NOTE: This content is old - Published: Friday, Oct 4th, 2019.
Plans to create almost 40 new homes in a Flintshire village have been rejected for the second time in a year amid concerns about the loss of open countryside.
Councillors met earlier this week to consider a resubmission of proposals to build on land east of Vounog Hill in Penyffordd, which they originally turned down last September.
A report was published by Flintshire Council’s chief planning officer last week in which he recommended permission for the scheme entered by the Tevir Group should be declined once again.
Andrew Farrow said permission had been given for a total of 260 houses in the area as a result of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and allowing any more could have a damaging impact.
Despite agents acting on the developer’s behalf claiming the 37 properties would help to address a shortfall of housing in the county, planning commitee members unanimously opposed the plans.
It came after Penyffordd councillor David Williams warned it would have led to an increase in road safety problems and the loss of a field used by children for sledging.
Speaking at the meeting on Wednesday, he said: “As far as I’m concerned this a yet another attempt to exploit the situation over land supply in the Local Development Plan.
“What we’re offered in this application is another 37 predominantly expensive detached houses and no bungalows as they said we might have.
“To summarise, as far as I’m concerned and all the residents of the village, the application is premature and the impact it will have on the countryside will result in the loss of high-quality agricultural land.
“The road infrastructure in the village is inadequate to accept further development and it will increase road safety issues.”
A total of 26 letters of objection were submitted against the renewed plans.
It came after representatives from the Tevir Group attempted to have the council’s original decision overturned in March.
However, the Planning Inspectorate decided the company’s appeal was invalid as it did not provide enough information to meet their requirements.
The latest application contained extra details about the scale of the houses, but the committee voted unanimously to reject the proposals for a second time.
By Liam Randall – Local Democracy Reporter (more here).