This day by day report by Y Celteiddwyr is our experience of the public inquiry called by the National Assembly of Wales due to the calling in of the Morrisons plans for the derelict Brown Lenox site and the non-determination of the Morbaine plans for a superstore on Sardis Road rugby ground, Pontypridd.
On 10th June 2006, a Planning Decision Committee of 4 ministers headed by Carwyn Jones AM, the Environment, Planning and Countryside minister revovked permission for Morrisions to build on the Brown Lenox site.
Inquiry reconvened on 4th January 2006.
Final Summarys
8th November 2005 - A Lively Start
The Planning Inspector laid out their objectives for the inquiry. The issues to be addressed are to include the following:
The biggest revelation of the day came from the barrister for SDG, Anthony Dinkley, who stated that SDG are ready to sign a contract with Sainsbury's regarding Angharad Walk the next day, on Wednesday the 9th of November. This comes some 28 months after planning permission was granted for Angharad Walk and on the day when reports have been made that Teesland/SDG have instructed Cooke & Arkwright to dispose of their properties in Pontypridd.
Morrisons will be the main focus for this week and to start, the Inspector queried the plans for the Brown Lenox site, including elevations and landscaping, but said it was important to consider that this development will make use of a derelict site and will bring prominent environmental improvement to the area. Morrisons' representatives said that they hoped that a Section 106 agreement will be agreed with RCT council within the the next 2 weeks. It has been tabled that a bus link running every 7-9 minutes will be established to the retail park and there will also be improved pedestrian links and access.
Morbaine's QC, Mr Dinkin, questioned if Morrisons already had permission from the trustees for a proposed walkway through Ynysangharad Park. The Morrisons representative replied that this is not yet in place. The Inspector also raised concerns regarding funding to be committed to the restoration and sustainability of the Glamorganshire Canal basin to the rear of the site.
Peacocks Consultants, acting for Morrisons, reported that Pontypridd currently suffers from major spending leakage to nearby areas such as Talbot Green (Tesco), Coryton (Asda) and Aberdare (Tesco and Asda). They also reported that the proposed Sainsburys store for Angharad Walk would not be financially viable due to its size. Results from a survey conducted by Peacocks found that 3,000 pedestrian trips are made every week from Pontypridd Town Centre to the Brown Lenox retail park.
On a final note, the Chamber of Trade are not listed to make any representation at the public enquiry. This is after they waited until the afternoon of the 21st June 2005, the final day for submissions to the Planning Inspectorate, to lodge an objection to the Morrisons development.
Return to Top
9th November 2005 - Angharad Walks Again!
The letter dated 4 November 2005 from Sainsburys to the Enquiry was presented in the public documents area for the public to read. The main item was that, quote:
"As stated the terms of the Agreement to be signed with SDG are conditional on Planning Permission being refused for the other major foodstore proposals. If either Morbaine or Morrisons schemes were to received Planning Permission then our Contract with SDG allows us to pull out of the scheme (Angharad Walk). The SDG scheme and the Morrisons/Morbaine proposals are being fully assessed and our conclusion is that a supermarket in the SDG scheme would not be viable if either of the other sites were to receive consent for a supermarket. We would not be interested in providing a smaller outlet in the town centre."
Reference was made to the fact that the WDA would not clarify the position on the public financial support required for the Angharad Walk scheme, in fact the WDA would not comment on the amount of public money the scheme would require.
Jane Davidson's letter to the Inspectorate was also available, and she requested the Inspector to take full consideration of the strong public support for the Morrisons scheme.
Comment was made in the public gallery that the RCT/Queen's Counsel would probably receive a fee of £150,000, speculation was then rife in the public gallery about the total cost of the Enquiry, because there are 4 QCs involved. It was conjectured that the possible cost of the Enquiry would be in the region of £700,000.
Reference was made by SDG's QC that RPS, the Angharad Walk agents for SDG had produced a study that Pontypridd was moving into stagnation. Y Celteiddwyr can only comment that it is RPS that has had the opportunity since the late 80s/early 90s to redevelop the town centre, and they have not achieved anything in that time.
Return to Top
10th November 2005 - Shopping, Transport and Funding
Most of Thursday taken up with discussions about catchment areas for shopping trips, zoning vitality and viability linked to pedestrian flow between town centre and the retail park. Questions to technical experts revolved around competitive opportunities like Tesco at Upper Boat. Our interpretation of all the technical jargon that there was not fair competition, and that Tesco at Upper Boat was in effect over-trading, and implications to Y Celteiddwyr seems to be that there is capacity for competition to attract and retain shoppers in the Pontypridd area. In our view, Morrisons will contribute to this in a favourable location for shoppers who would use the town centre as well as the retail park.
The QC for SDG suggested to one of the consultants with regard to a report on shopping pattern assessments whether the test in policy terms will weaken the Town Centre. Answer - may be in quantative terms but not in qualitative terms! RPS, the Consultants for SDG/Teesland, did a survey which currently indicated a stagnant growth position in Pontypridd. Comments from the public gallery included, "Well they ought to know, it’s their delays with RCT / WDA that has caused it?”
The issue about the prospect of a public grant funding for Sainsbury's was raised. Y Celteiddwyr had requested in the summer of this year information from the WDA as to how much the SDG, Sainsbury scheme would require. This information has still not been made available and Y Celteiddwyr has previously gone to the Information Commission to get the answer; also we have written to Carwyn Jones AM asking him to obtain the information.
A lot of time was taken up with whether or not Morrisons had a contract with the local bus company, Shamrock. It was stated that there would be a regular service and Morrisons would contribute £25,000 toward an extra Bus to add to divert the presently routed Buses with a 10 min service from and to the town centre.
Our view of the Thursday session was that it reflected the high state of retail store competition, and that the complainants SDG and Morbaine were upset by the prospect of open competition with Morrisons, thus their case seemed to be based on highly technical shopping pattern issues to drag the Morrison case down.
Return to Top
11th November 2005 - 2011 and beyond!
On Friday, the QC for Morbaine said that the RCT officers’ rejection of the Morrison scheme had put the Council in a difficult position. Members had blessed the scheme without a proper assessment report. The Public Gallery at this point mumbled, “Yes it’s called democracy. The councillors did what the public wanted, not what the officers wanted, and we want Morrisons.” One of the RCT Consultants, Mr Langham, in cross-examination said the members of the Council had taken a political position. The QC for SDG said Sainsbury’s will not proceed if Morrisons came to Brown Lenox - Mr Langham replied that if you are in the market they must take risks, it’s the way the market operates!
On Friday afternoon, the public were able to give their views to the Inquiry. Mr John Coduri, Mr Mike Duxbury for Ponty Pride, Mr A Carter for Y Celteiddwyr, and Cllr Ray Baldwin for Friends of the Park, all presented submissions. Frustration about the continued stagnation of our town was evident, and in the morning session one of the expert witnesses for RCT, Mr Langham, had said the Angharad Walk scheme was unlikely to materialise until 2011 and beyond. This could be interpreted as including Angharad Walk in the 10 year Regeneration Strategy that the Pontypridd Town Forum commissioned RPS to draw up earlier this year. This same document also points out, “25 years of discussion have already been spent trying to build consensus about what needs to happen in the town centre, without enough visible progress being made.” For many of these years RPS have been the agents for the ‘preferred developer’, SDG/Teesland, so it has been their client who have failed to make the progress! Is this delay related to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and to the Local Development Plan for 2006 to 2021?
Members of the public will give further submissions on Tuesday of next week when the Inquiry reconvenes.
The Inspector, following some of the public contributions to the Inquiry probably linked to statements regarding the popular use of Ynysangharad Park for concerts and other activities asked if there was to be a firework display the next evening? The public informed him it had been postponed for a second time because the park was flooded and waterlogged. This issue has always been pressed by Y Celteiddwyr because it was raised in the Inquiry by them that there was no Flood Consequence Report by Environment Agency, because RCT officers or SDG/TEESLAND had never requested one which is in breach of the Welsh Assembly's TAN15 (Flood Plains and Flood Risk) policy as contained in Planning Policy Wales. You cannot build therefore a car park in the Park; it is a natural and essential Flood Plain!
The Inspector reported that the Inquiry would adjourn at end of next week and recommence in January 2006 to fit in with the main parties’ diaries. Speculation in the Public Gallery thinks the cost of this enquiry to be in the region of £700,000 to be paid for by the Welsh Assembly!
Return to Top
15th November 2005 - We want development now!
The Inquiry reconvened and heard submissions from three members of the public. Mr B Talbot speaking in support of Morrisons said that he was born and bred in Pontypridd and in fact was born on the site of the Taff-Vale Shopping Centre. He supported the Morrisons project which he said was to go on a derelict site, and the case for it far out-weighed anything that could be put against it. It will not impact on the park and will improve traffic-flow in the area, and improve pedestrian links with the town, making the pedestrian journeys less hazardous. The delays regarding Angharad Walk are making things worse, and is a long time in the future. The Morrisons project can bring short-term benefits and improvements. The Inspector asked him if he used the Retail Park and he said yes, I walk there regularly, I live in Middle Street, Trallwn, and it is quicker to walk than take a car, and many people walk to the Retail Park.
M/s. M Davies of the Graig said she supported Morrisons because we want development now, and how long do we have to wait for Angharad Walk. She said pensioners make fun of the fact that they will be dead and gone by the time Angharad Walk comes along, and there are many obstacles to the scheme. She inquired as to why the Scarborough Group did not buy the Precinct when it was up for sale. Mrs Davies said in 1993/94 the relief road brought chaos for years, and she said pedestrians rush out of the station and even though there are traffic lights there to cross, there are still accidents because of the width of the road at that particular junction. She said that with regard to Morbaine there are going to be real problems with the ground and drainage because there are old coal workings there called Dan's Muck Hole. It is extremely unlikely, she said, that the old chain works will be used for that type of industry again, that we want to save the park and avoid pollution. A car park there would have a detrimental effect.
Following the public's submissions the rest of the Session was taken up with technicalities revolving around the traffic impact on the gyratory road system due to the Morrison scheme. The Glamorgan Engineering Consultancy Officer speaking for the Morrison scheme, and in support of RCT Highways, including the Welsh Highways Authority (WAG) indicated that traffic assessment had been completed and was satisfactory. However, the Morbaine QC raised the issue of failure to agree common ground between the parties, and the Inspector directed that the parties agree impact issues, and report to a further meeting of the Inquiry.
Return to Top
16th November 2005 - ...however long it takes
The QC for SDG questioning their retail consultant raised the issue of the Angharad Walk scheme as the only viable scheme capable of regenerating the Pontypridd town centre, and suggesting that Morrisons would be an out of town, edge of town, development, so too would the Morbaine scheme at Sardis Road, and that would be even more of a problem. He raised the ideas put forward by the new owners of the Taff-Vale Shopping Centre with regard to what he described as a vague idea of a Debenhams store as an anchor store for the development of that site, as of yet, he said, there was no evidence for such a development. SDG said, that what Pontypridd needs is the Angharad Walk development and the issuing of CPOs to achieve further site land assembly for the scheme.
The Financial Director of SDG, Mr Stephen McBride, indicated that the Fountains Walk Partnership owned land on Gas Lane Car Park, and a few shops in Taff Street that back on to Gas Lane, all of which are central to the Angharad Walk development site, but confirmed that the Company does not own the Taff-Vale Shopping Centre (Precinct). In 2004 there were two valuations of the Taff-Vale Centre, (1) £3.25m and (2) £3.7m. The WDA were involved with SDG to purchase it, SDG wanted the WDA to match fund, however, the WDA could not do it. SDG will not purchase the site without the WDA, and the Director in cross-examination by the Morrisons QC was highly critical of the difficulties his Company has had with the WDA and RCT as Partners, he said after the Inquiry is over they will require a total commitment by the WDA, and RCT, to have a Compulsory Purchase Order the Taff-Vale Centre and Park sites. He said that they will wait for 'however long it takes". A figure of £13.3m was mentioned as based on autumn 2004 figures. The WDA, RCT, and the company Fountains Walk Ltd, must all be involved in the future of land assembly for the Angharad Walk scheme, he said that construction could start in 2011-2012. He was asked why it took so long until this Inquiry was underway to get a Sainsbury commitment and agreement to the scheme? He said it is a very complex scheme, and it was obvious from the comments in the public gallery that a question hung over the scheme as to whether it was achievable?
Return to Top
17th November 2005 - Didn't we just discuss this?
Much of day 7 was taken up again on traffic issues, food store catchment areas, what attracts shoppers and the impact of surrounding stores, like TESCO, Upper Boat, Asda in Tonypandy and the prospect TESCO store ear-marked for the Porth Bus Depot site. Confusion was again evident as to whether there is an agreed common ground traffic assessment impact for Morrisons and Morbaine. Morbaine were concerned about the comparative position of the Morrison proposals, it was clearly a day of infighting amongst competing companies, and the QCs were well into the cut and thrust of the debate.
Return to Top
18th November 2005 - Finally, we can go to the Rugby
The Morbaine case opened and the Retail Consultants for the Company made the case to locate an A1 food store on the Sardis Road Rugby Ground. The freehold of which is owned by RCT County Borough Council. They gave all the reasons in their opinion as to why their proposals were better than Morrisons. At the end of the day they had to concede that until it can be demonstrated that the site is available to Morbaine, the Morrisons QC stated in cross-examination that we must accept that it is not available. The Morbaine Retail Consultant also had to accept that the site, as yet, was not available to them. The Morrisons QC suggested that the Morbaine proposals were highly speculative, and there was no evidence to suggest that it could presently go-ahead.
Return to Top
Y Celteiddwyr Commentary and Opinion on the Inquiry so far
Just before the Inquiry started, we wrote to Carwyn Jones, the Minister for Environment at WAG who called-in the Morrisons application, and asked him if he thought that the WDA refusal to give us information regarding the SDG public expenditure grant for Angharad Walk was in the public interest for them to withhold the information.
As a follow-up, Y Celteiddwyr has written to the WDA on the 21 November 2005 requesting them to confirm the statements made at the Inquiry by SDG's Financial Director that £13.3m funding would be required to continue land assembly for Angharad Walk, considering their refusal in June to give us the information (the matter is currently registered with the Information Commission for Resolution).
Also following the first session of the Public Inquiry, Y Celteiddwyr has written to the RCT Chief Executive, Mr Keith Griffiths, requesting the following information.
Y Celteiddwyr will report from January 2006 when the Inquiry reconvenes. Meanwhile Cllr Russell Roberts, Leader of RCT, has written again to Carwyn Jones AM, expressing the Council's concern and frustration at the length of time the Inquiry is taking.
Return to Top
4th January 2006 - If only there was a magic wand...
The Public Inquiry into the Morrison Planning Application for the derelict Brown Lenox site in the Retail Park reconvened with the Inspector issuing a time-table for day 9, 10 and 11, the 4, 5 and 6 of January 2006 respectively. On Wednesday, 4 January 2006, the Inquiry resumed with the case for Morbaine Ltd, and their traffic expert consultant. The case against Morbaine Ltd would be put by the RCT legal team.
The Inspector opened the Session at 10 am, and referred to a fax he had received from Y Celteiddwyr's secretary regarding the two unfortunate fatalities on the Bridge Street Interchange since the Inquiry last met. There were approximately 15 members of the public in attendance. The main submissions by Morbaine Ltd, again revolved around the traffic impact of the scheme and the impact on the gyratory road. The barrister for Morbaine Ltd, Mr Dinkin, said that RCT no longer had objection to the Morbaine Ltd proposal, but had laid down traffic conditions which had to be met.
The Inspector agreed that a compendium of letters, surveys, and petitions, would be accepted and were submitted by Y Celteiddwyr indicating the massive support for the Morrison scheme. Also, a letter from Jane Davidson AM to the Assembly Planning Minister, Carwyn Jones, regarding the Morrisons Application was also distributed. She had referred to a possible misinterpretation by the Minister with regard to Retailing and Planning Policy Wales.
In the afternoon, the witness for RCT was questioned on Planning Policy Wales Section 10.1.2 which states "Wherever possible retail provision should be located in proximity to other commercial businesses... Such co-location of retail and other services in existing centres with enhancment of access by walking, cycling and public transport." The question was posed if 2 or 3 retail sites were preferable. The reply from the witness was that if sufficent linkage is in place, then there is no differnce if there are 2 or 3 locations. However, the point was raised that if a site is over 200-300 metres walk from a Town Centre, such as Sardis Road, then it is not classified as suitable for Town Centre Usage.
On behalf of Morrisons, Mr Justin Fletcher was questioned about the Morbaine plans for Sardis Road. He stated that as RCT have given their support for both Angharad Walk and the Brown Lenox schemes, it is highly unlikely that permission will be granted for Morbaine's plans. It was assumed that a new location for Pontypridd Rugby Club would have to be found and established before any construction could begin on Sardis Road, thereby causing delays to the development. Mr Fletcher also stated that regeneration of the Brown Lenox site would result in reduced traffic due to linked journeys to the retail park.
During cross examination by Mr Dinkin for Morbaine, Mr Fletcher was questioned on Morrisons' previous interest in the Sardis Road location. Mr Fletcher stated that Morrisons had previously looked into acquiring the Sardis Road site, but had dismissed it due to problems with leisure, traffic and planning issues. Mr Dinkin pressed Mr Fletcher for 30 minutes on the subject on whether Morrisons might reconsider the site, with Mr Fletcher's final answer being, "Subject to a magic wand that would solve those problems, then maybe Morrisons would reconsider." Re-examination brought the news that RCT have now given their consent to a walkway through the park and over the A470 subject to permission being granted for the Morrisons scheme.
Return to Top
5th January 2006 - More Traffic and Views from the Public
Cases against Morbaine Ltd - Morrisons witnesses Traffic Consultants and Retail Consultants referred to Reports which cast doubt on the Morbaine Ltd scheme and its viability. The Morrisons QC cross-examined the Traffic Expert for Morbaine Ltd, and much of the morning was taken up with the traffic impact on the gyratory road system raising the issue of the consistency of the road traffic surveys completed by Morbaine Ltd. Issues such as the necessity of road improvement, synchronised traffic lights, extra lanes, all converging on Rhondda Road, the Morrisons QC put it to Morbaine Ltd that whereas their scheme at Brown Lenox would improve traffic flow, and alleviate congestion, the Morbaine Ltd scheme by contrast would create traffic gridlock on the gyratory road. The Inspector allowed the public in the gallery to put their questions to the Morbaine Ltd Consultant, and the overwhelming public view was that there would be traffic chaos in the area of Maesycoed and Pwllgwaun, that in fact residents would be trapped within the area and not able to exit to the gyratory system, but would have to exit the area via the Graigwen Hill, and rat-runs would become a feature to avoid traffic in the vicinity of the proposed store.
The Morrisons Consultant for Retail Impact was questioned by the Morrison QC and stated that the Morbaine Ltd proposals were less attractive and there were fundamental differences between the two schemes with regard to retail and transport. One particular advantage for Morrisons was that the site was already available for development, whereas the Sardis Road Rugby Ground is not available, and that it is still a used sports facility. There were issues on the Morbaine Ltd site of loss of amenity to the public, loss of trees, environmental traffic impact, etc., whereas the Morrisons site is already on an established retail park. The Brown Lenox derelict site is also to be environmentally improved, and the site is within walking distance to the centre of town. He also raised the issue of the Rugby Club proposal being against Planning Policy Wales because the sporting facility would have to be replaced in the area it served, and this would not be possible so there would be a loss of amenity. The Inspector raised questions surrounding the difficulties and speculative views presented by the Morrison Consultant regarding the Sardis Road site. Issues of deliverability of the land, the amenity, and the necessity of legal agreements to obtain the full Planning Permission for Sardis Road were also discussed.
At the end of the afternoon, the Inspector invited members of the public to put their views. Half a dozen members of the public, mostly from the Maesycoed/Sardis Road Rugby Ground area, spoke strongly against the Morbaine Ltd scheme. Members of the public made comment that the Rugby Club, the main backers of Morbaine Ltd., did not turn up to the Inquiry at any time over the 10-day period that the Inquiry has been in session. Furthermore, the Club never consulted the public in the area as to what their preferences would have been for the use of the ground; overwhelmingly, members of the public would want a leisure centre to replace the Rugby Ground in its present form. One member of the public said it would not be possible to move the rugby facility to the Park because the Park was a flood plain, and the standard required for such facilities today would not tolerate the establishment of such buildings on a flood plain. Furthermore, the Park was protected by Trust Law and such a move would trigger a fourth public inquiry in Pontypridd.
Return to Top
6th January 2006 - And finally...
Session on Agreements and Conditions for the Morrison Application and for the Morbaine Appeal. This would include any s106 Agreements concluded with RCT, and any other Agreements such as Bus Link Agreements etc. Mr Clayton Jones gave evidence with regard to his commitments to provide bus services to the respective sites, and that the Company would fit in with any adjustment to plans with regard to the operation, however, before he finished his submission to the Inquiry which he attended at his request, he made it clear to the Inquiry that he had personal objections to both proposals, but that he would, if the Applications went ahead rather be involved than not to be involved. There were comments in the public gallery wondering whether his objections were linked to the Chamber of Trade, because although the Chamber of Trade had put in a last minute objection to the Morrison Application they did not attend or give evidence to the Inquiry.
Some discussion revolved around the Grampian House of Lords decision which referred to the issue of negative conditions, seemingly revolving around an applicant's access to land. Mr Porten QC acting for RCT raised the issue of uncertainty and no prospect of fulfilment if a planning application were granted to Morbaine Ltd., as the application may be delayed due to land ownership circumstances (this is our interpretation of what was said). Mr Porten said that the Sainsbury's proposition relative to Angharad Walk seemed inconsistent and that the Inspector should give limited weight only to their position. RCT would not think that the Angharad Walk scheme would collapse? He also referred to Planning Policy Wales, para. 10.2, regarding a recent statement by the Minister indicating that out-of-town centre stores could be allowed in certain circumstances. Reference was made to the fact that even though the Rugby Club and the Football Club were mentioned in the Inquiry quite a few times, there were no witnesses to the Inquiry from either source. Mr Porten said there was a question mark with the availability of the land at Sardis Road, the Applicant's ability to deliver a scheme was in question, as a Planning Policy Strategy, there was a lack of weight to the Morbaine Ltd proposal, and that the Rugby Club would have to have a new home. Furthermore, there was great public opposition to the Morbaine scheme.
Return to Top
9th January 2006 - Site Visits
Site Visits were made by the Inspector, accompanied by representatives of Morrisons and Morbaine, and 6 members of the public who had taken a keen interest by attending the Inquiry on a regular basis.
At 9.30 am on Monday, 9 January 2006, the Inspector visited the Pontypridd Rugby Club, and Rugby Ground, he was taken around with the group by the Secretary of the Club. He made notes of the geography and topography of the site, gave very much attention to the surrounding residential area, and road system, and much discussion revolved around the traffic issue, and the gyratory road. It was pointed out to the Inspector that the ground (site) was historically a mining area, and that it was highly probable that coal workings, roadways, etc. were prevailent under the site. In fact, an entry/drift roadway was pointed out to him at the back of the stands. It was stated to him that the Coal Board would probably have details of the mining activity on the site, and that no geological assessment had been made by the proposers of the development.
The Inspector then visited the Brown Lenox site at around 11am. Again, the Inspector assessed the arameters of the site, and was interested in the Old Glamorganshire Canal area, taking note of the Canal Basin area and the locks. Y Celteiddwyr's Secretary informed him of the proposals for restoration and the position of CADW, the Wildlife Trust, the Town Council, and the Prince's Trust, who were all interested in possible restoration, and the provision of appropriate grants for such an important historical Listed Monument. Morrisons are prepared to kick-start the restoration fund with a contribution of £125,000. He paid attention to the Broadway/A470 Roundabout and noted the pedestrians walking to and from the linked Retail Park site, the site is extensive and he took keen interest and made notes. Again the members of the public supporting the Morrisons application were able to give views.
At about 12.30pm the Inspector thanked everyone for attending, and said he would now prepare his report for the Welsh Assembly Decision Committee.
Return to Top
Final Submission for Morrisons by Mr Vincent Fraser QC.
He said it is common ground between all the witnesses to the Inquiry that there is a quantitative and qualitative need in Pontypridd for new food store provision capable of accommodating bulk food shopping. Furthermore, any provision must be of a sufficient size to cater for bulk food shopping, provide adequate convenient and accessible car parking, and be readily and easily accessible by car, and capable of competing with the existing out of centre large superstores in the wider area. The results of a household survey suggest that the existing convenience stores may be over-trading by up to £46.11m. The Morrison's Traffic Consultant raised serious concerns about the highway and traffic problems associated with the Angharad Walk development.
The Regeneration Strategy Vision of making Pontypridd town centre the economic hub of the County Borough requires easier car parking and removing congestion. Angharad Walk would have to compete with TESCO at Upperboat which is easily accessible by car, and the car park for Angharad Walk in a 106 obligation required its management as a public car park at no less favourable rates than other town centre car parks. The Angharad Walk development was dependant upon the Catherine Corner car park coming forward, and the parking assessments relied upon this car park. It seems from evidence that the proposal only worked if general town centre users did not use the Angharad Walk car park, but this was not realistic as they would make use of it.
The problems with the car park are recognised by the developer and potential operators, as they have made much in their representations and evidence about the constrained nature of the development, and the difficulty it would have competing with a Morrisons at the Brown Lenox roundabout. But the same problems apply to competing with the existing large stores, including Tesco at Upperboat which is only a few minutes by car further down the A470. There is also the issue that Scarborough and their joint venture company, Fountains Walk Partnership Ltd, failed to take the opportunity in late 2004/early 2005 to acquire the Taff Vale Shopping Centre which is central to the Angharad Walk development. It was acquired by a rival company. The Finance Director of SDG in cross-examination confirmed that any further progress with the Angharad Walk scheme is dependant upon agreements with, and substantial funding, from the WDA and RCT. There are serious doubts as to whether the Angharad Walk/Sainsburys proposal will proceed.
With regard to Morbaine Ltd., on Morbaine's own evidence, there was no ground for concluding that there was a reasonable prospect that any Grampian condition requiring relocation of the Rugby Club could be satisfied within a reasonable period of time. In such circumstances it would not be appropriate to impose a Grampian condition which would be contrary to policy, and therefore, Planning Permission could not properly be granted. In terms of any sequential test, or analysis, one should only consider available sites that until it was demonstrated that the Rugby Club could, and would be relocated, the Rugby Club site was not available, and the Rugby Club site is not currently available because it is still used for sporting activity. Furthermore, the Rugby Club site did not need to be considered further in the sequential analysis, and that the only available site was the Brown Lenox site for Morrisons.
With regard to the Brown Lenox site the existing building would not suit most modern industrial type building occupiers, and is unsuitable to meet most of the characteristics an occupier would be looking for. Within the industrial distribution market demand for premises is low, and largely restricted to a few strategically placed regional distribution centres. The derelict Brown Lenox site with a Morrisons store would provide significant new employment, would regenerate a prominent neglected brownfield site which will improve the image of the area, the entrance to Pontypridd on the A470, it would provide environmental enhancements in the form of the contribution towards the restoration of the Glamorganshire Canal, and providing a new route for pedestrians through Ynysangharad Park. It would also provide highway benefits both in the form of the agreed highway improvements, but also the removal of some traffic from busy parts of the town centre road network. The need for, and benefits of, the Morrison proposal are clearly recognised by the local community, both the Local Authority and the many local people who have supported the proposal, including many who have attended throughout the Inquiry. In all the circumstances I would invite you (The Inspector) to recommend to the Welsh Assembly that Planning Permission should be granted for the proposal subject to the imposition of suitable conditions.
Return to Top
Mr Dinkin QC, acting for Morbaine Ltd., gave his final submission to the Inquiry, he said that the Morbaine Ltd proposal would function as an edge of centre site near a residential area and is a viable proposal. It would have a very close association with the town centre, and would link with the Pontypridd town strategy, the site is as close as possible to the town centre, and there are no grounds in retail terms to reject the Morbaine Ltd scheme. His final submission mentioned that Morrisons, ASDA, and Sainsburys, were all interested in the Morbaine Ltd site, and that it would not be prejudicial to the regeneration strategy and any indicators that imply this, there is no substance to it, he claimed that RCT had conceded this particular point. He said that the only prospect of saving the Rugby Club is the Morbaine Ltd proposal, and it is of a material consideration, but it is accepted that there must be an alternative site available.
Morbaine Ltd have never alleged that Morrisons should be refused on highway grounds, but neither should Morbaine Ltd, the only effect is on the gyratory road system, secondly there was a problem with regard to traffic queueing back from the Rhondda road, the Morrisons traffic assessment never took into consideration their impact on the gyratory system. Morrisons would put more traffic into the gyratory than Morbaine Ltd would.
On a comparative issue, Mr Dinkin said that the Sardis Road site should be the preferred site, basically on the following grounds:
It is nonsense to say that Morbaine Ltd proposal is sequentially inferior to Morrisons. The rat-run issue raised at the Inquiry would be a very real problem with the Morrisons proposal, and the point about the Brown Lenox site being more visible with regard to an entry to Pontypridd, is not an important criteria, to give the Morrisons scheme any preferential consideration. On the balance of planning viability, the balance should be in favour of the Morbaine Ltd scheme.
Return to Top
Mr Porten QC, on behalf of RCT, issued his closing submission in written form, with a verbal address to the Inquiry, and his submissions were arranged under three headings:
Under para. 15, he said that SDG (Mr Stephen McBride) had confirmed the potential opening date of Angharad Walk to be at the earliest 2010 - 2011. With regard to his paragraph on the Sainsbury position, para. 16, he said Sainsburys have been inconsistent and that only at the start of the Inquiry was a document produced in which they threatened that they might rely on their contractual terms that would allow them not to proceed if permission were granted for Morrisons and Morbaine Ltd. He said that the evidence submitted by Sainsburys has not been subject to cross-examination, and could hold limited weight only.
With regard to the section of his summing up giving support of RCT to the Morrison Application in paragraph 21 in evidence from RCT it was said the Members of the Council should be congratulated on the grounds that they had properly found in a report provided to them, that there would be justification for two stores, and that the granting of permission to Morrisons would not be harmful to the town centre. Under his section Policy-Employment Land, para. 26, he said for the reasons given, the Morrisons proposal tested as an out-of-centre store satisfies retail policies. The only other potential conflict is in relation to the loss of employment land. However, in para. 27, he referred to the structure plan policy R6 which allows the use of industrial sites for retail development, if there is a sufficient quantity and variety of other land available, and retail land is scarce, and that the conditions had been made out. Under the Regeneration and Pontypridd's image section, para. 29, he concludes the Brown Lenox site is a very prominent and important location at one of the gateways into Pontypridd.
In the report section dealing with RCT's objections to the Morbaine Ltd Appeal, para. 30, 31, 32, and 33, the following issues were raised in the concluding report. He contends the case which Morbaine Ltd presented indicating that the Application cannot succeed as it cannot overcome fundamental objections which remain by reason of (a) Insurmountable conflict with relevant and critical policies, and (b) Their inability to show that their proposal can be implemented. In para. 31, the site accommodates existing sports and recreation facilities, and in Planning Policy Wales, para. 11.1.11, such sites must be protected. It is not proposed to enhance the existing facilities by the redevelopment of a small part of the site, no alternative provision of equivalent community benefit forms part of the Application, or as been secured, and there is not an excess of provision in the area, the proposal is also in conflict with Policy R7 of the Local Plan which prohibits the loss of sports grounds and playgrounds.
He raises in his section on Delivery, paras. 35, 36, 37 and 38, serious issues revolving around the ownership of the site, referred to trusteeship, freehold, and the conditions of lease with restrictions etc. On his section regarding other matters, paras. 39, 40, 41 and 42, he reiterates the Applicants are not able to deliver the development. The Pontypridd Regeneration Strategy shows other possible uses for the Rugby Ground, and in contrast to the Morrison position, public opinion, as expressed to the Inquiry, discloses no support for the Application but substantial opposition, in para. 42, he said the proposals have been presented in the form of a bare Outline Application only.
Return to Top
Final Summary - Scarborough Development Group
Final submission on behalf of Scarborough Development Group by Mr C Lockhart-Mummery QC. In a written and verbal submission, the following broad sequence of topics was covered. Introduction - considerations relating to Angharad Walk, retail issues, quantitative need, diversion from Pontypridd town centre, sequential issues, policy issues, matters specific to Morrisons, and matters specific to Morbaine Ltd.
In the Introduction, para. 3, reference is made to the Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement 02/2005 Planning for Retail and Town Centres (November 2005), which adds yet further emphasis to the importance of the town centre. Not merely should the town centre be promoted and enhanced, 'proactive steps' (para. 10.2.1) should be taken to identify expansion opportunities. The search for town centre opportunities is to be yet more robust before edge of centre/out-of-town centre sites are even considered. It says in para. 5, neither proposal at the Inquiry should be seriously entertained as there is no quantitative need after Angharad Walk and qualitative need will be met in a perfectly satisfactory manner by the scheme. Giving retail priority to the town centre inevitably carries with it aspects of congestion - Policy recognises this.
The final submission set out in para. 7 the proposals to be addressed in sequence, the Local Plan Strategy and Regeneration, the effect of the Inquiry proposal, the commitment of Sainsburys, meeting the qualitative need, traffic and parking, alternatives to Sainsburys, and Debenhams. Angharad Walk is at the heart of the Pontypridd town centre regeneration strategy, formulated by the Local Plan under the umbrella of the Structure Plan. In para., 13, the submission concludes that if Planning Permission were granted for Morrisons or Morbaine Ltd., it cannot seriously be doubted that Sainsburys would withdraw from the town centre scheme, which would then collapse.
The Agreement between Sainsburys and SDG, is unsurprisingly constructed on this basis, and in the letter to the Inquiry from Sainsburys, dated 4 November 2005, it is clearly stated "if either the Morbaine Ltd, or Morrisons schemes were to receive Planning Permission, then our contract with SDG, allows us to pull out of the scheme. The SDG scheme and the Morrisons/Morbaine Ltd proposals, have been fully assessed by our Development Investment Committee, and the clear conclusion is that a supermarket in the SDG scheme would not be viable if either of the other sites were to receive consent for a supermarket".
In para. 26, he says reliance is placed on a so-called Debenhams proposal, there is no such proposal by Debenhams. In contrast there is a scheme being produced by Property Consultants, Riddell, whose timing in relation to this Inquiry perhaps tells its own clear story. Whatever the current status of this scheme, it cannot hold a candle to the SDG proposals for Angharad Walk. Those proposals have after a complex exercise over several years secured Planning Permission, Acceptance by the Highway Authority, and Acceptance in principle in terms of funding, and delivery, from RCT and WDA. It is a permitted and certain scheme with very strong prospects of proceeding if these proposals for Morbaine Ltd and Morrisons, are rejected. In para. 59, on Sequential Issues, the submission contends that the Morrison and Morbaine Ltd proposals do not meet the requirements of the test, and that as far as policy is concerned in para. 64, it says, if WAG Policy is to mean anything it should only lead to the rejection of these proposals.
Return to Top