This is the new bus timetable active from 9th April 2017 until further notice.
Community Transport Update
This is what Cllr Cindy Hinds are written about the new Community Transport Service:
"After extensive consultation with residents, Flintshire County Council, in conjunction with Penyffordd and Penymynydd District Community Council, will be launching a new Taxi-bus service which will soon be in operation running through Penyffordd, Penymynydd and Dobshill to Buckley. The taxi-bus will operate as an 8-seater minibus. This will run along a fixed route and timetable, enabling residents from these areas to access and connect with key services to Buckley. Concessionary passes can be used on the service. The service will compliment the existing bus services and will help fill the gaps in our current network. Route details and timetables in this area will be confirmed in the coming weeks, followed by a campaign to ensure all residents know about the service being provided. In addition to this, new bus infrastructure will be provided along the route which will include new shelters, lighting, footway improvements, information points etc."
Following resident and group complaints about the siting of new Community Transport bus stops, this week Cllr Cindy Hinds met with residents, contractors and the Flintshire County Council Streetscene team to review the plans. The decided to use the existing bus shelter opposite St Johns' Church, erect a new bus stop (with flag not shelter) on Penymynydd Road, close to Bilberry Close, and erect a new shelter on Wats Road - the nearby old bus shelter is being removed and replaced with a bus stop with flag, there is a shelter being erected on New Road, Dobshill. The work on Wellhouse Drive has stopped and there will be no bus stop there.
In addition to this service, there will be a demand responsive transport service operating as a 'ring and ride' for people who are unable to access or use conventional public transport to access medical appointments etc.
Public Meeting - Update and Actions
We had a good meeting last night, thank you to the 150 or so people who attended and for some very useful questions and information.
At the meeting we covered these key points:
- Questionnaire feedback
- Update on the Community Development Plan progress
- Update on Hawarden Road and Rhos Road developments
(nothing we can do officially until they are submitted to planning)
- Update on Redrow:
It is open for official comments until Monday the 13th March. The quickest way is on the Flintshire Planning Portal:
https://digital.flintshire.gov.uk/FCC_Planning/Home/Details?refno=055590
These are some of the reasons we have used to object - ideally you should refer to personal harm and impact. You can also quote planning policies - there is a list here.
“REDROW DEADLINE FOR OBJECTIONS IS MONDAY 13th MARCH 2017”
1. Loss of Village
2. Pace of Change
3. Rail Transport
4. Buses
5. Surrounding Road Network
6. Roads in the Development
7. Potholes
8. Traffic Impact inside the Village
9. Lack of School Places
10. Broadband Provision
11. Open Space
12. Waste
13. Surface Waste
14. Water
15. Affordable Housing
16. Heathcare
We would encourage people to write to the Cabinet minister for housing, Lesley Griffiths AC/AM and to our own representative in Cardiff, Carl Sargeant AM to ask for their help in protecting us against overdevelopment while the Flintshire Local Plan is in preparation.
Finally, we introduced the 'Assessment of Wellbeing in Flintshire', this document covers every aspect of life in Flintshire and they are consulting until the 31st March. This document is very interesting, well written and informative - it contains an explanation of what is happening to housing which is consistent with what we are experiencing - it would be good to feedback to them the harm being caused by overdevelopment. You can view the documents online here:
http://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/Resident/Council-and-Democracy/Flintshire-Public-Services-Board.aspx
Thank you for the continued support - we feel like we are presenting a strong community voice and it is being heard.
Public Meeting - Please Let People Know
We are holding a public meeting on Wednesday 8th March at 7:00pm at the Legion. We are inviting the press and local politicians to attend.
We are publicising the meeting on this website and on Facebook and we have a poster in the Community Council noticeboard - but we need help to spread the word to people in the village who do not have access to the internet.
Please can you print this poster and put it in your window.
We will be sharing the Questionnaire results, updating on the planning applications for Chester Road, Rhos Road and Hawarden Road. We will also have an updated on the Community Transport Bus Stops currently under construction on Wellhouse Drive and Wats Road.
Thank you and we look forward to seeing you there.
Redrow - You need to be Heard!
So last week Redrow submitted a new plan for Chester Road. You might have received or seen a letter from Flintshire County Council about the process.
The letter explains that if you have written an objection already, then that objection will be considered by the planners and committee as long as the reason is still valid after the changes. The wording of the letter suggests that if you send a new objection now, then the old one will be discarded.
So the first thing is to know what has changed:
DESIGN AND LAYOUT
There are different house types and details, but they do not significantly change the application.
HOUSING
Now 186 houses (not 190)
Now 27 affordable homes - 15% (up from 19 / 10%)
Now 90 4-bedroom houses (down from 119)
ROADS
New road layout which leaves open the possibility of opening through to Hazel Drive or Kent Close (it was just Hazel Drive previously).
FOOTPATHS
The existing footpath off Hulley's Close is now more direct through the development.
A pedestrian access has been added through to both Hazel Drive and Kent Close.
BOUNDARY
New Boundary Fence. Now wire fencing.
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
Reworked Public Open Space (POS) - which is slightly better for some of the existing houses affected but there does appear to be less of it overall in the revised plan.
WHAT NEXT?
If you have objected previously you can (and should) object again.
If you referred to any of the things that have changed, then you need to object again to be heard at all.
You are objecting to Flintshire County Council planning department - via their website ideally (the application number is 055590):
We also need to get noisy again and make sure that everyone involved knows how strongly we feel about it. These are the people involved:
The Planning Committee
They decide, by vote, whether to approve or reject an application. They are all elected councillors from across the county. They will come and visit the site the week before the committee date (which could be the 22nd March) - it is good to demonstrate when they come, to show how we feel about it. The committee are not our enemy, many of them sympathise with our position. You can (and should) write to them to tell them how you feel but they will not reply with their opinion because they are not allowed to.
The Planners
The planning department are professional planners who understand planning law and planning policy. They process planning applications, advise developers if any part of the application does not comply with policy or law. They make a recommendation to the Planning Committee about whether an application should be approved - but the committee does not have to follow their advice. The planning officer responsible for this application is Alan Wells. The two senior managers in the planning department who deal with applications and policy are Andy Roberts and Andrew Farrow. We strongly believe that they should be recommending refusal to the committee
- because with the growth the village has experienced in recent years makes more housing unsustainable
- because we believe that we are suffering 'displaced housing from Cheshire' and that the Unitary Development Plan has a policy to protect against that
- because we believe that Planning Policy Wales protects against 'Prematurity' where big decisions should be taken as part of the Local Development Plan process. The ultimate boss at Flintshire is Colin Everett the CEO. We have been making sure he knows how strongly we feel too.
Welsh Assembly Government
The minister responsible is Lesley Griffiths AM. It is clear that part of Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 1 (TAN1) is ambiguous and therefore open to abuse by developers seeking to build on the most lucrative land - this is one of those cases. Carl Sargeant AM is our representative in Cardiff, we have met with him and he has written to the Minister on our behalf to ask for clarification of TAN1. We need as many people as possible to write to the Assembly - this is very important.
IF the planning committee refuse the application or refer it to Cardiff, then an independent planning inspector will review the case and make a decision (as happened in Higher Kinnerton last month). They view the ` is isolation and consider all the evidence and objections before making a decision.
Westminster Government
Planning is fully devolved to the Welsh Assembly Government so there is no direct role for our Westminster MP, Mark Tami MP, but we have met with him and he has also written to Lesley Griffiths AM on our behalf asking for a review of TAN1.
In summary, we need as many people to object as possible.
Object for planning reasons - see the list of policies here or read our original objections document.
Object noisily about the impact on the village, the services, the experience of living here, how it affect you personally and why you believe it is not sustainable.
Object about the direct impact on you if your property is a neighbour - not on loss of value or loss of view, but on privacy, being overlooked, noise or disturbance.
Do this on the Flintshire Planning portal.
Then write to all of the planning committee - don't be abusive - they are decision makers, doing their job and are not our enemy.
Write to the planning officers and let them know how you feel.
Write to Welsh Assembly government or Carwyn Jones, the first minister.
We all need to get noisy right now!
OBJECTIONS DEADLINE IS MONDAY 13th MARCH
This shows the footpaths (red) and road layout
CHESTER ROAD TRAFFIC / ROAD SAFETY
You may have objected because of concerns over the safety and capacity of the junction at the top of Chester Road. Right now there are roadworks underway (due to be completed in 10 days) which we understand will bring safety improvements to the junction including lighting. The work is being paid for by the Welsh Government and the fact that it has started just as the Redrow amendments were submitted is unrelated but still relevant.
Redrow - Fight Update
Latest news - Redrow have submitted revised plans to Flintshire planning. The layout has changed, the number of houses reduced from 190 to 186 and the number of affordable homes increased from 19 to 27 - we understand that Flintshire had requested 56. There is revised open space layout and the site has been turned.
This is where the 'fight' is up to:
1. Principle
Flintshire have not yet agreed that the application will be recommended for approval on principle. This is a big one for us - we believe that it causes harm for our village for lots of reasons and we would like Flintshire to support the voice of the community by recommending refusal. There is a loophole in planning policy which is why the application is possible outside our settlement boundary. As a group are lobbying hard to Welsh Government and Flintshire County Council and we are hoping for a review and our County Councillors, Cindy Hinds and David Williams are lobbying behind the scenes at County Hall too. We met with Carl Sargeant AM last week and he is lobbying at Cardiff on our behalf too.
2. Noise
At the public meetings we talked about at the public meetings was 'noise' - writing / calling / emailing anyone involved - the planning department, the planning committee, our MP, our AM, the Welsh minister responsible, the First Minister, Welsh Water, BT Openreach, Dee Valley Water - anyone you believe who, when asked about Pen-y-ffordd knows exactly how we feel. We have gone quiet, it has been a long time since the application went in, but it is back now and we need to be heard more than ever. Please look at the contact list and keep letting them know how you feel.
The revised layout
3. Planning Committee
We understand that the application will go before the planning committee at County Hall, Mold on the 22nd March (1:00pm). Please try and be available on that date. A recent application in Drury was turned down and there were a large number of residents in the public gallery at committee!
3. Policy
The other thing we talked a lot about objecting on planning grounds - where the application breaches planning policy - Planning Policy Wales and the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan. The 400+ objections sent in so far do that well (it's not too late to object - just write to alan.wells@flintshire.gov.uk) and we continue to argue the case.
4. Sustainability
This is the big one. If we lose the battle on the principle of development and the battle on the TAN1 policy, then the decision comes down to this - is the development 'sustainable'? We firmly believe that the evidence presented from the Questionnaire results (you can read our submission here) prove that it would not be sustainable for our village - even at the revised number of 186 houses.
5. The Village Plan
The final part of the fight is the preparation of our Community Development Plan - this is a document which sets out how the village should develop over the next 15 years - this is what we did the questionnaire for and we are using all of the feedback to write the plan - it's a big job and it's taking time - in the next few weeks we will be inviting everyone to comment on the overall plan before we share it with Flintshire and beyond. The aim with the plan is to present a combined voice of the community for consideration by the Planning Department receive applications.
Thank you for your continued support.
Kinnerton loses appeal - What does it mean for Penyffordd/Penymynydd?
So the Welsh Government inspector has made his decision - Elan homes are allowed to build 56 houses , outside the settlement boundary, in Higher Kinnerton.
What can we conclude from the decision and the report?
In summary:
- we need planners to support the UDP policies and object to applications outside settlements
- we need the Welsh minister to review TAN1 and issue guidance to avoid speculative developments
- we need consistency from inspectors and a greater awareness of the wider context
Here is an overview of what happened in Kinnerton:
1. Flintshire planning officers recommended APPROVAL at the original planning committee in July 2016. They believed that the houses should be built, that the need for houses outweighed the UDP policies that protect against building on greenfield land or outside the settlement boundary. The inspector agreed with them.
2. The planning committee objected. When you listened to the debate at the July committee (sadly the webcast has now been taken down), what you heard was a lot of frustration at the failure of the policies to protect against the development. They were hunting for 'planning reasons' to object. They listed the policies in the UDP - STR1, GEN1, GEN3, HSG4 and EWP17. They objected on the basis of the loss of agricultural land and they objected about potential drainage problems. The planning officers advised against and these objections. The chairman of the committee on recording the motion for refusal quipped 'that's another one that will go through on appeal'.
3. The planning officers brought the case back to the next planning committee in September 2016 to clarify the objections. By this time, Elan homes had already filed their appeal. They re-wrote the objections to exclude agricultural land and pointed out that the objection on drainage could not be evidenced because Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales didn't agree. One of the councillors at that committee who missed the July date asked if it was not enough reason to say that it was outside the settlement boundary - he was told that the reason couldn't then be changed.
4. The inspector commented on the 5-year housing supply and TAN1:
"The UDP is time expired and the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. In such cases Technical Advice Note 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (TAN1) states that; ‘The need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications provided that the development would otherwise comply with the development plan and national planning policies’."
Guidance is needed from the Welsh minister responsible because there are inconsistencies in the interpretation of TAN1 by inspectors. According to the Minister, the UDP remains extant - and the policies remain. It is up to the decision-maker to decide whether other factors require greater consideration.
"As stated above the site lies outside the settlement boundary. Policy STR1(a) of the UDP states that new development should generally be located within existing settlement boundaries and Policy GEN3 exercises strict control over new housing in the countryside. The development proposed is not of a type permitted by Policy GEN3 but I agree with the Council that there are other material considerations which outweigh this conflict."
It's not clear what the evidence is of these 'other material considerations'. It appears that there is not any evidence of why it should not go ahead.
"The extent to which Flintshire is failing to meet its housing need is not expressed but the Council’s suggestion that the standard time limit for implementation be reduced from five to two years perhaps gives an indication."
Again, the minister needs to clarify the guidance to inspectors. According to Planning Policy Wales, if a local authority has no current plan, then they are considered not to have any housing supply and are no longer required to complete an annual housing supply report. The last report was in 2014 at which time Flintshire had a 3.7 year housing supply. This is all on record. The Council's suggestion that the development be brought forward within 2 years is a response to prevent developers 'land-banking' - the principle being, if the development is allowed to breach policy due to the shortage of houses, then the houses need to be built quickly. This is obvious and common sense. The inspector who approved the development in Rhos Road, Penyffordd afforded a similar requirement. This inspectors gives the impression of being unfamiliar with the wider context.
"It is argued by some that Higher Kinnerton has reached the 10% growth limit set by the UDP and that granting planning permission would be premature pending the production of the Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP). However, the indicative limit was based on evidence to support what is now a time expired UDP. Further, from what I have read the anticipated date for the adoption of the LDP is October 2019. In the absence of any imminent plan led solution to the lack of housing supply, I consider that the need to increase supply combined with the lack of harm and sustainable location outweighs the conflict with Policies STR1(a) and GEN3. "
Kinnerton faces a huge number of prospective development sites under the LDP proposals and it is clear that a decision on any of them prior to the completion of the LDP process is indeed premature. Once again, clarity for the inspectors is needed on the meaning of this crucial term within Planning Policy Wales.
Finally, one of the worrying comments included in the inspectors report on Kinnerton, was this:
"The Council has produced a Developer Guidance Note which sets out the approach it will take to what it describes as speculative housing development proposals. Although approved by Flintshire’s Cabinet, I have seen nothing to indicate that this non statutory guidance was subject to consultation. It is not founded on the UDP, I have concerns regarding its fit with national policy5 and consequently I afford it limited weight."
How the plan based approach is supposed to work
This is referring to a document produced by Flintshire and shared throughout the planning community in Wales as a direct response to the challenges being faced by planners and communities in dealing with developments which seek to use TAN1 as a means to access prime land outside of the Plan process. It is a good, well thought out and well-intentioned attempt to ensure that developments are suitable for the communities and place where they are proposed. You can read the guidance here. It is very distressing for the government inspector to demonstrate so little understanding of the issues at stake and the challenges being faced in the absence of a Local Development Plan and the loophole that is TAN1. This is the full inspectors report.
How the plan based system is actually working
What next for Pen-y-ffordd?
Lack of Harm is key. Higher Kinnerton has not had growth at the scale or rate of Pen-y-ffordd. The reason we went to the trouble of preparing a village Questionnaire was to evidence 'harm' and to demonstrate why Pen-y-ffordd is not a sustainable location. We have submitted a 66 page document evidencing the 36 'reasons for refusal'. This has been sent to the Welsh minister, our representatives in the Welsh Assembly and Westminster, to the CEO of Flintshire, the head of planning, the officers involved in the Redrow application and everyone on the planning committee - you can read the document here.
Crucially, we need the Flintshire planning officers to recommend refusal. In Kinnerton (and on Rhos Road and Mynydd Isa etc.), they recommended approval and the inspector followed their lead. We believe that their stance is critical.
At the moment, the Planning Officers have sent to Redrow a list of issues which need to be addressed including increasing the number of affordable houses (from 19 to 54), providing drainage evidence, newt migration plans, emergency services response, pedestrian access to Hazel Drive, highway drainage plan, landscape and visual impact assessment changes and agreed contributions to schools and for open space.
The implication remains that if Redrow comply with all of the requests, then the re-submitted plan will be recommended for approval by Flintshire County Council. Our contention is that the 'Principle of Development' remains the same regardless of these changes and that FCC, having received the detailed sustainability and harm evidence from Pen-y-ffordd residents, should be advising Redrow that they will be recommending refusal.
The same should be true for both of the pre-application developments on Rhos Road South and Hawarden Road.
The greatest need right now is for the Welsh Assembly to review Planning Policy Wales, TAN 1 - recognise how it is not working and issue guidance to developers, planners and inspectors on how to bring the housing the country needs, in the right locations, following the correct process.
Welsh Assembly Response
We recently shared our 'Summary of Objections' document which set out all the reasons why the Planners, Planning Committee and inspectors should not allow the Redrow development of 190 houses.
This is the response from the Welsh Assembly minister responsible for planning:
Why we must object to all developments...
Last week we all found out about a proposal to build 32 new retirement apartments on land south of Rhos Road. Reaction was mixed. On the one hand 'No! Not more development!' and 'Great, retirement homes, just what the village needs!'.
As a community we must stand strongly against ANY new development right now. We have experienced an unprecedented growth with around 1,000 new residents joining the village in past 5 years. The impact has been felt by many residents (including these new villagers) in lots of different ways - we have written a full account for planners which you can read here.
There is a correct process for the selection of land for development - the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan defines the boundary of the village and no development is usually allowed outside that boundary. It is shown in black on this map:
The new Flintshire plan, the Local Development Plan (LDP) is half way through its process - it is expected to be completed in 2019. The sites shown in red on this map are 'Candidate Sites' proposed by landowners or developers (we don't know in most cases). Flintshire C.C. have to decide which, if any, of these sites should be included in the new settlement boundary.
But because the LDP is late, developers are able to try and get their proposals through the planning system early and outside of the plan - that has already happened on Rhos Road north, where permission has been granted for 40 houses - outside the boundary. The Redrow application for 190 houses is in process - outside the boundary. And now there is the newest proposal for 32 apartments on Rhos Road South. As you can see on the map, there are a lot more that could be brought forward.
We must stand strongly against any development that is proposed outside of the correct planning process - no matter whether we like the development or who is bringing it forward - there is no urgent need for this village to have any more development before 2019 - therefore there is no reason not to wait for the LDP to put in place and the correct process followed (as part of the LDP process, the community will be consulted on potential sites for development).
In the meantime, we are writing our own Community Development Plan to define what the community want - the recent village Questionnaire provides strong opinions about what is important to villagers - including development:
The Community Development Plan won't be ready for a couple of months, in the meantime, please write to the developers of this latest proposal and let them know that we want it to be considered and consulted under the LDP process.
Real Planning
Dunmore
Church Street
Penycae
Wrexham
LL14 2RL
Email: info@realplanning.co.uk
We have 3 of our Community Councillors in our Steering Group (Cindy Hinds, David Williams and Jeff Priddin) - but you should let them know how you feel too:
Cllr Cindy Hinds
Phone: 01978 761354
Email: cindy.r.dennis@gmail.com
Cllr David Williams is our other County
Phone: 01978762486
Email: dwillderw@yahoo.co.uk
If you have any questions, please get in touch with the Community Development Group:
Email: team@penyfforddcommunity.org
VILLAGE QUESTIONNAIRE - THE RESULTS
In November we had an amazing response to our village questionnaire with over 770 responses from 1,750 homes. We do want to thank everyone who took part, your comments are vital and very important in helping us know your views and represent them. We had a lot of very valuable comments and some common complaints too.
A selection of data from the questionnaire results
This is what is happening with the data now:
1. THE VILLAGE PLAN
The original purpose of the Questionnaire was to guide the content of our Community Development Plan. This will set out the vision of the community for the growth and changes in the villages between now and 2030. In the coming months we will be sharing the first draft of this plan and inviting everyone to see it and vote on whether they accept it. With the plan agreed, it will guide the Council, planners, developers and other agencies on what is important to our community.
2. REDROW PLANNING APPLICATION
The proposal that brought together our group and mobilised the village was the Redrow Chester Road development of 190 houses. At this time the Planning Department are still waiting for revised plans and updated information from Redrow before it goes to planning committee. That is expected around the 22nd February but could be later. In the meantime, we have included the data from the Questionnaires in a robust document which sets out 36 different ‘Reasons for Objection’ where we can demonstrate harm to the village and why the proposal is unsustainable. You can view the 66 page document here:
3. COMPLAINTS
Within the Questionnaire responses there were a number of repeated topics that are clearly very important to people. We are in the process of extracting all of the comments and data and sharing it with the relevant authorities and organisations, as well as our own Community Council, so that action can be taken. The big topics include:
- Dog mess
- Traffic / Traffic calming / Parking / Noise
- New school site (and some feedback on our schools)
- Spar parking
- Doctors appointments
- Buses and public transport
4. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
The intention of the Community Development Plan is to define what growth the village will accept and what type of growth is needed. in order to re-balance the mixture of housing available to support the community in the future. Pending the writing of the Community Development Plan and its endorsement by the residents of the village, we believe all proposals should be robustly objected to because they are premature and outside our existing village plan. There is already planning approval for another 45 houses in the village (excluding the handful not completed on the Groves site).
There is an application in process for a further 190 by Redrow on Chester Road. Plus there are two proposals in pre-application stage for a further 64 houses / apartments - all of which are outside the village boundary.
There are another 13 sites with unknown intentions but expected to bring forward applications at some point.
In addition to those, we know that after 2019 when the new school in completed on Abbots Lane, the Penyffordd Junior School site will be need to be developed.
This remains a village under threat of over-development - 78% of villagers believe that it has grown enough. However appealing individual applications may be, the total impact on the village services, traffic and quality of life will be further affected unless growth is planned and sustainable.
Once the plan is complete, there should be dialogue with planners and developers to bring forward those sites and application types which fulfill the needs and wishes of the community, as defined by the plan.
Once again we do thank everyone who took the trouble to complete the questionnaire and share their views.