[FrontPage Save Results Component]
Commenting on Proposed Modification Number: 11/45HSG1 and Inspectors recommendation 4.9.5
Your Name:*
Your Address:*
Your Postcode:*
Your Telephone Number:
Your Email Address:
Do you want to:
Support the Proposal
Object to the Proposal
Your Comment:*
I wish to make representation against the re-designation of the land to the west of Broughton Retail Park in Broughton, Flintshire, known as the ’Compound Site‘. This area was designated by Flintshire County Council as Green Barrier in the initial draft of the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP) however, representations for re-designation of this land to Brownfield for housing development were received from Development Securities PLC and these were considered by the Welsh Office Inspector. Flintshire County Council defended their original allocation of the land as Green Barrier in the UDP as it was in line with the Planning permissions that had been granted to Development Securities for the development of the Broughton Retail Park. The Welsh Inspector however was convinced by the arguments made by Development Securities PLC and recommended that the ’Compound Site’ be re-designated as Brownfield to be developed for housing. Surely the recent actions of Development Securities PLC with regard to the ’Compound Site’ must surely suggest that false representations were made to the Welsh Inspector and the re-designation of this land must surely be considered in light of these actions. During the consultation period of the UDP, and whilst Development Securities PLC were making representations for permission to allocate the ’Compound Site’ for housing, Development Securities PLC were approached by a Housing Contractor who wished to purchase land on the ‘Compound Site‘. Surely a sale of the land to a Housing Contractor would have strengthened Development Securities case for re-designating the land for housing but Development Securities PLC refused to sell to the Housing Developer. Having made final representations to the Welsh Inspector for the re-designation for the land to be developed for housing Development Securities PLC then proceeded to sell part of the land to Aldi. Development Securities PLC will argue that it is nothing to do with them if Aldi wish to speculatively purchase Green Barrier Land and hope that they can obtain planning to build a store on it. However, the very transaction itself must cast doubt on Developments Securities PLC’s intentions for the land, because having sold half of the land to a Commercial Developer, who would never have an interest in building housing on the site, it would be very unlikely that Development Securities PLC would ever have been able to sell the remaining part of the land to a Housing Developer. On 30 July 09 Development Securities PLC lodged plans with Flintshire County Council for the construction of a Budget Hotel and Restaurant / Public House and Car Parking on the ‘Compound Site‘. This is obviously not in line with the representations made to the Welsh Assembly Inspector requesting the redesignation of the ‘Compound Site’ for housing. Further more, whilst the UDP has currently been recommended for acceptance in it’s entirety by Flintshire County Council there is still a consultation period during which residents are able to make representation against the re-designation of any site where an amendment has been made to the original UDP proposed by the council. The ‘Compound Site’ is one such area and is therefore currently still classed as Green Barrier and will be at the end of the Consultation Period relating to this current Planning Application made by Development Securities PLC, as the final Consultation period for the UDP will not have closed. This clearly demonstrates that Development Securities PLC blatantly show complete disregard for land allocations when making planning applications. The above representations in themselves must surely raise concerns about the actions of Development Securities PLC and the representations made. The only reason the ‘’Compound Site’ is under threat of re-designation to housing is because of the representations made by Development Securities PLC. These representations were always for housing and yet the above detailed actions of Development Securities clearly show that there was never any real intention to develop the land for housing. What a re-designation of the land would have achieve for Development Securities PLC was moving the land one step further to being considered for Retail / Commercial Development and the recently submitted planning application and sale of land to Aldi are in line with this. I would therefore ask Flintshire County Council:- 1.To strongly reconsider their decision to accept the Welsh Assembly Inspectors recommendations to re-designate the ‘Compound Site’ as Brownfield for housing in light of the above evidence which would clearly seem to indicated that despite the representations made by Development Securities PLC to the Welsh Assembly Inspector there has never been any intention by Development Securities PLC to develop the land on this site for housing. 2. To recommend that the ‘Compound Site’ be retained as Green Barrier in line with the original planning application that was passed for Broughton Retail Park. and Flintshire County Council’s original land designation in the UDP. The objections to the Welsh Assembly’s decision for redesignation are attached Objections to the Welsh Assembly Inspector’s Decision to Re-Designate the Green Barrier Area West of Broughton Retail Park opposite Carphone Warehouse to Brownfield for Housing Development. 1) The terminology, ‘Compound Site’, used when referring to the Green Barrier land to the west of Broughton Retail Park opposite Carphone Warehouse is misleading and I would ask that it is no longer used when referring to this site. The name ’ Compound Site’ suggests that planning permissions have been given for the use of the land as a compound and that it has been developed accordingly. This is not the case. 2) Flintshire County Council agreed with the Developers of the Broughton Retail Park that the Subcontractors engaged could use of the land for the storage of materials and vehicles during the construction period. During this time hardcore was added to the site to facilitate the erection of temporary prefab structures and the movement of vehicles and workers around the site. It was agreed that the site was to be returned to its original state once the Broughton Retail Park construction work had been completed. Flintshire County Council however failed to enforce this and the hardcore area was left in place and a wooden fence was erected around the site to secure the area. The Welsh Assembly Inspector’s report states that a large part of the area is hardcore and this therefore indicated that this site has already been developed. If Flintshire County Council had enforced the original instructions to return the area to its original state the Welsh Assembly Inspector would not have been able to draw this conclusion. 3) In 2007 Flintshire County Council granted permission for the Subcontractors engaged by Tesco to constructing the Mezzanine floor in the Broughton store to use the area of land for the erection of temporary prefab offices and the storage of vehicles and materials without holding any consultation with neighbouring residents. Once residents became aware that the site was again being used by Subcontractors they made formal representations to Flintshire County Council about the land being used for this purpose, the failure of Flintshire County Council to consult with residents over the matter, the disturbance being caused to residents by the Subcontractors using the site and residents concerns about precedents being set by using the land for this purpose. Flintshire County Council told residents that they had not needed to consult neighbouring residents as the permission to use the site had only been granted on a temporary basis. Flintshire County Council also state that no precedents could be made from this use of the land as only temporary permission had been granted to the developers. The Welsh Assembly Inspectors report however, directly refers to a precedent having been set for development and use of the land, citing the temporary period of use by the Subcontractors working on the Mezzanine floor in Tesco. If Flintshire County Council had consulted with neighbouring residents, they would have most certainly received a large number of objections. As a result Flintshire County Council may well not have granted permission to the Developers to use the site and once again the Welsh Assembly Inspector would not have had a precedent to cite when considering whether to amend the designation of this area of land from Green Barrier to Brownfield for housing development. It seems very unfair that a decision taken by Flintshire County Council which was not put out to public opinion is being used by the Welsh Assembly Inspector as supporting evidence. 4) The Welsh Assembly Inspector states that this area of land is an ‘eyesore’ because it is surrounded by a wooden fence. I’m sure that most of the population will find this comment totally unacceptable given that most of us have a wooden fence as a boundary to our properties at some point and would not consider our boundary fences to be eyesores. I do not believe that this can be upheld as a valid reason to support the re-designation of this area of land to Brownfield for housing development from Green Barrier. The issue of the area being an ‘eyesore’ could simply be addressed by repositioning the boundary fence 10 feet further onto the Green Barrier land and planting the space between the boundary fence and the link road with the same species of trees that were planted on the earth bund thereby creating a visually attractive boundary to the site. 5) In the original planning permission granted to the developers of the Broughton Retail Park it was identified that a Green Barrier should be retained between existing housing and the Broughton Retail Park. Indeed residents in existing housing were given large extension to their gardens of up to 40 feet and a planted bund was constructed at the end of these large gardens. Further housing was constructed on Simonstone Road after the completion of the Broughton Retail Park with the plans identifying that these houses would benefit from the same level of screening from the Broughton Retail Park by way of the planted bund and the area of land running between this bund and the link road. The Welsh Assembly Inspector must accept that, as part of the planning permission granted for the development of the Broughton Retail Park, there was requirement for both a planted earth bund and a large protective Green Barrier to be situated between the housing development that was in existence prior to the construction of the Broughton Retail Park. This requirement must surely therefore apply to any houses to be constructed in the same area of Broughton, therefore it would be reasonable for the residents of Simonstone Road in Broughton to be able to expect that both the land in question and the planted earth bund be accepted as the required level of screening for housing from the Broughton Retail Park. Furthermore, if this area of land was to be developed for housing, any houses built on the Green Barrier land would be sandwiched between the planted earth bund and the Broughton Retail Park and as such would not be afforded the required level of screening from the Broughton Retail Park as set out in the original planning permissions for the Retail Park and for which a precedent has been set. Therefore the Welsh Assembly Inspector’s statement that ‘If the area is required to provide a buffer between the housing development to the west and the Retail Park I see no reason why the development of an appropriately designed housing development would conflict with that purpose.’ is not in keeping with the screening policy between housing and the Broughton Retail Park and would fail to provide any new housing with what has already been agreed as an appropriate barrier between housing and the Broughton Retail Park. 6) The Welsh Assembly Inspector states that planning permission has already been granted for the building of two houses on Chester Road and cites this as evidence to support a re-designation of the Green Barrier land in question stating that this planning permission set a precedent for developing Green Barrier land for housing. The Welsh Assembly Inspector does not appear to have taken into account that the site on which the two houses were constructed was separated from the Broughton Retail Park by way of the Green Barrier area bring considered for redesignation and the planted earth bund. The planning permission for these houses was therefore in keeping with the original planning permissions for the Broughton Retail Park and the construction of housing developments in this area of Broughton i.e. the new houses were separated from the Broughton Retail Park by the land in question and the planted earth bund. 7) The Welsh Assembly Inspector states that the gable ends of the houses on Simonstone Road are against this area of land and as such any development of the land adjacent to these houses would have no negative impact on the residents. This is only true for the visual impact for the 4 houses directly adjacent to the boundary. Every house on the other side of Simonstone Road looks directly over this site and in the winter when the deciduous trees, planted on the earth bund surrounding the site in question, lose their leaves there is no visual barrier for these houses from any new development. 8) Flintshire County Council’s expectation for the area of land in question was that it would be landscaped as a visually attractive entrance/exit to the Broughton Retail Park. If this area of land was tiered and landscaped the land would then serve a number of useful purposes. The land would not only be transformed from the ‘eyesore’ as stated by the Welsh Assembly Inspector to a visually attractive area, it could be used to incorporate signage welcoming visitors to Broughton Retail Park (similar to that at the Chester Business Park), it would still serve its originally designated purpose providing a Green Barrier between housing and the Broughton Retail Park, and the tiering of the land would prevent trespassers. 9) The Welsh Assembly Inspector states that the re-designation of this area of Green Barrier land for housing would exceed the indicative growth band of the village by 2%. Therefore, as this area of land is not needed for Broughton to achieve the required national growth targets it would seem obvious that there is no requirement for this land to be re-designated as Brownfield for housing or developed in any way.
Print this Text
Objection to Decisions for Modifications to UDP reference MOD/11/45 and Inspectors recommendations 4.9.5