Design and Access Statement is available online:

http://planning.cardiff.gov.uk/online-applications/files/37585E6BBFEDB42B09F00BE8521E3F22/pdf/14_00385_DCI-DESIGN_AND_ACCESS_STATEMENT-1523413.pdf

I think viewed from the right angle its an attractive building. However, on pages 59 to 61 of the statement. However, from certain key viewing points, I'm not sure. See 55 and 56. It looks fairly unimpressive as you walk out the station, for instance, because it presents only a small 'side' elevation to the main part of Central Square - its front/entrance will be facing north east towards St Davids house.

Perhaps shows that the square won't really feel right until properly developed with new buildings around the full square.

Link doesn't work, as usual (how do they DO that??) but you can search using the application number 14_00385.

I think IF it gets built, and IF they don't mess with the design to save money that will be the best looking office building in Cardiff.

That's not saying much though, I admit.

This looks really good and is the type of office space Cardiff is missing architecturally (whether there is an economic demand for it is another argument).

The masterplan included in the DAS does show quite a small central square with quite a congested look. I was hoping for a nice large square in front of the station but i guess the smaller the space the less tramps will be able to colonise it. Most of the buildings will probably not get built anyway so we may end up with something bigger.

I good start - just need to get it built now.

In some of those images it has the feel of the Hauptbanhoff (sp) in Berlin.

It looks decent enough, but i really think the elevation fronting the river is a wasted opportunity, absolutely no activity at all. Can't say I'm much of a fan of the massing schemes fro central square, seems very busy!

Well if it happens! I'm loving it, looks like a good quality building that won't look terrible 5 years after it's built. Also regarding the whole area, well busy busy busy! but how much that actually happens may make for more space. Well we'll do what we always do and wait and see! or are we going to see 2-3 years of major construction and blitz the whole scheme

The building is in this week's planning applications

14/00385/DCI Full Planning Permission Expected Decision DEL
Received: 20/02/2014 Ward: CATHAYS
Case Officer: Lawrence Dowdall
Applicant: Mr P McCarthy Rightacres Property Company, Churchill Way, Cardiff,
Agents: Rio Architects, 21a Allensbank Road, Heath, Cardiff, , CF14 3PN
Proposal: 9 STOREY (B1) OFFICE DEVELOPMENT WITH SEMI-BASEMENT PARKING
At: ONE CENTRAL SQUARE, CITY CENTRE, CARDIFF, CF10 1EN

It would be great if this office space is needed. However let's not put the cart before the horse. We need to get jobs created here and then we'll work out where to put them afterwards.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation isn't it ? I'm inclined to agree with you a bit Frank but I also think the city needs a certain amount of available grade A space, particularly if there are existing city employers potentially looking for new space (which there are if you can believe what you read and hear) and negotiations on-going with employers looking at the city with a view to relocating here (again if you can believe what you read and hear).

However, based on the city's recent record of attracting new employers that would take this sort of space it is quite a bit of a gamble and it makes your point valid. There's going to be 400,000 square foot or more of grade A space available within the next few years. The city will have gone from very little spare space of that quality to what is for Cardiff quite a bit of space.
Is that too much ? I'd be inclined to delay building the Callaghan Square scheme until there is some movement by at least one of the potential future tenants. Surely this office scheme, the soon to be available Number 1 Capital Quarter and the soon to start Number 2 Capital Quarter are enough ? As much as I love seeing new buildings being constructed I hate seeing them lying empty doing nothing.

The one curiosity I do have for this particular building is the apparent negotiations they are in with potential tenants for 60,000 square foot of space. Again it is just media speculation but this time they didn't have a company name. The L&G requirement is for more than this, the BBC relocation is also for more space and they've already mentioned the three schemes in the running, one of which is for Capital Square but at another location I believe.
That leaves one of the legal organisations that have been rumoured or maybe new jobs coming here (let's hope for this one !)

The one thing in all this that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is the relatively large amount of space that will come on to the market once Admiral leave their existing offices later this year. I noticed signs up near Capital Tower when driving into the city the other tday. I'm not sure what state it's in but it's a fair amount of space regardless of that.

Encouraging to see the site being cleared of 'flora and fauna' and given a general tidy up. I'm wondering if this means the June commencement of this development is looking increasingly likely? mind you there has been the occasional false dawn at this particular location if my memory serves me right!

I wonder what the chaps clearing the site made of you leaning over wall taking photos. did they shout 'the trains are the other way mate!'

No they shouted....

Heh paul you saddo! - we're not building a bloody glass needle now **** off before we call security AGAIN!!!

lol. They should use this land for parking until somthing gets built. I think the city is short of parking space. I think there is only about 10k of public parking space in the center and with the amount of office and retail space filled i think parking is comming up short.

Looking at the Millennium Plaza building (on the former Empire Pool site in the picture above), we never did see the proposed ....quote "Picadilly Circus" end of quote ..... large screen neon signage after all did we?

Good! It was a crap idea. Tacky adverting... Cash for gold anyone?

I can't access the story (its subscriber only content), but Property Week is reporting that Morgan Cole is close to signing at One Capital Square.

http://www.propertyweek.com/news/law-firm-to-pull-into-cardiff-station/5067348.article

Other reports have suggested they are looking for around 30-40k square feet, so it would be a decent-size letting. But still a lot left to go.

Not eactly new business is it? more of the same going into the offices? What's next the lABOUR PARTY GOING TO MOVE FROM cATHEDRAL ROAD TO HERE?

There's plenty of planned space for any new occupiers that may want to relocate to Cardiff but space has also got to be found for existing employers who have leases expiring that want to be in a better location, want to move into better quality offices or want more space than they currently have because they may be expanding.

Yes, it would be nice to hear about new employers coming to the city - we all want that - but the ones currently here also need to be considered otherwise they may leave and then jobs will be lost to other cities.

This article suggests Rightacres were close to signing up someone for 60k feet, so a bit larger than the 30-40k you mention. It was mentioned in the walesonline story below which I think was the last thing we've seen reported on this development.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/speculative-office-scheme-boost-capital-6723817

Whether it's 30k, 40k, or 60k it's good news but yes still loads of space after they are signed up.

Savills latest report (http://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/commercial---other/regional-office-market-report-q1-2014-lo-res.pdf) suggests that 28,000 square feet has been taken by Morgan Cole (now called Blake Morgan following a merger). A little less than I thought they were looking for.

Better news is their estimate that take up will be over 200% (i.e. 3 times as high) in Q1 2014 than Q1 2013, and up about 100% (i.e. 2 times) for 2014 as a whole. This will reflect big deals by the likes of Legal and General, BBC and a raft of mid-sized deals.

Further to the above post, it seems take-up in the quarter was dominated by 2 large out-of-town deals.

http://www.gva.co.uk/uploadedfiles/GVA_UK_Research/2014%20The%20Big%20Nine%20Q1.pdf

Total take-up was 148,000 square feet in Q1, compared to a quarterly average of around 115,000 square feet (Q1 2013 was a bad quarter!!). Out of town take-up was more than 3 times normal (over 100,000 square feet), and in-town was only just over 1/2 the normal (at just over 40,000 square feet - which, if counted in Q1 figures, Morgan Cole would be the bulk of).

The big deals of Q1 were:
International Bacclaureate taking 48,500 square feet in Cardiff Gate, and
Velindre NHS trust taking 39,500 square feet in part of Companies House that has been vacated by Companies House!

That is smaller than what was being rumoured to have been their requirement.

It also obviously doesn't equate to the talk of 60,000 square foot of space being under negotiation, I wonder if there's another mid-size potential tenant negotiating for this building ?

It sounds like the next few months are going to be relatively busy then overall, with an expected decision due on the BBC Wales relocation, L&G and a few others.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-central-square-key-business-7098403

The majority of this has been discussed elsewhere on here I think (purchasing of Marland House, St.David's House, the masterplan for the whole scheme etc.), but the bit relevant to this specific thread at the bottom of the article says

"This £30m development is due to be considered by the council’s planning committee this month and if approved, could be completed by next spring."

A couple of things stand out for me, firstly hasn't the application been in for a little while ? I might be wrong though.

Secondly, if it was considered this month and they are going to start it in June as planned that it's going to go up fairly quickly considering it's 130,000 square foot of space.

Could it really be ready by Spring 2015 ?

Its possible to build that quickly - but unusual. It could be that they have some tenants lined up who need the space quickly and they're going to rush to do this. Or it could be that the building will be externally finished by Spring 2015 but with internal fitting out taking place over the summer.

The planning meeting is tomorrow, and the Schedule of planning applications document can be downloaded from here, by click "Planning", then click "14 May 2014", and "Schedule of Planning Applications (21.56M)".

The application reference is 14/385/DCI, and the planning officer recommends planning permission be granted, but with 29 conditions!

Based on other developments in Cardiff, I would be very surprised if the first digger had arrived by June 2015 let alone the building finished.

Maybe they have already completed a number of the assessments and reports mentioned in the conditions, in advance of planning being granted, but that would be a big financial gamble.

There are 29 conditions but they're all sensible - which one's would you remove? The only one that seems a bit OTT is agreeing public art before construction starts.

If approved I don't see why it can't start pretty soon - most of the conditions are box ticking exercises.

I'm not suggesting any of them should be removed, or are not sensible.

Just in my experience the local planning authority can take weeks rather than days to review and approve a specific assessment/plan/report.

So with a rudimentary multiplication of 29 I would be surprised if development was to start next month.
I do hope it happens at that fast a pace though, set the example for other developments to follow.

pebble dash and stone cladding it is then, doesn't really fill me with confidence





Edit:

In recommendation 2 is states



now surely it is the council that approves piling in which case you would ask why isn't this considered a fait accompli as part of the planning application? surely it would make sense to assume piling of such a building is required (the council have seen the plans after all), it would save time, money and effort. Why can't the state/public sector apply common sense to these applications. why does the state insist on slowing down economic activity at every juncture?

My experience of these things is it needs approval from a council-appointed structural engineer to ensure what they have proposed is suitable and wont cause undue damage to accompanying structures. In reality they just get written confirmation from the client's engineer that it will work, and thus a person to sue if it does not!

fine, that doesn't answer why it needs to be a separate process. Why can't it be a condition that the applicant's structural engineer's assessment has to be submitted with the planning app?

Probably to help "speed things up". The granting of planning application may help with procurement of funding or finance. So allowing them to get planning permission before all the technical details are finalised may free up the resources to sort those details out. And it may mean they can progress on other bits of the process.

Sometimes Jantra, you do go out of your way to see the worst possible interpretation of public sector decisions. If it had been the other way round, and someone was complaining about the delays in getting planning permission because the Council wanted to get all these "operational" issues sorted, you'd be saying they should be more flexible and monitor and impose conditions after granting permission.

I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. the developer has been working on this for a number of months, the council has known for a while that a planning app is imminent, its not beyond the realms of possibility that at the outset both parties could have agreed that piling consent would form part of the application. I'd be very disappointed if either party hadn't realised piling was required at the outset. So lets assume they both knew that it would be required, why only now make it a consideration? other technical aspects are included in the planning app so why not this particular one?

you also don't need to second guess what I'd argue for or against. I'm generally against planning because of how slow the process is, how process driven it is, what a tick box exercise it is and how is stifles economic development.

I'm all for an overarching planning strategy, but implementation is best left to the developer to get on with it and the state to leave well alone. the state isn't capable of making sensible decisions using or common sense when approaching any given situation. generally it is a box ticking facade and whilst I'm not saying piling permission isn't required, it seems ludicrous that you could have permission to build but not permission to pile. I'd like to think the common sense approach would be that you couldn't have the former without the latter. That's me though, always looking for the most productive way to complete a process. I appreciate the state and its workers aren't ever bothered with productivity and we see this manifest itself daily in just about every walk of life.

Always political isn't it?

No doubt you'll be telling us how the Tories are turning the process around since they came into power?

I think we can all agree that often planning can take longer than one would like, but that is largely dictated by Central Government - 8 week targets for gerenal applications, 13 for larger. Sounds like an age, but then look at the number of Officer's you've got against the number of applications being submitted.

Besides, this application would have been considered against the planning matters - whether it would be acceptable in principle, what the impacts on the site and area would be etc. I'd say that piling details are fairly minor when considering the greater picture and a construction/structural matter rather than planning matter. There's going to be a whole Building Regulations process to go through too before and during works.

I can't imagine that the developer is going to invest even more money in all the structural reports/tests etc before they are certain that planning permission will be granted. Realistically this could go either way at Committee, where the Councillors, not professionals get the final say. Although I'd assume it will be granted. Assumptions however don't mean formal permission.

Why would the parks officer need to be consulted and asked for his opinion regarding a city centre development? silly me how could I forgot, the process demands it and a box must be ticked.


How else could you comment on policy and the archaic approach to development without invoking politics? Now the tories aren't perfect but they are trying to reduce the impact the state has on development. In England we have presumed consent and it is up to the state to prove the development should not go ahead whereas in Wales where we have Labour attempting to control how we live every aspect of our lives, we have presumed rejection and developers have to beg the state for approval and to prove the development is required.


you'll still not answered why piling can't be considered part of the application process and who out there thinks granting planning permission without piling approval is a sensible idea?

The presumption in favour of sustainable development is an overused term by developers, taken from Central government documents, who want approval for whatever they/their client wants with little control. Don't be fooled -the workings/processes of most councils - and that includes London - are the same as those in Wales.

Really? England is cracking on building houses and Wales and its authorities are struggling to approve their LDPs. I don't believe you, I have to beg the welsh state to take out a window and insert a French door to my garden. The process has taken seven months so far. The council are asking me for documentation they already have. I have to purchase an OS map from the council to give back to the council. Work that out. I also have to apply to the council for drawings of my property from the original development so I can send them back to the council. The whole system in Wales is a farce, a complete joke. Its a process driven morass of paperwork where common sense most certainly isn't allowed. If you're a public sector worker in Wales part of your job training and development must be the 'can't do attitude' course each and every month. The public sector is meant to provide services to us, the public, and the level of service provision, value for money and results based approach is lacking right through the rotten barrel.

This is the last post on this matter as it's completely off topic.

I can promise that the requirements at validation stage which you talk about are the same across the country, as is the arguably ridiculous need to need permission to change a window if you live in a flat or development without permitted development rights. Perhaps the Tories should have relaxed those areas of development control. As for taking 7 months for the submission of the tick box documents, I agree that they would often seem unnecessary. But again, it is a national requirement, set by central government and is the same everywhere. The fact that it's taken 7 months sounds like you too have probably been slow in providing what they've asked for or stubborn, getting you nowhere. If not, Appeal!

I'm sure the Cardiff planners couldn't give one about your minor works either, relative to the larger developments and many other applications received, but are required by the government to assess the proposal and grant permission, by reason of the legislation.

Yes it is restricted development rights? Why though, what is the purpose when houses around the corner were built without windows but doors in their place. Why can they have doors but I cannot?

The story of this planning app is convoluted but let's just say the vale of Glamorgan have demonstrated that planning is a tick box exercise. You've not explained why they have asked me to give them information they already have. Providing a customer service would entail getting the information on my behalf if its at their disposal. You forget some of us work in the service sector and go out of our way to provide good quality customer services. Why can't the state do the same - because its a monopoly and abuses its position through force that's why.

Just to explain this point further the council emailed the documents to me which were then emailed straight back to the council. You wonder why I suggest the system is process driven and not results based. It's for reasons like these where state workers aren't allowed to deviate from the process even if the end result is the same. The whole system is a mess and it would appear that your continued defence of Cardiff council planning indicates you work for that department. If they are anything like the vale (why shouldn't they be) then they need to be disbanded and start again with a whole fresh outlook. Their very existence stunts the growth of Cardiff. Planning departments are very poor at customer service and output delivery. Useless utterly useless.

You've still not answered who in the council seems it sensible to grant planning permission but not permission to pile? Perhaps we will build astro city on the site

Finally, back to permitted development rights - who places this condition on new developments, the government through legislation or council as conditions of the planning process?

If such checks weren't in place then more things like this http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-man-vows-fight-keep-1855134 would happen.

I don't know the nature of your house, Jantra, but things like this are used for a reason not just for shits and giggles.

What possible reason could it be that the council wants to stop me putting a French door in place of a window (or at least be informed of it) but allow others in the neighbourhood to have them as part of the new build?

Do French doors kill all crops within 50 miles? Do French door give kids cancer? What possible reason could it be that a council would want to know about this 'development'

As for your article, I can't see why there is a problem. It's his house, the windows needed replacing. Surely an individual should be free to choose the style of window they prefer. Such 'conservation' areas are a tool of state oppression. It is one person or a group of people deciding what is important and forcing their views on others who may not share those views.

It also has to be said that it cannot be a good use of planning officers time, taxpayers money or use of the courts time to argue a point about a window. There isn't a rational reason why the council would follow this up other than to control how an individual wants to live. Its a disgrace that the state would seek to oppress an individual in this way. What harm to society will come from having these windows in situ?

Let's end this conversation about the glorious French doors Jantra wishes to install and get back to the topic.

There's nothing glorious about them, I wish there was. But yes, let's get back to topic

As someone who regularly submits planning applications in both England & Wales I can say from my experience there is no difference between local authorities in England and Wales. both systems are the same bureaucratic process.

Also - Detailed structural designs for piling are very expensive and rely on a lot of information gathering (core samples etc.) The design is sometimes still being worked on during the start of construction. Planning applications are often submitted without the full information to ensure it will be approved and any issues sorted prior to starting. Conditions like this are normal and will be discharged as part of the process.

The difference is because Pen-y-Lan is a conservation area. The houses need to be protected. There is no problem with him replacing the windows, in fact the council allowed it. The problem is HOW he chose to replace them. The council said they needed to be similar and timer and uPVC are not similar.

Like I said, I don't know what your house is like whether it is Victorian and in need of preservation or a newer build where something like replacing a window with French windows would be less of a problem.

We do not own buildings. We look after them for future generations.

My house is 17 year sold on a brownfield site. Hardly conservation or of special national interest

The planning application was approved, so a start on this in a couple of weeks then ?😁

they need to get piling approval first. lets hope its agreed before Wales finally qualify for a major competition

Wait, you need piling for your french doors? I'm confused, how big are these bloody doors?!

I'm confused here. Why does One Capital Square require french doors? It seems a very odd feature for a speculative office development.

Cardiff International Capital Quarter innit. Probably got Venetian blinds an'all

expands the potential tenants by including France and Canada. its win all the way