indicates that there is a quantitative need
for 2,507m2 net convenience retail floor space in Rhondda Cynon Taf”. The applicant is seeking some 11,000m2 gross
for the Sainsbury’s application.
I ask whether its the
developers intention to confuse anyone trying to interpret and compare the
stated floor space allowances within the LDP which are net figures by
submitting the design and access statements in gross figures?
Further clues however can
be gleaned from the Design & Access Statement for Phase 1 (which is not
part of today’s discussions) which states that floor space for Sainsbury’s will
be 11,000m2, of which net sales areas will be 7,230m2 (further split between
food and non-food) The non-food space
figure of 4,130m2 is well in excess of the approved LDP figures of 2,507m2.
Is this an indication of
the space creep being proposed for the whole development?
2. My second point is that the proposal does
not comply with RCT’s own LDP guidelines. The LDP states that the purpose
of the New Town Centre is primarily to divert economic migration from other
shopping areas (i.e. Cardiff) to this new town centre, indeed the application
requests some 2,360 car parking spaces to accommodate these new visitors.
As RCT’s ambition is to
capture visitors who are migrating to other areas to shop there will be an
increase in the traffic to the area. The
proposal does nothing to mitigate the traffic impact that these diverted
visitors will make to the site.
Indeed the application
states that there will be no impact on the road network. Further that the Design and Access Statement (September
2012) seems to rely on classing this development as “unique” and therefore
doesn’t need to address the issue of adding to the already over congested
highways. At 6.7 the Statement claims that the application “has no
detrimental impact on traffic flows on the A473”.
The current adult
population of the Pontyclun, Llantrisant and Talbot Green is approximately
13,000. Current shopping developments in
the immediate area of the proposed development provide approximately 1,579
spaces. With the addition of the
proposed 2,360 spaces a total of 3,939 car parking spaces will be available.
If the development is
intended to meet the needs of the immediate areas of Pontyclun, Llantrisant and
Talbot Green, surely parking provisions which will allow almost a third of all
residents to be parked at any one time across the new and existing shopping
areas is excessive. This demonstrates
that this is no more than an out of town retail park, which wishes to encourage
people from outside the area and to arrive by car.
I would refer to RCT’s
own Traffic Assessment Report, which was commissioned in 2007 and carried out
by Hyder Consulting, which says that the A4119 is already at over capacity, and
that any development on this land would require extensive improvements to this
key road network. Indeed it states that impact could be felt as far out as the
M4 should the necessary road improvements not be made prior to any development
of the nature and scale proposed be carried out.
3. What is being proposed and presented as a
“New Town Centre”, is nothing more than another out of town retail park, of
which this area has sufficient provision already.
It bears no resemblance
to RCT’s guidelines on New Town Centres, which notable states that (in Policy
AW5 – New Development) “The site layout and mix of use maximising
opportunities to reduce dependence on cars” and “the development would
have safe access to the highway network and would not cause traffic congestion
or exacerbate existing traffic congestion”.
It is reasonable for most
people to consider a Town Centre to be the centre of communication with public
transport hubs, town halls, museums and libraries. Town Centres are symbolic to settlements as a
whole and often contain best examples of architecture, main landmark buildings,
statues, and public spaces. (Wikipedia
definition of a Town Centre). The
current proposal offer very little in this regard, with the vast majority of
the space given over to retail.
If this is to be a true New
Town Centre to be proud of, then the size, scale, mix of use and increase of
traffic is out of proportion to the existing needs of the local communities of
Pontyclun, Talbot Green and Llantrisant.
If this to actually be an
Out of Town Retail Park, then proper plans and proposals to support such a
scheme should be submitted, with the correct and proper upgrades to the road
network put in place prior to any such development proceeding.
The Design Commission for
Wales’s Design Review Report dated 25th March 2011 (to which I
cannot find further more up to date reports) states that “before any
detailed designs can proceed strategic decisions need to be made on access
points and pedestrian connections and crossings... at present the
project could hardly be less connected in terms of pedestrian and cycle
movements... the proposals seem likely to deliver a project that is
entirely car oriented...if this proposal is to be more than an
edge-of-town retail park, it is vital to address issues beyond the site
boundary.”
Finally, I must query whether the
process has been a meaningful consultation?
· there has been a lack of response to
correspondence;
· concerns of the community have not
been considered in the addendums to the application; and
· addendums have been overly long and
technical which the ordinary person would find it hard to interpret (e.g. 2
weeks given to respond to the latest traffic addendum which was 197 pages
long).
I would urge you therefore not to
approve the current proposal. Thank
you.”
Len Arthur:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to your proposal
I’ve been involved with the Pontyclun group mentioned in
your report from the start.
I share your concerns to develop the economy of RCT and, in
particular, provide additional sustainable work.
Also, as mentioned in your report, the Pontyclun group
undertook a survey of residents in Pontyclun and Talbot Green and held a number
of public meetings.
The main outcome was that about 30% totally opposed the
development and about 10% totally in favour.
In between that figure, residents were more supportive of a
Sainsburys store and supporting the retention of Leekes, but less increasingly
less supportive of the other proposals.
Within our remit from local residents I would like to
address the fundamental assumption in the proposal before you.
That it will attract new and existing RCT shoppers and
create sustainable employment.
The intention is to demonstrate that new shopping trends
have appeared since the original LDP and consequently need to be taken into
account.
Thus ensuring a development that will achieve both
objectives but in a different way.
In 2011 BIS published a survey showing that between 2000 –
2009 town centre retail stores fell by 15,000.
A trend that is accelerating with 10,000 further stores
being lost since 2010.
Indeed in January of this year retail sales fell 0.6% but
online trading increased by 8%.
Deloitte, in a report published in 2012 entitled the
Changing Face of Retail stated that retail had reached a ‘tipping point’ and it
was expected that stores would decline by another 30 – 40% over the next five
years.
It is not just these figures that are significant for your
consideration but the four mechanisms driving the changes identified by
Deloitte, which are:
Consumer spending remaining weak
Business costs, especially fixed continuing to rise
The internet profoundly changing shopping patterns
Intensified competition
Basically – costs are rising and traditional town centre
shopping demand falling.
This new situation needs to be taken account of.
What I would suggest
·
Give yourself the flexibility to consider the
impact of these trends
·
Don’t lock yourself into this plan by approving
the whole outline planning permission today.
·
Support Sainsburys and Leekes on the brown field
site as phase 1.
·
Then review other possibilities for the rest of
the brown field area.
Such as
·
an extension of the successful Coed Kilay
industrial centre
·
and work with Royal Mail to develop their
existing provision into a 24 hour pick
up and return depot for internet shoppers with supporting facilities.
The second suggestion would be a first and genuinely unique.
Thus, getting ahead of the new and emerging shopping trends.
Sustainably achieving your twin objectives of attracting
local shoppers and providing sustainable employment.
The danger in supporting the plan today is that you provide
the developer with enhanced property value which will be rapidly realised by
selling on.
But RCT will be left irretrievably committed to this
proposal which at worse, could end up not being realised, such as the Westfield
town centre development in Bradford which has remained a hole in the ground for
the last seven years.
End