The Planning Committee of Cardiff Council met to discuss a number of planning and development issues, including a proposal to open a betting shop in Llanrumney, the building of a 30-storey residential tower in Cathays, and a footpath diversion in Capel Llanilterne. The committee approved all three proposals.

Countersbury Avenue Betting Office

Councillors debated a full application for a change of use of the ground floor of 30 Countersbury Avenue from use class A1 (shop) to a sui generis¹ betting office. The committee voted to grant the application, subject to conditions. The planning officer presenting the application stated that it was being reported to the committee due to a valid petition of objection. They stated that the site, formerly a Barnardo's charity shop, was within the Countersbury Avenue Local Shopping Centre. The officer stated that the proposal complied with policy R5 of the Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006-2026, which aims to protect the shopping role of local centres. They argued that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the shopping role or character of the centre, and would bring a vacant unit back into use, complementing the existing shopping character.

Councillor Pocknell and Councillor Bridgman spoke against the proposal, raising concerns about the over-concentration of betting shops in Llanrumney, the impact on vulnerable people, and the proximity to schools and a new youth skills centre. Councillor Pocknell said:

Landrymny is one of the most deprived areas in Cardiff. We are a hard-working community, but we face real challenges. Financial pressures, health inequalities and social issues that are only made worse by pediatry businesses cluster in our area. Betting shops thrive on the vulnerability. They are not adding to the high street in a positive way. They are stripping money out of already stretched households.

Councillor Gunter asked about the marketing of the unit to encourage other uses, and the evidence considered regarding antisocial behaviour and crime. Councillor Wong raised concerns about the timing of the application relative to the marketing period, and whether the proposed opening hours were a planning consideration.

The planning officer responded that the unit had been marketed for more than six months, and that the key consideration was whether the proposed use would cause unacceptable harm to the shopping role and character of the centre. They added that the authorities had not objected to the proposal, and that the opening hours would be controlled by a condition.

Councillor Robson asked about the opening hours of the existing betting shops, but was told that this information was not material to the application.

Harlech Court Residential Tower

The committee then considered an application for a new residential tower of up to 30 storeys at Harlech Court, Bute Terrace. The committee voted to grant the application, subject to a Section 106 agreement². The planning officer stated that the application sought full planning permission for a new residential tower, including commercial ground and first floor uses, internal and external resident amenity areas, and a public square. The officer stated that the site was located on the southern side of Bute Terrace, between the Altolusso residential flats and the Citrus Hotel, and that the principle of the scheme ticked all the boxes in terms of meeting the policy requirements.

Councillor Wong raised concerns about the visual appearance of the tower, the lack of ecological baseline data, the waste management strategy, and the cycle provision. They said:

That bit about demand being lower, that's a wholly unevidence claim. and it's one that I completely dispute, because it fundamentally misunderstands cycle use. You don't use your bicycle less because you happen to live closer to a station, because you use a bus service and a train service for different things.

The planning officer responded that the cycle parking provision was part of negotiations to improve the layout and amenity space, and that the council always tried to get as close as possible to the aspirations of the policy and the SPG³. Councillor Gunter asked about the lack of parking provision, including disabled parking. Councillor Reid-Jones asked about a life analysis and the size of the floor space of each flat. Councillor Abdul-Sattar asked about having some three-bedroom flats in the development, and compared the appearance of the tower to the Crunchy Bridge in Swansea.

The planning officer responded that the floor space met the standard, that a lighting analysis had been done, and that developers rarely proposed three-bedroom flats in such developments. They added that the council's standards did not require parking provision in city centre developments.

Councillor Hunt asked about social housing, and was told that a financial contribution had been negotiated in lieu of on-site provision, with half of the contribution being allocated to affordable housing.

CADW⁴ had been consulted on the application, and raised no objection to the proposed residential tower.

Capel Llanilterne Footpath Diversion

Finally, the committee considered a Section 257 application for the diversion of Capel Llanilterne No. 18 Footpath. The committee voted to approve the application to instruct legal services to make the order.

The officer stated that the application was required due to the Persimmon development at Junction 33, and that the diverted footpath would provide a more meaningful route to the local centre.