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

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

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

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.  

Redrow Update

The Planning Committee meet once a month, to review applications. We have been expecting the Redrow application to heard at the committee since August but it has never happened.

The agenda for each committee is only published one week before. The next meeting is next week on the 14th Dec - Redrow is not going to be considered then (the change of use of the Fagl Lane Quarry in Hope to a visitors centre is though).

We have heard from our Community Councillors, Cindy and David, that there are a number of aspects of the Redrow application that the Council have asked Redrow to review and resubmit. Assuming they receive these amendments, they are expecting to take the Redrow application to planning committee on the 22nd February 2017. 

The Council's Planning department have been reviewing your comments and objections and appear to have done a good job of representing those views in the amendments they have requested from Redrow.

When we hear more, we will provide a further update.

Questions about the Questionnaire?

So far we have had a fantastic response to the questionnaire with many completed online and some varied opinions and ideas - all very welcome! 

In the process, we have had some questions about the Questionnaire - so here are some answers to questions you might be asking!

What is the Questionnaire for?
The questionnaire responses will be used by the Penyffordd Community Group, together with the Penyffordd Community Council, to help to guide the writing of a Community Development Plan. This plan will set out 'policies' for the future changes in the village and aims to guide Flintshire County Council, Welsh Assembly Government, future Community Councils and other stakeholders when they want to make changes to our village(s).

Who will see my answers?
When you complete the questionnaire, your answers will be separated from your contact details so everything is anonymous. The data produced will be 'processed' to calculate the collective view on the different topics as well as comments and suggestions which will be taken into consideration for the plan.

What will my contact details be used for?
If you added your name and contact details they will be automatically be entered for the draw for the M&S vouchers. If you asked to be kept informed with progress as the plan develops, then we will email or post updates in the coming months. If you agreed to be involved in contributing to the history of the village, then we will be in touch separately to set something up.

Who decided what to include in the Questionnaire?
The content of the questionnaire was created by the Community Development Plan steering group - this is the process so far:

1. Announcement at public meetings (about the Redrow planning application) of the intention to create a Community Development Plan - invitation for volunteers to come forward if they want to be involved - this was also shared via Social Media and on the website.

2. Volunteers were formed into a Steering Committee and met with the Community Council for a session to explore the issues that affect the village today and may need to be considered in the future. Individuals then took this information and created questions for one aspect of the plan.

3. The Editorial committee took all of the questions and put them into a standard format that you see on the Questionnaire. The draft Questionnaire was then shared with the Steering Group and the Community Council and the final version printed and re-created online following their amendments.

4. Is the Questionnaire too leading and focussed on Housing?
The format of the questions allows people to demonstrate how much they agree or disagree with each statement or question. All of the questions represent genuine suggestions for things people would like to see or change in our community. Housing is just one part of the development plan - but it affects everything and is therefore very important.

5. Is the Questionnaire Anti-Flintshire County Council or Redrow?
The questionnaire is not anti anyone, it asks questions about things that we understand that people are concerned about in the village - from dog mess to housing development - if you don't believe something is a problem then say so. If you believe there are things missed, then let us know. We are supportive of Flintshire County Council and our Community Council and there is no criticism intended.

6. Is the questionnaire biased against development?
We have been asked this question by two people who question whether the inclusion of the words 'worst case scenario could see over 750 extra houses in the village' implied that the purpose of the questionnaire was to seek support of a campaign against growth. 

In response to that, the team who wrote the questionnaire and the perceived need for a Community Development Plan arose from the Redrow application for 190 houses on Chester Road. Over 400 objectives from the village have been received by Flintshire's planning department. However, the questionnaire is entirely impartial and the format of the questions structured to enable every viewpoint to be given. The data arising from the questionnaire will be openly published and the results will inform the content of the Community Development Plan. With hindsight, we should probably not have included the wording 'worst case' because this could be perceived as leading by some people.

The use of the word ‘town’ in the first question is also interesting in this context and we have been why we used that word (is it leading?) when there is no technical definition of when a village becomes a town. However, we believe that most people understand the differences between a hamlet, a village, a town and a city, though they are difficult to ‘define'.

In Flintshire County Council terms, we are currently designated as a Category B Settlement in their 3-tier system, where Category A is the largest settlement and Category C the smallest. There are no cities in Flintshire. In the emerging Flintshire Local Development Plan, yet to be fully defined or consulted upon, these 3 have been changed to 5 which are defined as Main Service Centres, Local Service Centres, Sustainable Village, Rural Defined Village and Rural Undefined Village. These are all also difficult to ‘define’.

Flintshire CC have classified Penyffordd as a Sustainable Village along with Higher Kinnerton. By way of comparison, Buckley is a Main Service Centre and Hope/Caegwrle/Abermorddu/Cefnebedd and Hawarden are Local Service Centres, Dobshill is a Rural Undefined Village. None of this has been finalised at this time. 

From our point of view, explaining the differences between these defined settlement sizes and the ability of Flintshire CC to link settlements together to combine facilities is too complex to explain in a simple and space limited questionnaire, where the simplified wording is more easily understood. The responses so far received indicate that there is clear understanding on this point, and a wide variety of opinions have been shared. 

7. Why haven't we included Capricorn Animal Centre or Hanson Cement?
We understand that some people have strong opinions about local businesses and organisations - we have only included those that are within the village Ward, which does not include Capricorn or Hanson Cement. Many villages talk about the impact of noise or dust from the cement factory and these are referenced for comment.

8. What happens next?
We will take all of the feedback and as a steering committee, including the Community Council, we will draft the Community Development Plan. The draft plan will set out a vision for the growth of the village in the future - it will be published online and available to view in key spots in the village - people will be invited to view it and feedback on the content before it is sent to Flintshire and Cardiff - we are aiming to have the completed document for the end of March 2017.

9. There are more things going on though...
At the same time that we are preparing the Community Development Plan, Flintshire are working on their master Local Development Plan (LDP) covering the whole County. They are currently consulting on their Spatial Strategy - you should voice your opinion before 9th December 2016! During 2017 they will be looking at Candidate Sites (and there are many in Penyffordd - but don't comment on these to Flintshire CC yet - they are not ready to consult on this part of the plan) - we aim to use our Community Development Plan to help us to guide them on how many and what size of site should be considered in our village. 

Can I get involved?
We would welcome more voices, expertise, interested villagers onto the Steering Group - please get in touch if you would like to contribute in any way.

Public Meeting Friday 4th November 7:00pm

There's a public meeting this Friday to update the village on:

- what's happening with the Redrow application (it hasn't gone away and we have a fight on our hands!)

- an update on the Flintshire Local Development Plan (LDP) and the current consultation period on their Spatial plan

- an update on the Community Development Plan - what we are doing and why it is important.

Please get to the meeting if you can and tell people about it - we would like everyone in the village to know about it.

Children are welcome. 

It starts at 7:00pm at the Royal British Legion - please bring a friend!

See you there!

The Future of the Village - be heard!

The next stage of consultation for Flintshire's Local Development Plan (LDP) is now open. The LDP will define how the County will grow between now and 2030.

Decisions will have to be made about how many new houses will be needed and where they will be build. 

This next part of the County Council's consultation process deals with these two big decisions. You need to make your voice heard!

There are different options and the Council want people to express an opinion. These are the 5 Spatial options:

Option 1 bases development in the same way the outgoing UDP worked - percentage growth limits for different settlement sizes. We could expect growth similar to that experienced in the last 15 years. The settlement categories have already been decided, Penyffordd/Penymynydd is a 'Sustainable Village', Dobshill is a 'Undefined Village'.

This option offers the greatest protection against growth for Penyffordd, but is unlikely to be adopted because the Council believes that there are many smaller settlements which could be developed sustainably.

The growth area is defined by an old Welsh national spatial plan. This presents the greatest threat to Penyffordd because it does not take account of the size of settlements, just their location.

Penyffordd is also vulnerable in the transport option because of the train station, although Flintshire County Council recognise the low use of the Wrexham - Bidston railway, if this option were adopted we could expect to see significant growth.

The sustainable option is the most realistic one to be adopted. This would bring some development to most communities, including ours, but it gives the flexibility to allow growth based not just on settlement size, but on the infrastructure and community needs.

Our Community Development Plan, with the strong views of the villagers and realistic growth planning should help our community to direct Flintshire County Council about the scale and suitability of developments in the LDP.

You can read all about the details of the Spatial plan and the considerations at the Flintshire County Council website:

Summary Document
http://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PDFFiles/Planning/Stategic-Options/Summary-leaflet.pdf

Easy Read version
http://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PDFFiles/Planning/Stategic-Options/Options-for-future-development-for-Flintshire.pdf

Consultation Document
http://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PDFFiles/Planning/Stategic-Options/The-main-'Strategic-Options'-consultation-document.pdf

Comments Form
http://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PDFFiles/Planning/Stategic-Options/Comments-Form.pdf

You can comment on the Spatial plan up until the 9th December.

We will be explaining the Spatial plan and the role of our Community Development Plan at the next village meeting on the 4th November 2016 at 7:00pm in the Royal British Legion.

We will also be sending out a consultation QUESTIONNAIRE in the next few weeks - please take the time to complete the questionnaire and be heard.

If you have any questions you can email the Community Plan Team at team@penyfforddcommunity.org

Meetings Meetings Meetings

We have all been lobbying for meetings with everyone who we believe could help us with our campaign to stop the overdevelopment of the village and then get involved with the preparation of our Community Development Plan.

In the past week we have had a very productive meeting with Mark Tami, our local MP who is very supportive of our cause. We have also met with the planning department at Flintshire County Council to discuss the objections they have received on the Redrow Chester Road application and how they are being viewed.

We need to do some more work on understanding some of the policies they referenced before we communicate what we need to do next - but there is clearly a need for further action from the community.

The planners suggested that the earliest we could expect the application to go to Committee is now December.  They also confirmed that we are still able to make objections and submit comments via the planning officer, Alan Wells (alan.wells@flintshire.gov.uk).

More to follow...