The Planning Committee of Cardiff Council met to discuss several planning applications, including the redevelopment of the former Howells department store, a stopping up order for John Street, and a new hotel on Queen Street. The committee approved the Howells development, subject to conditions and referral to CADW¹, and also approved the stopping up orders and the Queen Street hotel.

Planning Applications

Howells of Cardiff, Trinity Street, Cathays

The committee considered two applications 24/02961/FUL and 24/02962/LBC for phases four and five of the redevelopment of the former Howells department store, a Grade II* listed building, including partial demolition, to deliver apartments and studio apartments, a hotel and flexible commercial floorspace. Councillor Peter Wong declared a prejudicial interest in this item and left the meeting during its discussion.

The planning officer, Steve, presented the application, highlighting the complexity of the project and the need to balance the benefits of the development against the identified harm to the heritage asset. He explained that the scheme had been amended to reduce the height of the central tower from 13 to 11 storeys, and to reduce the height of the upwards extensions to the Wharton Street+Trinity Street corner building and the gas and utility warehouse. He noted that the Council had appointed Holland Heritage, and Edward Holland, as a heritage expert for the application.

Councillor Emma Reid-Jones raised concerns about the scale and visual impact of the proposed tower on the historic conservation area, particularly its impact on the setting of St John's Church, and proposed deferral to allow officers time to formulate reasons for refusal.

Councillor Sean Driscoll questioned why the application was being approved in phases, and raised concerns about the red brickwork of the tower and its impact on the views of St John's Church. He proposed a condition to seek alternative products and materials for the tower.

Councillor Adrian Robson agreed with Councillor Sean Driscoll about the red brick finish of the tower being unacceptable, and said that the committee should see the final finish on the tower again before it is approved.

Steve said that he had no concern about a condition being amended to require further detail of all materials to come before the committee to be approved, particularly in respect of the central tower.

Councillor John Lancaster said that he had no issue with the size of the tower or the bricks, and that the matter should be delegated to officers and the chair on behalf of the committee.

Councillor Garry Hunt said that he thought it was a missed opportunity to create a tall building of some imagination and splendor, and that the building was just an accommodation block.

Councillor Jon Shimmin said that the tower blocked the view of the church and did not add anything, and that on balance it was too harmful to the city to support the application.

Councillor Helen Gunter said that she would prefer if the tower was a lighter brick, and would be happy for that to go to officers and the chair.

Sam, a planning officer, said that he had rarely worked on a scheme where the attention to detail had been so obsessed about by the client team and the architects involved in this project.

The committee voted against the proposal for reasons for refusal.

Steve proposed an amendment to condition 23 to say that notwithstanding the materials noted, particularly in respect of the central tower, further detail of all materials need to come back to the committee for determination.

The committee voted to delegate the decision on the condition to officers in consultation with the chair.

The committee then voted to grant the application subject to section 106 with the amended condition number 23.

Listed Building Consent

The committee then considered the associated listed building consent application 24/02962/LBC for the same site. Steve explained that because it was a grade two star building, the application was not for determination by the committee, but for a resolution that would be referred to CADW. He noted that there had been works within the building for strip out that they did not accept should have happened without their initial involvements, and that there was a condition for a bespoke level 4 building recording.

Councillor Adrian Robson asked for confirmation that the condition that was just approved on the previous application would be included in this.

The committee voted to grant listed building consent subject to the completion of a legal agreement, the conditions listed in section 13 with one amendment as discussed, and referral to CADW.

195-197 City Road, Plasnewydd

The committee considered an application 25/00437/FUL for the demolition of the existing 'Gaiety' building and redevelopment for Housing Association apartments and ground floor commercial units.

Councillor Jon Shimmin said that it was a shame to lose such a building of character, but it had been derelict for a few years and attracted some antisocial behavior, and that the proposed building wasn't the most imaginative looking, but that providing the social housing was desperately needed.

Councillor Adrian Robson said that the application was the next step as these higher rise buildings start progressing down city road, and that the gaiety was quite an interesting building and a missed opportunity.

Councillor Sean Driscoll asked for clarification on the plan in history, and said that he saw that the real lane was going to be tidied up.

Sam, a planning officer, said that they did specifically refer to the gaiety, and tried to echo some of its past, but that was not met with a positive response.

Councillor Garry Hunt said that for any fan of art deco architecture, the out of town cinemas were the business, and that it was a great shame and a great waste.

Councillor Emma Reid-Jones asked for clarification on the external amenity space.

Councillor Helen Gunter asked if waste management had taken a view on whether the wider lane would cause issues for waste collection.

Simon, a planning officer, said that the images that were shown with the side gable of the gaiety right to the edge of the pavement were the side lane, not the rear lane.

The committee voted to grant the application subject to section 106 agreement.

125-139 Queen Street, Cathays

The committee considered an application 25/00727/FUL for the remodelling and change of use of part of the existing building, with a new 3-storey extension plus roof-top pavilion, comprising a hotel, enhancements to the external elevations of the building including renewed facade, new fenestration, external lighting; new hotel entrance; and ancillary facilities.

Councillor John Lancaster said that the design and aesthetics of it is beautiful and in keeping with the buildings there with the setting of the conservation area, and that we desperately need more hotels in the city centre.

Councillor Peter Wong said that it was a lovely looking building, and asked if the use of obscure glazing was an acceptable means of mitigation to remedy overlooking, and was surprised that transport had given some more input to the access service lane at the back.

Councillor Michael Michael said that it was a really good design and complements the existing building, and that the applicants had done a superb job.

Councillor Garry Hunt said that this is how you do things, and that the buildings on Queen Street and all around the city centre do lend themselves to this sort of hotel project.

The committee voted to grant the application subject to section 106 agreement.

Stopping Up Orders

Section 116 Stopping Up Highway at John Street

The committee considered a report regarding a retrospective stopping up of highway at John Street.

The planning officer explained that the stopping up was to remove the highway rights, and that the area would become private.

Councillor Jon Shimmin asked for clarification as to what this means, and said that it seemed like they were putting their boundary onto council land and now we're going, okay, fine, take it, have it without any money being paid or anything like that.

Councillor Helen Gunter said that we have an issue because of the proximity to some complex housing services around there of things like needles, and asked if the land is stopped up and taken into private ownership, would they also have responsibility for picking up needles so they couldn't end up on the public highway.

The committee voted to approve the application.

Diversion of Public Footpath Lisvane No. 14

The committee considered a report regarding the diversion of Public Footpath Lisvane No. 14.

The planning officer explained that it was a minor diversion, and a retrospective stopping up.

Councillor Emma Reid-Jones asked if Mahdi Farm was not St. Julian's Farm.

The committee voted to approve the application.

Section 116 Braunton Crescent Stopping Up

The committee considered a report regarding a Section 116 Braunton Crescent Stopping Up.

The planning officer explained that it was a very similar situation to the last one, and that it was a retrospective stopping up.

The committee voted to approve the application.