Land to Rear of 66A Mold Road, Mynydd Isa, Mold, Flintshire

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Based on the guidelines for Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 and 2016 amendment. Clwyd Alyn Proposed Development – Land to rear of 66a Mold Road, Mynydd Isa, Mold, Flintshire

Site Address Applicant Details Land to the rear of 66A Mold Road Clwyd Alyn Mold Road 72 Ffordd William Morgan Mynydd Isa St Asaph Business Park Mold St Asaph Flintshire Denbighshire CH7 6TD LL17 0JD Contact: Proposed Development Tel: Redevelopment of site to provide affordable Email: housing comprising of 21no 2bed inverted dwellings 2 storey high, 3no 2 bed terrace Agent Details dwellings 2 storeys high, 25no 3 bed dwellings 2 Lovelock Mitchell Architects storeys high, 2no 2 bed bungalows and 1no 3 bed 3 Stanley Street wheelchair accessible bungalow and 4no 1 bed Chester apartments 2 storeys high, complete with parking, CH1 2LS access road, green space and landscaping. Tel: 01244 404321 e-mail: [email protected] Date Prepared web: www.lovelockmitchell.com July 2020

LMA Job number 1567 Page 1 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...... 2 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2 CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS & APPROACH...... 5 3 CONSULTEE RESPONSES AND APPLICANT’S COMMENTS ...... 10 4 CONCLUSION ...... 69 5 APPENDIX 1 – SITE NOTICE UNDER SCHEDULE 1B ...... 70 6 APPENDIX 2 – LETTER TO OWNERS AND NEIGHBOURS ...... 72 7 APPENDIX 3 – COMMUNITY CONSULTEE LETTER ...... 76 8 APPENDIX 4 – SCREENSHOT OF WEBPAGE ...... 78 9 APPENDIX 5 – DROP-IN SESSION ...... 79 10 APPENDIX 6 – CONSULTEE RESPONSE ...... 80

LMA Job number 1567 Page 2 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

...... 82

LMA Job number 1567 Page 3 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 Clwyd Alyn housing are applying for planning permission for the redevelopment of the land to the rear of 66a Mold Road Mynydd Isa. The application is for a total of 56 units comprising 49no. 2 storey dwellings, consisting of 21no. 2bed inverted homes, 3no 2 bed terrace homes, 25no 3 bed homes, 4no. 1 bed walk up flats; and 2no. 2 bed bungalows and 1no. 3 bed wheelchair accessible bungalow. Each apartment will have designated parking spaces providing 7 spaces for the 4 apartments, whilst each of the 52 residential units will be provided with 2 parking spaces per unit.

1.1.2 Following the enactment of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015 (the Act) the requirement for pre- application consultation on major development schemes was implemented. This includes residential developments of 10 or more dwellings or where the site area has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. This proposal falls under this requirement.

1.1.3 This Pre-Application Consultation Report (PAC Report) has been prepared by Lovelock Mitchell Architects on behalf of Clwyd Alyn Housing (the Applicant) and sets out how the Applicant has complied with their duty to carry out pre-application consultation on the proposed scheme at Mold Road Mynydd Isa.

1.1.4 The requirement to carry out pre-application consultation falls under Section 17 of the Act1 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 (DMPWO) as amended by the 2016 Order2. Guidance on carrying out the pre-application consultation requirements within the Act has been provided by the Welsh Government set out in Article 1 of the Town and Country Planning DMPWO (Amendment) 2016 ‘Guidance on Pre-application Consultation’3. This consultation has also been subject to the The Planning Applications (Temporary Modifications and Disapplication) (Wales) (Coronavirus) Order 20204

1.1.5 These documents have shaped the consultation approach to ensure that all elements of the legalisation and guidance have been met when carrying out pre-application consultation.

1.1.6 This Report sets out how the consultation activities carried out comply with the requirements of the Act. As well as a summary of the consultation responses received, what category of consultee there were received from and how the responses received have been taken into account to shape the final scheme submitted.

1.1.7 The detail in this Report shows that consultation carried out with the local community and stakeholders has been timely, meaningful, effective and compliant with the requirements.

1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2015/4/pdfs/anaw_20150004_en.pdf 2 http://www.assembly.wales/laid%20documents/sub-ld10539/sub-ld10539-e.pdf 3 https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2020-02/annex-1-pre-application-consultation-guidance_0.pdf 4 https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2020-05/the-planning-applications-temporary-modifications-and- disapplication-wales-coronavirus-order-2020.pdf

LMA Job number 1567 Page 4 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

2 CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS & APPROACH

2.1 Compliance with consultation requirements

2.1.1 The requirement to carry out pre-application consultation falls under Section 17 of the Act4. To show how the consultation activities carried out by the Applicant comply with the legalisation and guidance a series of tables are provided these tables set out in detail how the Applicant has complied with each of the following: • The statutory requirements of Section 17 of the Act ‘Requirement to carry out pre-application consultation’ where ‘the applicant must carry out consultation on the proposed application in accordance with subsections (3) and (4)’. • The Town and Country Planning DMPWO (Amendment) 2016 Part 1A ‘Requirement to carry out pre- application consultation 2B’. • The Guidance set out in Article 1 of the Town and Country Planning DMPWO (Amendment) 2016 ‘Guidance on Pre-application Consultation’. • The Planning Applications (Temporary Modifications and Disapplication) (Wales)(Coronavirus Order 2020) came into effect at midnight on 19th May 2020. This is a temporary amendment to pre- application consultation relating to applications for major development and developments of national significance. The amendment required that: o Any pre-application consultation commenced whilst local facilities (subsequently closed due to Coronavirus restrictions of movement) listed as points of access to application information will not have complied with the requirement of article 2C(1). The community consultation will therefore have to start again.

2.2 Statutory consultation activities

2.2.1 It is important to note that a full 28 day community consultation was carried out during March, April and May 2020, but became subject to the effects of the COVID 19 temporary amendment order, and as such, two sets of community responses were obtained. The documents in each PAC made available for public viewing were identical and as such, responses gained for each were considered valid for inclusion within this PAC report.

2.2.2 Statutory consultation under the relevant requirements and guidance took place in June and July 2020. A summary of the activities that took place are set out below.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 5 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

2.3 Placing site notices

2.3.1 The Applicant is required to place site notices in at least one place on or near the land to which the proposed application relates for public viewing for no less than 28 days.

2.3.2 A site notice was created in line with ‘Schedule 1B: Publicity and Consultation before applying for Planning Permission Notice under Articles 2C and 2D’ - Town and Country Planning DMPWO’. A copy of the notice is provided at Appendix 1.

2.3.3 The notice was displayed on 5th June 2020 and remained there until after 5th July. This provided a - viewing period of at least 31 days, exceeding the 28-day minimum period.

2.3.4 The notice was placed at the entrance to 66A Mold road, as shown in the figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1 - Site Notice Locations

LMA Job number 1567 Page 6 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Figure 2 – 66A Mold Road – Notices in Welsh and English

2.4 Notify owners or occupiers

2.4.1 The Applicant must notify any owner or occupier of land adjoining the application site via a letter. A total of 48 owners and occupiers were identified and the notification issued to these is contained in Appendix 2. The letter was hand delivered to all adjacent owners on 5th June 2020:

LMA Job number 1567 Page 7 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

2.5 Consult with community and specialist consultees

2.5.1 The Applicant must notify all community and specialist consultees of the consultation via a letter.

2.5.2 Community consultees comprise of each community council in whose area the proposed development would be situated; and/or each councillor (local member) representing an electoral ward in which the proposed development would be situated.

2.5.3 The following is a list of the relevant councillors that were contacted as discussed with the planning department of Flintshire County Council. • Cllr. Hilary McGuill Party – Liberal Democrats Ward – Argoed

2.5.4 The councillor identified above are considered as ‘community consultees’ and were provided a cover letter explaining the development and where they can view the relevant documents. This was distributed to consultees on 5th June 2020 electronically via an email. A copy of the cover letter is provided at Appendix 3.

2.5.5 The Applicant must consult with ‘specialist consultees’ who comprise the list of consultees in Schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning DMPWO as amended by the 2016 Order5.

2.5.6 The relevant specialist consultees are decided through development description tests. The specialist consultees consulted with as part of this pre-application consultation included: • Flintshire County Council - planning • Flintshire County Council - highways • Coal Authority • National Resources Wales • Water Utility Company (Dwr Cymru Welsh Water)

2.6 Provide a postal address and email address

2.6.1 The Applicant must provide a postal and email address for the submission of any comments by consultees. During the consultation period consultees were able to submit their comments using the following methods: • Lovelock Mitchell Architects 3 Stanley Street Chester Cheshire CH1 2LS • [email protected]

2.6.2 These details were provided to all consultees through the site notices and on the distributed letters

2.7 Provide a copy of the draft planning applications

2.7.1 The Applicant must provide a copy of the draft planning application documents and any relevant supporting information for public viewing. As part of the consultation the following draft application documents were provided: • Draft Application Form • Design and Access Statement • Plans and Drawings of all residential house types LMA Job number 1567 Page 8 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

• Site Location Plan • Proposed Layout • Proposed tree removal • Site sections • Site boundary treatment • Indicative drainage layouts • Highways Layouts • Ecological Impact Assessment and addendum • Tree report and plan • Landscape proposals • Coal authority report

2.7.2 The guidance encourages Applicants to make this information available for viewing online, and make provision to those without internet access by identifying a public building where computer facilities are made available.

2.7.3 A consultation website was hosted at the URL below. This provided a downloadable copy of each draft application document. A screenshot of the website is provided at Appendix 4 • https://cutt.ly/MynyddisahousingPAC

2.7.4 A normal PAC requirement is to direct those persons without internet access to computer facilities at available at local libraries. Under the temporary COVID19 legislation amendment, this has been replaced by the requirement to provide paper copies of the application documents upon request. A list of those requests has been made in Section 3.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 9 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

3 CONSULTEE RESPONSES AND APPLICANT’S COMMENTS

3.1 Further to section 2.1.1 (The Planning Applications (Temporary Modifications and Disapplication)(Wales)(Coronavirus Order 2020)), consultee responses gained from the first PAC have been included in the PAC report. For clarity, responses to the first PAC have been differentiated in grey text and dated to demonstrate which PAC they were responding to.

3.1.1 This Chapter sets out the consultation responses received during the pre-application consultation, how the Applicant has considered the responses received it contained in the conclusion. These responses include those received during the consultation period, and feedback from other public and group consultations

3.2 Statutory consultation feedback

3.2.1 Feedback returned from the Specialist Consultees is listed below:

• Flintshire County Council – planning – no response • Flintshire County Council – highways o Highways Response (25th June 2020) • Coal Authority – no response • National Resources Wales – no response • Water Utility Company (Dwr Cymru Welsh Water) o Water utility company Response (25th June 2020)

3.2.2 Highways Response (25th June 2020) (For a full response refer to 10.1 – Appendix 6) Highways comments included that the parking provision for the apartment development was below the 1.5 cars per unit although this could be conditioned a transport assessment provided. They also noted that a 500mm service strip is required to the turning head adjacent to plots 29 – 31.

3.2.3 Applicant response Highways Response Parking to the apartment development has been revised to take into account the comments and 7 spaces are now designated for the 4 apartments giving a figure in excess of 1.5 per unit. A 500mm wide service strip has been provided Infront of units 29 – 31.

3.2.4 Water Utility Company Response (25th June 2020) (For a full response refer to 10.2 – Appendix 6) Utility comments received noted the existing sewers and connection on or across the site as well as the requirements for a SUDS / SAB drainage system

3.2.5 Applicant response Water Utility Company Response All comments received have been passed onto the drainage engineers who will review these as the drainage layouts for the development are progressed.

3.3 Community Consultees

3.3.1 A total of 39 responses were received:

• Local Councillor , by email. • Local residents, by email and post.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 10 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

3.3.2 Local Councillor. An email response from a local Councillor in response to the original PAC as noted below Dear NEIL,

I would like to know how residents in the middle of your terraces on the plans will be able to move their recycling ,black bins and brown bins to the front of their homes in order for the refuse collectors to collect ?

Thank you Cllr Mcguill

Applicant response

Dear Cllr Mcguill

Many thanks for your email.

The residents in the central terrace units are provided with a shared footpath leading from their rear gardens to the front of the properties. This allows access for any refuse collection bins or recycling boxes to be placed at the front of the property.

An example of this is indicated below

We trust this answers your query but please don’t hesitate to let us know if you have any further questions

LMA Job number 1567 Page 11 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

3.3.3 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020, 12:51 Subject: Site proposed rear of Rose Lane To:

Neil. on receiving a copy of the proposed site plan can I make you aware of my disapproval? And inform you I shall be protesting in the strongest possible terms to Flintshire planning and my local member of Parliament.my main issue is that of the close proximity of the proposed property namely plot 42 which is extremely close to my rear boundary, leaving us with the view of a brick wall. Your new proposal s are in fact. worse than the initial plans submitted by Muller and subsequently rejected. the development appears to have been shifted towards the Rose Lane existing property leaving little to no buffer between our rear boundary especially us and your proposed side boundary of plot 42.in order to be able to create a river through your site, drainage has always been a concern for all the surrounding properties and the site should have been rejected on the strength of this.i also note that my pleas for the 200 year oak tree to be saved on the new proposals have been ignored once again even though this has a TPO on its removal the drainage will become far worse than it already is. Plot 15 is proposed in its location. Please don't hesitate contacting us if anything is unclear many thanks Regards

Applicant Response

The space separation distances as noted in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2, a 12m separation distance from a habitable room to a flanking wall (side elevation) these distances have been maintained within the development. Plot no, 42 is also nom., 3m from the boundary.

3.3.4 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 23 March 2020 11:04 To: Administration ; [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

LMA Job number 1567 Page 12 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Re: Land to the rear of 66A Mold road, Mynyddisa, CH76TD Thank you for the recent communication comprising the Design and Access statement for the proposed Clwyd Alyn housing development. I am writing on behalf of a number of Rose Lane residents who have shared their contact details in order to be kept in touch with all correspondence regarding the proposals. As you are no doubt aware a number of the residents of Rose Lane are older people. Some live alone and a number of them do not have access to any digital device or communication. They are relying on relevant information regarding the development being shared with them mainly through home visits and it has been clear so far that they all have views and valuable comments to make on the plans, particularly as they have lived on Rose Lane for many years and have valuable local knowledge and are well placed to recognise changes. In the light of the present health crisis where older people are self isolating we have not been able to collect these views and comments on the Design and Access statement sufficiently. A number of the residents who do have access to a computer have also been frustrated at their inability to open the PDF documents which are within the on line resource pack. I am sure that you are finding the present circumstances very difficult within your organisation and I do not wish to add to these difficulties. However may I ask if it would be possible to extend the period of time given for residents to respond to the proposed plans? Due to the instability of the current situation for us all I do believe that a postponement would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to your reply which will be forwarded where possible to the residents. Yours sincerely

Further comments were received from this Resident

Hello Mr Maddocks I have telephoned a number of times to your mobile but no luck so I am hoping that you can answer some questions that I have regarding the development at the rear of 66A Mold road Mynyddisa I am sure that you are aware that the residents of Rose Lane now have a little more time to comment on the plans which is appreciated. Myself and my father have been looking at the plans carefully and are trying to ascertain the distance between the proposed new dwellings and the existing boundaries of the properties on Rose Lane. We are aware that the plans are drawn to scale but our measuring is not exact. We live in the property marked Tarbet on the plans and are dismayed at the real prospect of being very overlooked by flats set in what looks like a small communal garden . We are particularly interested in knowing the distance between the walk up flats' rear wall and the boundary wall at the end of the Tarbet land. We would also appreciate the dimensions of what looks like a blind walk through/ alley at the rear of Tarbet and Mold View. Could you supply this information as soon as possible as I am putting together comments on the plans ready to be submitted to yourself this week. I am sure that other residents would be interested in receiving similar information for their own houses as it is apparent that some new properties are built closer to their boundaries than others. Could you also indicate where street lighting would be installed and how you plan to screen the new development from the Rose Lane dwellings? I am sure that you are aware that the extra light and noise generated by the development will be unwelcome pollutants for the local residents. As you are removing a number of established trees which help to absorb sound when in full foliage including two large trees at the very foot of my garden (but unfortunately just over the boundary wall) we are interested to know how you are going to address this. We are of course already aware of your plans to retain a small number of trees on the boundary as noted on the plans.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 13 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Once we have this information we will be able to detail our specific concerns in writing as requested. Kind regards

Applicant Response

Initial Comments

The client (Clwyd Alyn) extended the period of comment by 2 weeks, they also provided copies of documentation to all adjoining owners.

Further response to comments

A revised drawing indicating separation distances was issued to the resident and other residents included on the resident’s original e-mail.

Dear resident

Further to your e-mail, please find attached an updated site plan which indicates the planning guidance with regards to separation distances between dwellings. We trust this provides you with the information required, you must appreciate we cannot provide individual dimensions to each boundary or dwelling but have hopefully confirmed that the spatial separation between dwelling is in excess of the planning guidance.

We have also attached a copy of the boundary treatment drawing which indicates the proposal for all boundaries of the site.

With regards to your final question in relation to ownership, we can confirm that ClwydAlyn will be adopting a local connection policy to this development to ensure local people are given priority subject to meeting the criteria which they will agree with the Local Authorities Housing Department, there will be a mix of affordable tenures however this will be looked at in more detail when they have planning consent as they can then promote the development to ensure they encourage local people who require affordable housing are aware of the opportunity and register on the Tai Teg Register (Affordable Housing Register).

3.3.5 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 24 March 2020 15:38 To: Administration Subject: Development on land behind 66A Mold Road ,Mynydd Isa

Dear Sir,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 17/3/20 which was delivered by hand at a time the government is urging essential travel only .

I feel that timing of your letter was at best clumsy in view of the national situation .

LMA Job number 1567 Page 14 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Whilst it is good that much needed affordable houses are being considered this proposal contain far too many houses for the available space .They also clearly overlook the existing bungalows leaving them with no privacy and you also make no mention of the increase in air,noise and light pollution in your plans .

The access to the proposed housing estate is clearly inadequate for so many dwellings and leads out into what is already a very congested road and is also on the brow of a hill .My heart goes out to the properties adjoining this road which will run virtually outside their properties .

We are unclear about the 'planned landcaped open public space' which will run adjacent to our property which will be a clear further infringement on our privacy and security .We do not see any protection being offered in the plans .

I feel that in the drive to fit so many properties in such a small space all consideration for the existing residents {which are also council tax payers } has been ignored .

Yours Sincerely

Applicant Response

The space separation distances as noted in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2, have been maintained within the development therefore the overlooking is within current guidelines. The access to the development has already been approved under planning application appeal decision Ref: APP/A6835/A/13/2206419 and it is not envisaged to make any changes to this under this application. The landscaped layout is provided by the landscape architect and is clear in its content, the boundaries to the site will be the subject of approval by both the Planning Authority and also the Secure by Design officer for the local area.

3.3.6 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 29 March 2020 13:53 To: Administration Subject:

Dear sir, on looking at the plans that you have drawn up for land at the rear of 66a mold road mynyddisa, we feel that you have totally disregarded goverment plans on ecology. In 2010 preservation orders were put on six large trees 3 oak 2 sycamore and one ash, one of the sycamores you cannot fell as it is partly in someones garden you are planning to leave one oak tree (this was to be felled by the last developer as it was deceased) These trees take up water on land that is already very wet surely by felling so many of thse trees it will create more problems. We have no objection LMA Job number 1567 Page 15 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

to the building of more houses but we feel that you should take into account the damage you are doing to the enviroment I quote Keeping existing mature trees

( Colin Fernandez) Environment correspondent and Dr Darren Moorcroft Woodland trust we trust that you will take these comments on board and readjust your plans

Further comments were also received from the resident

Dear sir, my apologies, i can see now that Gi andG2 were significent features when viewed from Rose Lane and being healthy, the T P O was put on the beech trees on the 13thApril 2010 on looking at the map showing the six large trees i notice on your plans that you are to fell 4 of these trees (one more than the last developer was allowed) oak tree T1 was also considered to be an attractive feature as it could be viewed by all that walked down this lane and when the last developer put in plans to fell it, it was knock back, as the Councils Forestry Officer deamed that this was an asset to the surrounding area and was very healthy. I therefore object very strongly that this tree should be felled and would ask you to look at your plans again

Applicant Response

The applicant as part of the proposals is looking to obtain permission to remove the trees on the site to allow for the development. A number of the trees that are noted as being removed, already have planning permission to remove these under Appeal Decision APP/A6835/A/13/2206419. There is an additional tree (oak) that this application seeks permission to remove, the previous scheme could not have been constructed with the RPA (root protection area) required for this species and size of tree. The development is also looking to provide replacement trees for any which are removed within a landscaped area away from properties. Whilst it is accepted that these won’t provide the size and age of the trees being removed, it is hoped that the amount being planted will be viewed as an acceptable replacement.

3.3.7 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 31 March 2020 17:11 To: Administration Subject: Proposed Housing Development

Dear Mr Maddocks,

Please find attached documents in response to the proposed housing development on land to the rear of 66a, Mold Road, Mynydd Isa. I will also send a hard copy by Royal Mail.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 16 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

01/04/2020 Mr Neil Maddocks

Proposed development to the rear of 66a Mold Road, Mynydd Isa, Flintshire

Dear Sir, Whilst we understand that the need for more affordable housing in the community, and there is land that could be utilised at the above mentioned site, we urge you to reconsider some aspects of the proposed development. In order to provide homes in an area that is socially acceptable, respectful of existing residents in the area, potential families must be able to raise their children in a safe environment. We understand that the construction of terraced housing enables more dwellings to be included in the development, but this then means that alleyways have to be included in order to facilitate access to the centre properties. We acknowledge these thoroughfares are logically necessary for connecting properties, however in our experience they have the propensity to become areas of neglect and abuse – becoming health and safety risks. We also note that the existing properties on Overdale will have the 'Alluvium' area between them and the back gardens of the properties on the north east of the proposed development. The gardens of the properties on the south west will proposedly back directly on to the gardens of the properties on Rose Lane. This ultimately leads to no natural space or separation between the new development and the existing plots on Rose Lane. This raises many concerns, as the introduction of a public thoroughfare directly behind these gardens significantly changes the security, aesthetics and privacy of areas which are valuable to the residents both sentimentally and monetarily. If the dwellings were to be constructed as blocks of semi's, there would be no need for alleyways / access paths. All of the properties could have the same length of garden and the whole development would provide safe homes that would be more socially acceptable to all concerned. Therefore, to ensure the continued happiness of Rose Lane residents, and to cultivate a positive,safe and harmonious community, please consider the consequences outlined in the proposed development and how they may affect the homes of residents that have had privacy and security for many years.

Yours faithfully,

Further comments were also received from the resident

13/04/2020

Mr Neil Maddocks

LMA Job number 1567 Page 17 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Proposed development to the rear of 66a Mold Road, Mynydd Isa, Flintshire

Dear Sir, Further to my letter dated 01/04/2020, I am so worried about the issue of the potential anti social areas that I have been prompted to contact you again. Since viewing the proposed plans, I have been having nightmares like the following pictures;

None of us want any of these scenes behind our properties, but the proposed layout plan provides many opportunities for exactly these scenarios. This has already happened in other parts of our county.

I have read reports about this type of layout and I quote;

“...the high-density housing and narrow alleyways allowed crime, particularly anti-social behaviour and drug use, to thrive.”

There are numerous examples of developments around the country whereby terraced housing and alleyways have contributed to problems in society and if we must have this development go ahead, then please can it be done in a way that avoids these potential problem areas ? I am aware of the campaign to save the Rose Lane Trees. To solve at least three problems, building blocks of semi's will do away with the need for alleyways. This will probably mean a lower number of dwellings, which may mean less trees have to be removed. Perhaps all existing trees could be worked into a new layout without terraced housing. A lower number of residents could also mean less traffic entering from and exiting onto the A 549, hopefully avoid over subscribing at our local schools and less pressure on our local medical services.

We look forward to the outcome, which will hopefully work to the benefit of all concerned.

Thank you again for your time.

Applicant Response

Pre-Application Consultation Report

are a min. of 2.5m wide and have been positioned to suit more than 1 dwellings. They are a necessity in order to allow the residents access to the rear of their properties as required by DQR and to allow safe routes for refuse disposal. They would be under the management of the client and not neglected to become an unsocial problem.

The space separation between the new dwellings and those on Rose lane is currently in excess of the recommendations given in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2 (Space around dwellings)

3.3.8 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 01 April 2020 13:03 To: Administration Subject: Development of land to rear of 66a Mold Road, Mynydd Isa

Dear Sirs,

I live at Pen Llwyn, Rose lane and looking at your plans your re-design of the site layout fills me with dismay.

The original plans had a 5 bedroom house at the bottom of my garden which nobody was pleased about but at least we weren’t being overlooked by their living quarters. The redesign of the layout is changed to apartments plots 53/54 and 55/56, this means that the living rooms of the upstairs appartments are now looking out directly over our properties. This makes it impossible to shield out being spied upon by the occupants of these upper apartments as they will be looking over the fence you are erecting along the rear of the properties.

I think you should seriously consider moving these apartments to elsewhere on the site or converting them to houses. I know several of my neighbours, who spend a lot time in their gardens in the summer, have young children and grandchildren, are very upset at the thought of being overlooked by people living in the upper apartments.

I hope you will reconsider this revised layout to minimise the disruption you are causing the existing residents,

Regards,

Applicant Response

The space separation between the new dwellings and those on Rose lane is currently in excess of the recommendations given in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2 (Space around dwellings)

3.3.9 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

LMA Job number 1567 Page 19 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

It is proposed that 3 new bungalows are provided within the development, one of these being a fully accessible bungalow for residents of the community. The applicant as part of the proposal is looking to obtain permission to remove the trees on the site to allow for the development. A number of the trees that are noted as being removed, already have planning permission to remove these under Appeal Decision APP/A6835/A/13/2206419. There is an additional tree (oak) that this application seeks permission to remove, the previous scheme could not have been constructed with the RPA (root protection area) required for this species and size of tree. The development is also looking to provide replacement trees for any which are removed within a landscaped area away from

LMA Job number 1567 Page 20 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

properties. Whilst it is accepted that these won’t provide the size and age of the trees being removed, it is hoped that the amount being planted will be viewed as an acceptable replacement.

3.3.10 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Hello,

I wondered if you would mind sending me a copy of the most recent plans/plot drawings for this development either by post or e-mail.

My elderly parents live in Rose Lane in a bungalow which backs onto the fields. As they, like many elderly residents in the lane do not have a computer, they have received a paper copy of the plans which they have been keen to peruse. Thank you for your consideration in sending this.

I live in South Wales and because of the restrictions re: isolation & travel etc, have been unable to see these plans to discuss them with my parents. My only means of communication with them is by telephone. I would therefore appreciate receiving my own copy if at all possible.

Regards

Applicant Response

The drawing requested were sent to the resident along with a link to the website which hosted the PAC documentation

3.3.11 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Hello Mr. Maddocks

Having looked at the proposed plans for the development at the rear of my property in Rose Lane would you be so kind as to answer a couple of questions that I have listed below ...... we have until 24th April to submit any comments etc and in order to do so I require the following details if at all possible.

* could you give me the distance allocated for the rear garden to the flats that will be built immediately behind - I have looked at the plans but cannot see any measurements for this section so am unaware as to how far they will be from my rear boundary.

* I notice the small rear walkway at the rear of my neighbour's property and my property is remaining - again how wide is this to be, and will it be unadopted or maintained by someone.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 21 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

* Are there any plans to provide any screening at the rear of the properties on Rose Lane ...... I find it most unfortunate that my rear view will now be completely obliterated and overlooked by the full run of the proposed new walk up flats.

Any information you can give me would be appreciated and thank you for your time

kind regards

Further comments received from the resident

Dear Mr. Maddocks

thank you for your previous information supplied relating to the proposed planning at 66A Mold Road which is at the rear of my property

Having looked more closely at the plans I note that on the boundary treatment plan there is a wall behind my property which is noted on the plan as a retaining wall. Can you please supply the external works plan so I can see the final ground levels to help me have a better understanding of the overlook of the new properties to be built behind mine. I appreciate the external works plan may not as yet be available but you will at least be aware of the finished floor level.

Whilst I appreciate the need for new housing developments, I am concerned about the overlook obstruction that the new properties may create for me.

My other issue is road traffic, and associated noise, and safety within Rose Lane itself. Rose Lane is use by many many locals of all ages for recreational walking and cycling. We have issues with the amount of traffic that uses the lane already and this will obviously increase with the new residential plans. I would like to know if the local council are considering any plans to address this eg speed control, and make a safe pathway for residents using the lane.

thank you for your assistance

with kind regards

Applicant Response

A revised site plan and boundary treatment drawing were sent to the resident, along with an e-mail as follows: LMA Job number 1567 Page 22 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Dear resident

We have also attached a copy of the boundary treatment drawing which indicates the proposal for all boundaries of the site.

The small walkway which you mention in your email, previously served the dilapidated building on the site. We have now omitted the walkway and retained the small turning head, giving this section of land to Plots 53 – 56. The maintenance of which will be carried out by the housing association.

We trust this provides you with the information you have requested.

Further response to queries raised

Dear Resident

Many thanks for your email and we are glad the information provided was of use to you.

You are correct in your assumption that the external works drawings / design is not yet available, however we can confirm that the level at the boundary to your property is approximately 150.75m and the floor level of the walk up apartments is 150.00 therefore the apartments are 0.75m below the level of the boundary. As indicated on the drawing the planning guidelines of 24m between rear of dwellings is in excess of this in your property, the dimension from the rear of the apartments (plots 55 / 56) to the rear of your dwelling is approx. 30m.

With regards to traffic on Rose Lane, it is not the intention that the development will have any vehicles emerging direct onto Rose Lane. All development traffic will use a new junction with Mold Road. We cannot advise if the local authority will be providing any works to Rose Lane as a result of this development.

We hope this information answers your queries.

3.3.12 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 15 April 2020 20:42 To: Craig Sparrow ; [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Clwyd Alyn Development at land to rear 66a mold road Mynydd Isa

This Message originated outside your organization.

To whom it may concern

We have put in writing to Lovelock Mitchel Architects our 3 concerns. I have also telephoned our local councillor Mrs McGill and that’s why my daughter is Emailing because we don’t wish our first

LMA Job number 1567 Page 23 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

and major point overlooked. The new drawings show the Mold end of our lay-by in front of 66a has been closed off. This was never on the original plans passed. Our concerns are on the safety for us and everybody else who use this lay-by. As I’ve pointed out to Locklock the Buckley exit end of the lay-by the visibility is restricted , also people using the lay-by cannot turn around because it is too narrow, so are they expected to drive over the pavement or reverse back onto a main road ? For 50 years I have used this lay-by and are we now going to put our safety at risk ?

I look forward to your reply either by phone, letter or email.

Regards

Applicant Response

The current proposal will not change the already approved highways works, continued discussions are being held with the Local Highways Authority to ensure that this junction follows the original design and provides a safe and accessible junction with the main highway and existing lay-by.

3.3.13 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Dear Sir,

I am in receipt of your plans (RE: Above).

I note that at a time of national emergency and social distancing, LoveLock Mitchell yet again choose to go from house-to-house hand delivering letters. There is no way these journeys are essential! I will be contacting our MP about the issue.

I note that it is being proposed that virtually all the trees are being felled, whether they have a Tree Protection Order or not, to make way for "dwellings". These trees are part of the nature and environmental fabric of the area, as well as supporting considerable wildlife. They ,also, add greatly (certainly a lot more than a pile of terraced houses) to the general ambience and quality of the area. Clearly, tree protection orders mean nothing, but I will be contacting the council directly. Confusingly, of the few trees that are being retained, a proportion are not even in the boundaries of the development. I remain very concerned about the pure number of dwellings, and the clear detrimental impact they are going to have.

According to your plans, our property, including bedroom windows, the garden and dining area, will be entirely overlooked by plot 06,07,08 and 09. Additionally, plot 42 is far too close to the adjacent existing property.

Also, I remain very concerned with the access to A549, as it is already a busy junction with a children's play park and bus stop in close vicinity. At present, this is privately owned, and generally inaccessible, land. The plan proposes a public footpath the entire length of our premises, but serves

LMA Job number 1567 Page 24 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

not purpose. Will Clwyd Alyn be building any protective fence, or boundary? Or is it just being left open? If so, this is unacceptable.

Whilst, everybody appreciates the need for affordable homes and the value they serve to the broader community, Clwyd Alyn are attempting, in my opinion, to put far too many dwellings in the space available. This will lead to a significant, detrimental, impact on the quality of life to the existing residents. It will, also, have a negative effect on air and noise pollution, and your plan does not include any details on this.

Yours Faithfully,

Applicant Response

The delivering of additional confirmation made by Clywd Alyn was as the request of local residents for additional information as they were unable to view the website from their own homes.

The applicant as part of the proposal is looking to obtain permission to remove the trees on the site to allow for the development. A number of the trees that are noted as being removed, already have planning permission to remove these under Appeal Decision APP/A6835/A/13/2206419. There is an additional tree (oak) that this application seeks permission to remove, the previous scheme could not have been constructed with the RPA (root protection area) required for this species and size of tree. The development is also looking to provide replacement trees for any which are removed within a landscaped area away from properties. Whilst it is accepted that these won’t provide the size and age of the trees being removed, it is hoped that the amount being planted will be viewed as an acceptable replacement.

The space separation distances as noted in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2, have been maintained within the development therefore the overlooking is within current guidelines.

The current proposal will not change the already approved highways works to the A549, continued discussions are being held with the Local Highways Authority to ensure that this junction follows the original design and provides a safe and accessible junction with the main highway and existing lay- by. With regards to public footpaths within the development, these are as a direct response to many residents who have mentioned they and many others use the area for recreation and dog walking.

3.3.14 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 20 April 2020 12:08 To: Admin Subject: Building rear of 66 A Mold Rd. Mynydd ISA, Mold.

Dear Sir,

LMA Job number 1567 Page 25 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

With regard to the above building plans., I own a bungalow down Rose Lane, that the proposed estate will be backing onto, Rose Lane. Mynydd ISA. CH 76UA. my mother lives in the property and also written to you ( age 90 yrs) to express her concerns. her name Mrs M Wilcock. My concerns are how much will my property be reduced when valued because if having all of those properties at the rear, trees were planted approx. 5 yrs ago, when sold to a builder, so she has some privacy, but she is concerned about the ally way that will be at the back of her, gatherings by teenagers and the noise from them and traffic. I have read the drainage problem has been rectified, because especially Taronga" has had problems with excess water in the back garden for many many years, I have been told drainage has been put in, I hope it is sufficient with amount of dwellings. I am recently widowed and any more problems regarding the bungalow I cannot cope with especially flood. Also the extra traffic, from the new estate, will make that part of Mold Rd. much more dangerous, it is almost opposites Mercia (to village centre) and such a short distance to Rose Lane, which is already like a one way street, and the bend to the left of Rise Lane, many near misses and minor bumps.

I am pleased to hear of more houses but not at my expense, and endangerIing drivers and pedestrians. Kind Regards. Mrs Patricia Stott.

Applicant Response

We are unable to comment with regards to any value of properties in the vicinity of the development.

Drainage for the site will be under agreement with the Local Authority and a substantial proposed in currently being discussed with them for the development.

It is not the intention to make any changes unless in agreement with the Local Highways Authority to the proposed road access and junction with the A549 that has already been grated planning permission as part of the appeal decision ref: APP/A6835/A/13/2206419.

3.3.15 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 21 April 2020 13:38 To: Stuart Hughes (Development) Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rose Lane Development

I understand that you are responsible for the above Project, & wish to object to the felling of nature trees in the strongest way possible.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 26 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

I fully understand the need for more housing (particularly as retired QS), but the site should be designed to retain these key features. Hopefully, you will incorporate the necessary alterations.

Mynydd Isa Argoed Community Council

Applicant Response

3.3.16 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 21 April 2020 13:57 To: Admin Subject: Clwyd Alyn Housing Mood Road, Mynydd Isa

Dear Sir/Madam.

I am emailing regarding the planning for housing just of Rose Lane in Mynydd Isa. I believe the project name is Clwyd Alyn Housing Mood Road, Mynydd Isa. As a resident of Powell Road, Buckley Flintshire, I object to any form of building within the surrounding area, especially when to me it’s on green belt land. There is four tree’s which deserved to be saved and at very least this should be done so. Can I ask why is Flintshire destroying its beautiful areas? Shouldn’t everyone be fighting to save the green areas, because once it’s gone it’s gone forever. Instead we make up the excuse that there’s not enough green land to build upon. Why can’t councils house people within the close to 500,000 empty derelict houses first before they decide to chop innocent trees down. I hope whomever allows this decision can sleep at night with the fact they’re taking away the natural wildlife of the earth. Here’s my object to the cull of four beautiful trees and I’m willing to meet any of your team to discuss the matter. My contact information is provided. LMA Job number 1567 Page 27 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Regards,

Applicant Response

The site has been allocated as Housing Allocation HSG1 as part of the Flintshire UDP 2000 – 2015 and therefore the site is not classified as greenbelt. It has been put forward to provide additional housing in the county to meet the needs of the Welsh Government housing targets.

3.3.17 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 21 April 2020 15:56 To: Admin Subject: Mynydd Isa Trees

Dear Sir/Madame, I am writing to you in regard to the proposed felling of the trees in Rose Lane, Mynydd Isa in order to make way for a housing development. As a long time resident of Mynydd Isa, I have seen many changes and many developments over the years. I understand fully the need for progress and housing but I'm sure there could be some sort of compromise reached in relation to these trees. My partner and myself often use Rose Lane for our dog walking route. We find ourselves constantly appreciating where we live and how lucky we are to be surrounded by such natural beauty. The felling of these trees seems to be such a drastic measure, when we are looking at such ancient and wonderful parts of our lives. These trees have stood for hundreds of years, providing shelter, food and safety for a vast array of wildlife. They have shaped the landscape and provided such joy for the residents of Rose Lane and those that use its location for recreation. The trees mark the seasons for us and ground us in our daily life. They breathe life into our atmosphere and provide so much joy and comfort to us as humans. I urge you to reconsider the decision to fell these trees with all my heart, and to consider the detrimental effect it would have on the community. Many thanks for taking the time to read my plea.

Mynydd Isa Resident

LMA Job number 1567 Page 28 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

3.3.18 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 21 April 2020 21:05 To: Admin Subject: Mold Road Housing Estate

Objections to removal of Rose Lane Trees

Please note my objection as a member of the local community who lives near to the site.

Please can you explain why oak trees with TPO need to be felled? What is the justification ?

These are protected, as they are established and old, and are an important habitat for wildlife.

Why can the developers not preserve the trees as part of the landscaping of the development and incorporate the trees into making the site attractive for locals and new residents.

The area of Rose Lane is an outstanding beautiful village amenity. Whilst I appreciate the need for new affordable housing, and redevelopment of the site, can Clwyd Alyn and yourselves not liaise closely with local residents especially those living nearby the site, to ensure minimum disruption and spoilation to the site?

Yours sincerely

Applicant Response

LMA Job number 1567 Page 29 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

tree. The development is also looking to provide replacement trees for any which are removed within a landscaped area away from properties. Whilst it is accepted that these won’t provide the size and age of the trees being removed, it is hoped that the amount being planted will be viewed as an acceptable replacement.

3.3.19 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

LMA Job number 1567 Page 30 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

LMA Job number 1567 Page 31 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

The removal of the existing scrub and overgrowth has been carried out in agreement with the Local Authorities Ecologist and Tree Officer. It was necessary to remove the existing vegetation to allow exploratory works to be carried out to the site and as a result of the recent drainage issues the site and surrounding properties had experienced over the winter months. This was also programmed before the end of march to protect any future nesting birds.

3.3.20 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 22 April 2020 09:14 To: Admin Subject: Planning permission- land rear to 66a Mold Road Mynydd Isa

Please accept my comments regarding the above planning application - Affordable housing - who will be able to access the affordable housing ? Are the tenants going to be local residents ? This is an obvious concern as who will be supporting the tenants. How are tenants allocated their properties and if there are concerns locally regarding tenants could we be advised how this is going to be managed please.

The area which is proposed is surrounded by predominantly elderly residents who have lived in the local area for 30+ years. They have purchased their properties and having this proposed development literally in their back “garden” will have a knock on value if they were to sell their properties in years to come. How is this going to be compensated? As we are not naive to think it will not effect house prices.

The Mold Road which will supposedly have the entrance to the proposed development is a main road and extremely busy without the further traffic. There are speed restrictions in place but often ignore. Are there going to further measures to manage this ? What safety measures are being considered to avoid accidents to pedestrians.

It will have an impact on local schools which are over subscribed at present. How will this be managed? Is there further funding for local education when whole new housing estates are built?

Local health services are also a concern - GP practices are not managing presently so there will be further demand. How will this be resolved without adding to the pressure that they are already under?

LMA Job number 1567 Page 32 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

There are ongoing concerns regarding the impact on the wildlife and the beautiful trees in the area being considered and though it has been outlined the trees that are being removed could they not remain as this has obvious environmental impact.

The further concern is the stress and anxiety this proposed dwelling is having on the immediate community which as discussed are elderly and not good for their well being and their physical and mental health. Who is supporting this?

I hope these concerns will be taken on board and I would appreciate a response. There to my knowledge has only been one meeting actually held locally and these plans for affordable housing do not seem to have been discussed in a transparent manner. Is there a further meeting planned for local residents where their concerns will actually be considered? Regards

Applicant Response

In relation to ownership, we can confirm that ClwydAlyn will be adopting a local connection policy to this development to ensure local people are given priority subject to meeting the criteria which they will agree with the Local Authorities Housing Department, there will be a mix of affordable tenures however this will be looked at in more detail when they have planning consent as they can then promote the development to ensure they encourage local people who require affordable housing are aware of the opportunity and register on the Tai Teg Register (Affordable Housing Register).

We are unable to comment with regards to any value of properties in the vicinity of the development.

The effect the development will have on Local infrastructure including GP’s, schools, etc…. will be agreed as part of any planning decision under the conditions of approval.

3.3.21 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

> Sent: 18 April 2020 12:23 > To: Stuart Hughes (Development) > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rose Lane > > This Message originated outside your organization. > > Please could you give me some information re the felling of trees for the Rose Lane Development. > I’ve found it quite difficult to find the planning consultation details so would appreciate some help with this. > Obviously at this difficult time people cannot get out to view plans or raise concerns but I’m sure the channels of communication are there. > I would appreciate a speedy reply as time is of the essence in such > matters Many thanks LMA Job number 1567 Page 33 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Further comments received following issuing of documentation requested

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your e mail and for sending me the plans.

As I understand it my response will contribute to the public consultation undertaken by the developers. I am grateful for this opportunity as a long term resident of Mynydd Isa and, with very many others a frequent user of Rose Lane for leisure and recreational purposes over many years.

Briefly, having studied the plans I am sure the preservation of the trees would enhance and be a positive attribute to the scheme. In my opinion, in this time of rapidly growing awareness of environmental issues, climate change, and post pandemic health and social concerns I feel that the developers should reconsider the density of the dwellings in the present proposed scheme. An imaginative reconfiguration of the proposals to incorporate the retention of the existing trees would be a positive and attractive outcome for present and future residents of the area and those many people who enjoy it for recreational purposes.

Yours sincerely,

Applicant Response

3.3.22 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 22 April 2020 12:12 To: Admin Subject: land at the rear of 66a mold road mynydd isa

dear sir we are very concerned about the proposed plans that are to be submitted to F.C.C and would like to make the following concerns 1. on looking at the plans that are to be submitted to F.C.C we realise that the houses are to be built very close to our boundary so effecting our privacy, our main sleeping bedroom is at the back of our property and will be overlooked by three properties, also there is an alleyway to the middle LMA Job number 1567 Page 34 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

house right behind our garden, as we are older we are really distressed that this could attract antisocial behavior 2 SITE VISIBILITY there is nothing in the plans which alleviate the concerns, which were previously raised about the entrance/exit of the estate and how it will effect rose lane 3 DRAINAGE/FLOOD RISK there is no additional information in regard to the drainage/sewerage with so many trees hedgerows etc being destroyed on land that is already water logged, how will this effect our property as this year we have experienced surface water on our garden and with water levels rising can you guarantee that as we have suspended floors that this will not effect our property will by water in the future 4 SCHEDULE OF HOUSE TYPES do these houses meet the criteria of houses for first time buyers or are they all to be rented out to people on social benefit 5 T P O TREES in 2010 t p o *s were put on 6 large mature trees by the environmental department Flintshire county council these came by special delivery can you explain why you are able to fell 5 of these lovely trees

Applicant Response

1. The space separation distances as noted in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2, have been maintained within the development therefore the overlooking is within current guidelines 2. It is not the intention to make any changes unless in agreement with the Local Highways Authority to the proposed road access and junction with the A549 that has already been grated planning permission as part of the appeal decision ref: APP/A6835/A/13/2206419. 3. Drainage for the site will be under agreement with the Local Authority and a substantial proposed in currently being discussed with them for the development. 4. The house types proposed meet the criteria for the area, there will be a mix of affordable tenures which will be looked at in more detail when they have planning consent as they can then promote the development to ensure they encourage local people who require affordable housing are aware of the opportunity and register on the Tai Teg Register (Affordable Housing Register). 5. The applicant as part of the proposal is looking to obtain permission to remove the trees on the site to allow for the development. A number of the trees that are noted as being removed, already have planning permission to remove these under Appeal Decision APP/A6835/A/13/2206419. There is an additional tree (oak) that this application seeks permission to remove, the previous scheme could not have been constructed with the RPA (root protection area) required for this species and size of tree. The development is also looking to provide replacement trees for any which are removed within a landscaped area away from properties. Whilst it is accepted that these won’t provide the size and age of the trees being removed, it is hoped that the amount being planted will be viewed as an acceptable replacement.

3.3.23 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 22 April 2020 18:31 To: Admin Subject: Comments regarding planning application for land behind 66a Mold Road

Good afternoon, LMA Job number 1567 Page 35 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

To give context to my comments - and our garden is adjacent to the South East corner of the site under planning permission. General comment I find the proposed development to be much more considerate of the adjacent properties. My comments below are not really objections, but questions for clarification, or requests for consideration. I recognise that the planning permission is very likely to be given especially considering the history with the earlier application and broadly support this status. Specific comments and queries Between number 27 and 29 Overdale Avenue there is a surface water drain which runs along the common boundary into the field. This is not noted on your plan, although a similar drain behind number 31 has been identified. The street drain in front of 27 Overdale Avenue runs under our garden into the field behind. I have no idea where it comes out, or even specifically where it is running. You may wish to confirm this before moving heavy machinery into this area. I am concerned that the hatched area is marked as "Hatched Area indicates area of fill". Is it your intention to move building waste from the development and to build this area up before "landscaping" it? If so, I am worried you will raise the levels to a point where water no longer drains from our garden but lies there. This has already been an issue with the heavy rains over the last six months, and I want to avoid further exasperating this condition. The field on which you are developing this estate is the run off area for the village, and for our road. I guess you have recognised this with your detention basin inclusion. Please ensure you do not impact adversely on our properties, and the surface water run off from the gardens. I welcome the inclusion of a "Public Open Space" between the development and the Overdale Avenue properties. In your overall proposal, you have taken care to ensure the security of the properties in the development, mentioning street lighting even in the car parking areas. I don't wish to see any additional lighting in the Public Open Space area, as this could encourage people to attempt to access the Overdale Avenue Properties from the rear, and also the light pollution would adversely impact our garden spaces. Personally I would like to see this area as a wildlife refuge, and for access to be limited. Having lived here for nearly 20 years, I can confirm there is a diverse abundance of wildlife in the field - I have seen foxes, badgers, mice, rabbits, voles, bats and a multitude of bird species. While not protected species, they enhance the environment no end. Also, if this area becomes (yet another) dog walking zone, I fear we won't end up with a wild life refuge, but a dog toilet. There are already other areas for dogs to be exercised - we don't need another in the village. Our property, like #29 and #31 Overdale Avenue is "inverted". We enter the property at the front on the 1st floor, and this floor houses the living rooms and kitchen - the bedrooms are downstairs. The new layout means we don't have so much overlook to the new properties, compared with the previous proposal. I point this out, in case this needs to be a consideration when looking at the proposed natural shielding between Overdale Avenue and the new development. Regarding the proposals for trees in the Public Open Space. I appreciate you have avoided placing big trees along our boundary, as these would shade our garden significantly. Hopefully you will not be revising these proposals in the future. If you would like to come and view the development from our perspective, we would be happy to welcome you to our garden to have a look. Please can you confirm receipt of my email. Best regards,

Applicant Response LMA Job number 1567 Page 36 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Thank you for the information on the surface water drainage which we will pass onto the Drainage Engineers for consideration.

We envisage moving some of the excavated material on to the “fill” area to allow for the landscape works and swale works, but do believe there will be any significant raising of levels in this area.

The landscape proposals indicate the main area “A” as being allowed to regenerate, it is proposed that only access to this area would be provided for annual maintenance of the area and to the rear of the proposed dwelling backing onto this.

Lighting of the proposal would be in accordance with the Local Authority requirements Manual for Streets, which include number, type and controls for lighting pollution amongst other things.

The landscaping is at the moment a proposal and will be the subject of any planning conditions should the application be approved. At present it is not the intention to plant trees along any of the site boundaries unless currently indicated (end of Clwyd Avenue, turning head).

3.3.24 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

To whom it may concern

I have a few major concerns about the trees you are planning to cut down as they haveTPOs on them due to the environment dont you think you have a duty to preserve these trees and so help towards the environment ot are you just concerned with making money.

Secondly are you not concerned about the increased traffic the new estate will have on Rose Lane.At the moment at certain times of the day it is like Mold by-pass .Cars speeding up and down the lane where people walk with children and dogs also children on bikes.At the moment we are expected to step off the road as cars speed past .Only the other day 2 motor bikes were racing .What do you think the extra houses will bring to Rose Lane certainly will increase the traffic.or once again do you not care so long as you are making money.

Lastly the council was constantly refused planning on this land due to it being unfit and constantly flooding or once again do you not care so long as you are making money

Yours sincerely

LMA Job number 1567 Page 37 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

3.3.25 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

21/4/20

Dear Sir Re: Planning application for proposed housing development at land to rear of 66a Old road Mynyddisa

I am writing with comments on the plans to construct a new housing development with associated roadway modifications and landscaping ,with particular reference to the effects on my property in Rose lane.

I believe that the development will result in negative effects on my own property and the local environment including:

Overlooking and loss of privacy Shading Noise and disturbance Destruction of established trees and ecosystems

At present there is an area of unused, overgrown land directly beyond my boundary wall with three mature, established trees providing effective screening for my property. On considering the plans I am alarmed at plans to remove these trees and to construct four walk up flats.

The flats are sited within communal gardens with no indication of an effective boundary or indeed replacement trees of a suitable height to enable screening of the flats from my property. LMA Job number 1567 Page 38 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

These flats will have principal windows which will overlook my garden which will seriously compromise my right to privacy. There will also be a noticeable loss of light in the end section of my garden. In a semi rural area like Rose Lane privacy is not an unreasonable expectation and I repectfully request that the plans be therefore amended to either substantially increase the distance between my boundary and the proposed flats or that they be replaced by low level dwellings such as bungalows.

I am also concerned that your plans reveal over- development of the site which will increase the noise and disturbance resulting from over 50 dwellings ( and their cars) crowded onto a site which is already compromised due to wet areas unsuitable for building and, in the case of children, playing. There will be increased noise from vehicles using the road through the estate and also emissions and light pollution. I also believe that the proposed development does not respect the character and ambience of the area and will overwhelm Rose Lane. Rose Lane is known locally as a quiet area suitable for walking, riding,cycling and other recreational pursuits, traffic permitting. This development will have a detrimental effect on this settled and quiet area which comprises traditional terraced houses and also bungalows with large frontage and established gardens. It will also undeniably affect the volume of traffic on Mold road and Rose Lane.

I have noted my concerns at the removal of established trees at the bottom of my garden. From the plans I also note that there is a blind alley/walkway behind my property which does not form part of the communal garden for the flats. I have concerns that this alley will provide a convenient place to gather and will encourage anti social behaviour directly behind my property. I ,along with a number of older residents am worried about the effects of any such areas which will encourage anti social behaviour and compromise residents safety and security. I also have real concerns about the disturbance to my garden of removing large trees that are hard up to my boundary wall.

Those trees on my boundary that are to be removed have not had a TPO placed upon them- there are trees however that have a TPO but are to be felled to make way for the proposed development including veteran oak trees which are an important feature of the local landscape and environment and provide a habitat for many species of insects and birds in addition to guarding against flood risk . This is unacceptable and is causing significant alarm for residents and those in the local community who are able to see and appreciate these magnificent trees while visiting Rose lane . I urge you to reconsider their removal and to modify your plans accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Applicant Response

The trees that you mentioned at the rear of your property, are on the boundary and will be reviewed to ensure if possible, they can remain in a safe condition and future maintenance can be carried out by skilled professionals. It is also necessary to review these from a constructability point of view of the new development again ensuring safe site conditions are maintained.

The alleyway to the rear of the walk up flats, has been removed on the latest plans and this area now forms part of the communal gardens to the flats. The turning head to the end of the lane has been retained.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 39 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

additional tree (oak) that this application seeks permission to remove, the previous scheme could not have been constructed with the RPA (root protection area) required for this species and size of tree. The development is also looking to provide replacement trees for any which are removed within a landscaped area away from properties. Whilst it is accepted that these won’t provide the size and age of the trees being removed, it is hoped that the amount being planted will be viewed as an acceptable replacement.

The site has previously been granted planning permission and the expectation of increased volumes of traffic on the surrounding area have already been considered and approved. The proposed development is smaller in number of dwellings than the previous scheme and we would expect have a lesser number of vehicles.

3.3.26 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 23 April 2020 09:59 To: Admin Cc: [email protected] Subject: Questions - Rose Lane Development

I have received all of the communications from you regarding the above development over the last few weeks. I am slightly different to a lot of residents, in that I have only lived here since December of last year (I didn't know of this development when I bought the house). I have a number of concerns about this and having spoken to several of the residents, am wondering if you could clear some things up for me. I am a realist, and while I don't want any sort of building to happen, I realise that there is far too much money involved for all concerned to put a halt to anything, however, also understand that if you were to work with the residents in the area, your lives would also be a lot easier. You must understand that when sending out plans and answering questions that none of us are chartered surveyors or architects and don't automatically understand drawings made by such people, equally if I were to discuss anatomy of the human body with you, I would not expect you to understand ( I am a Sport Science lecturer). I am quite concerned about the TPO trees being taken down. You are putting up acoustic fencing etc to reduce any noise that could occur, but trees do that automatically. Just the horror of having trees well established and over 100 years old, means that you really should be giving that some thought ( how would you feel if this development was going up at the back of your house?). I have seen mention of the Great Crested Newt, contamination of land and flooding to name but a few things, which sets alarm bells going off in my head and that of other residents too. Question 1 - Your most recent plans were meant to answer questions on how far away from our houses the new builds are going to be. I would like this question answered again please. I live directly behind Plot 50, on Rose Lane and although 24m is shown, it is completely unclear to the untrained eye where the 24m ends, it looks like it ends somewhere randomly in the middle of my garden! I would like to know how long the garden of the new property will be so that I know exactly how far away from my building this is please. Question 2 - Could you tell me what provision there is to protect the newts that were discovered here?

LMA Job number 1567 Page 40 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Question 3 - What is being done about contamination of land?

I look forward to a swift and clear reply, it is looking to some residents that you are not making things clear on purpose and while I'm sure you are trying your best, you need to be seeing this through the eyes of the locals, who are fairly horrified by the whole event!

Applicant Response

Dear Resident

Many thanks for your comments which have been received and will be fed into the PAC report. However the PAC doesn’t require a direct and comprehensive answer to all individual comments as they will be responded to in the PAC report, however we wish to provide you with some general feedback to the queries you have raised.

The Local Planning authority regulations require a minimum facing distance of 22 Metres from a window/door to the neighbouring property window/door and that an additional 2 metres has been allowed for, thus the 24metres that has been shown on the drawings. It only covers property face/elevation to property face of habitable rooms with facing windows and not to garden boundaries, fences, walls etc….. However we can confirm that the distance from plot 50 to the boundary is approx. 17m and between the new development and your dwelling (habitable room) is approx. 38m.

In regards Newts these are a protected species and to work with them licence is required from, in this case Natural Resources Wales. The Developers appointed ecologist is licenced to work with protected species and all work to identify and then re-locate any protected species has to be completed within very strict guidelines overseen by the licensee. That work was completed prior to any site grounds maintenance, removal of vegetation etc.

Contaminated land – As part of the design and Planning process, the Local Authority contaminated land officer will work alongside the appointed drainage and ground engineers to ensure an engineering solution to any issues that are discovered. That will be required to be signed off by the Local Authority officer as part of their comment and input to the Planning Application.

We hope this provides you with some of the answers you are looking for

Further comments from the Local Resident

Thank you for the clarification. I am very grateful for your swift reply and thanks for the layman's terms, sometimes it's helpful to be idiot proof! I do feel a little better about it now, am trying not to worry as I know it's going to happen anyway. Think other people sometimes make things feel worse with their negative comments. By the way, do you have any clue when all of it is due to start?

Applicant Additional Response

LMA Job number 1567 Page 41 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

The commencement of works on site is dependant on the Planning Decision, so no firm timescales can be provided at this moment.

3.3.27 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 23 April 2020 10:43 To: Admin Subject: Save the Rose Lane Treese

Dear Sir/Madame I am writing to you, to say how very saddened I am to hear of your plans, to fell these beautiful trees!!!!

Nature needs our help and in particularly, now, as we all take our daily exercise! Prior to the current lockdown, we used this route, as part of our daily walk. walking daily, in such a beautiful are, is a pure joy and pleasure!!! Please could you find an alternative, please?! Regards

Applicant Response

3.3.28 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 24 April 2020 13:27 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Admin Subject: Land Behind Mold Road Rose Lane Objection

LMA Job number 1567 Page 42 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

To whom it may concern, I write in response to the plans to build 54 houses on the land to the rear of Mold Road and Rose Lane Mynydd Isa. I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to the plans as they are. We have for a long time been aware that the land would eventually be built on, and have accepted this. However, these plans have quite frankly astounded us! We live in Schiehallion on Rose Lane and the plans show a block of 3 houses the gable end of which is on our boundary. How is this equitable, when no other properties will be affected in this way. When we attended the meeting with Clwyd Alun Housing we were assured that they would work with the residents to produce a plan that would be acceptable to all. I see that this plan maybe acceptable to some as they have bungalows or gardens backing onto their properties, but it is certainly not acceptable to us! Would it not be better to have bungalows behind bungalows? Muller Property Development originally submitted similar plans with a house gable end on our boundary and when we objected to this Flintshire County Council supported us. We have a conservatory which is part of our living space on the back of our bungalow, and this is less that 9m from our boundary. Whilst considering equitability we accept that the value of our property will be reduced due to the building but is it fair that we will be affected much more so than others around the development. It appears when comparing the original plans that Muller Property Development has passed with these new plans, that because of the need to allow for the water that collects on the land rear of Overdale Avenue, the whole estate has been pushed and crowded towards Rose Lane. There are far too many houses still planned if this has to happen. Another issue to us is that of the felling of tress with a TPO. How can this happen? What is the point of a TPO it clearly has no value? We are also concerned that when the trees are felled and therefore not taking water from the land, and properties are built on the field, the flooding situation will escalate forcing water onto our land. Has there been any investigation into this? We have been faced with and fighting a development on this land since 2006, and we once again find ourselves in a position when we have to fight the same issues! I know it is no concern of yours or of Clwyd Alun housing but in that time my husband has suffered two heart attacks, two stroke and brain damage from an aneurysm, and I have been diagnosed and have on going treatment for breast cancer. We can certainly do without the undue stress and upset that these latest plans are causing. So, I ask of Clwyd Alun Housing in particular do you really want to work with and make this as acceptable as possible to residents? I look forward to hearing your response. Regards

Applicant Response

The space separation between the new dwellings and those on Rose lane is currently in excess of the recommendations given in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2 (Space around dwellings).

LMA Job number 1567 Page 43 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

age of the trees being removed, it is hoped that the amount being planted will be viewed as an acceptable replacement.

3.3.29 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 24 April 2020 14:36 To: Admin Subject: Rose Lane Trees

Good afternoon,

I am writing with regards to the felling of the trees in Rose Lane to make room for a housing development. These trees have grown for many many years, they have a PTO attached to them. It is my understanding they will still be felled to make way for 56 homes. This should not happen. These trees have lots of wildlife in and around them. The ecological cost is not acceptable. The area around Rose Lane is a much loved walking area for local residents, and the thought of not seeing these beautiful protected trees is a painful one.

I would like you to reconsider the action that is planned and make an alternative decision for the sake of nature, the environment and conservation.

Kind regards

Applicant Response

3.3.30 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Date: 24 April 2020 at 17:42:14 BST To: Admin LMA Job number 1567 Page 44 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

To Who this may concern,

With regards to the proposed development at land to the rear of 66a Mold Road, Mynydd Isa. We have a couple of concerns to raise in relation to the perimeter wall and possible formal/informal access to the site and the positioning of certain units on the site. The first concern/question relates to the height of the perimeter wall, as this is not stated on the plans. I would suggest that this would need to be the same height as the soundproof fencing to deter access to the site, and the track onto Rose Lane being used by pedestrians accessing the back of properties on the site. The second concern relates to the first, in as much as any access to the site through the track by pedestrians would be unsafe due to the track’s width. It is simply not wide enough to accommodate vehicles and pedestrians. I would expect that there is no proposed formal access via this route off Rose Lane on the grounds that this would cause a health and safety issue, as it is used for vehicle access by 68, 70 Mold Road(vehicle access is on the deeds for these properties) and also Tremhaul, Rose Lane. This track is not wide enough to have any kind of a footpath. The third concern is in relation to the position on the site of the single occupancy flats. In the present proposal they are close to the perimeter of the site backing onto the access track for the afore mentioned properties. From my professional experience of working with young people and adults living in this type of property it would seem inappropriate to have the possibility of accessing these properties from a track off Rose lane away from public view and the problems this could cause. If these type of properties were relocated towards the middle of the site, with no other possibility of access, other than the proposed entrance onto Mold Road, this would negate an number of possible issues that I’m sure would be welcomed by both yourselves(as a responsible housing provider), local residents and the community as a whole.

We hope that these concerns are noted and considered, and that appropriate action will be taken.

Yours sincerely

Applicant Response

At present there is no access envisaged from the narrow track leading to the development site from Rose Lane. A new site boundary / retaining structure will be provided at this point to the approval of the Secure by Design officer in consultation with the Local Planning Authority.

We will review your comments with regards to the positioning of the walk-up flats with the applicant.

3.3.31 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the original PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 24 April 2020 20:05

LMA Job number 1567 Page 45 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

To: Admin Subject: Rose Lane - Mynydd Isa

I have recently been made aware of plans for new houses to be built, adjacent to Rose Lane in Mynydd Isa, Flintshire. The plans are shocking to see, with so many trees being felled in order to build houses. These are very important trees to the area of Rose Lane and it is shocking that in this current climate that the trees which are so important to the areas which we live in, are in line for removal. We need to save our fabulous big trees, they offer so much for the local birds and wildlife and they should not be even considered for felling. I wholeheartedly hope that the plans can be amended to include our beautiful trees, and not to create a dull concrete treeless estate. Save the trees in Rose Lane.

Regards

Applicant Response

3.3.32 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided by post from the local community to the original PAC.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 46 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 47 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

The bus stop forms part of the highway works which have been approved by the Local Authority Highways Dept. and follows the previous planning decision.

3.3.33 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided by post from the local community to the original PAC.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 48 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

LMA Job number 1567 Page 49 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

3.3.34 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided by post from the local community to the original PAC.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 50 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

3.3.35 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided by post from the local community to the original PAC.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 51 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 52 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

The perimeter boundary to the site will be maintained by the housing association, including any new fencing or landscaping.

It is proposed that 3 new bungalows are provided within the development, one of these being a fully accessible bungalow for residents of the community.

3.3.36 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the current PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 05 June 2020 14:50 To: Admin Subject: Land at the rear of 66a mold road

LMA Job number 1567 Page 53 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Dear sirs, we have received notification from your office that plans to build 66 houses is to go ahead. In our past correspondence to your office we asked several questions I.e whether the developer would guarantee that we would have no problems with water coming under our bungalow as we have suspended floors also we are most concerned about an alleyway coming right up to our boundary, our sleeping quarters are on a ground floor this is causing us great concern . These questions need to be taken into account as we and our nieghbours are all in our eighties your original plans did not take these concerns into account have you in anyway altered the plans, also will you be adherring to government guide lines on preserving more trees? We would appreciate your reply to this e mail.

Additional email from local resident

To: Admin Subject: Land rear of 66a mold

Dear sir, we live at , on looking at the revised plans that you are to submit to F.C.C we see very little change, we notice that there are three houses to be built behind our property with what looks like smaller gardens than all the other houses to be built, also as stated in previous correspondence to you we are extremely worried about the alleyway, this is having a very worrying effect on my wife could you not revised your plans to build semi detached houses behind the bungalows, having spoken to our neighbours this would be far more agreeable, also could you please asked your developer to guarantee that by felling such a large tree will have no detrimental effect on our property, we await your reply

Applicant Response

Dear Sir,

Further to your comments we would not usually respond directly to any comments received as part of the PAC. There could have been the opportunity to raise these at a community event organised by Clwyd Alyn, however the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in these meetings not being able to take place through no fault of Clwyd Alyn. During these meetings, which are not a requirement of the planning process, the opportunity is there to raise any issues residents may have and generally are not discussed in detail or answered on the day. However, in this instance we would like to provide the following response to your comments.

We are unable to offer any guarantee that no water would come beneath your bungalow without understanding any issue you have at present. However, as part of the development the surface water and foul drainage will be designed in accordance with current Welsh guidelines and supervised during its construction.

With regards to the alleyway, we assume you are referring to those positioned between plots 28 / 29 and 31 / 32, these provide access to the rear of the properties in the local vicinity, they are large open spaces with good visibility from numerous properties giving a good level of natural surveillance. The development will be approved by a Secure by Design officer who will ensure aspects of unsocial behaviour and security are reviewed during the design and construction. We are unable at present to replace these terraced houses with semi-detached. LMA Job number 1567 Page 54 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

We hope this answers the queries you have raised.

Regards,

3.3.37 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the current PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 16 June 2020 16:54 To: Admin Subject: Fwd: Property Development at the read of Mold Road, Mynydd Isa, Mold, Flintshire

writing to you very concerningly about the recently amended drawings showing the revised layout for the development of the land at the read of Mold Road and am writing to receive clarity on the landscape details shown, particularly to the houses/trees directly behind

My parents have lived at this address for some 32 years, a family home which they love and which had uninterrupted views to the rear of the property. My parents understand and acknowledge that the site afforded planning permission for housing previously, however this has now been sold to Clwyd Alyn Housing Association, hence the consultation on the revised scheme. The first that they knew about the revised development, was when they were woken early one morning by bulldozers demolishing the hedgerows that gave them privacy to their home. My parents are very able people, that have full control of their minds now living in their 80 years, but on this day felt totally betrayed that such works could commence without full engagement of the local residents.

They have now learnt that the plans show 3 terrace houses on the land directly to the rear of their property, where Tree T1 is in situ. I note that Tree 1 is to be removed, this tree has allowed a sense of comfort and a peaceful environment living in an urbanised area for my parents and I now must stress to you how angry and upset this has brought upon them and our family. Not only are you planning to kill a well established beautiful oak tree, which is against all rules, but they will have not one but three homes overlooking their garden/home. Everything that my parents have worked for to make their home special has been quashed due to these plans, making my Mother feel sick/ill every moment of the day/night. She is constantly crying due to the fact that she feels so sad that she is helpless and so angry that all the letters she has sent have fallen on deaf ears. I know as a business and property developer this may seem trivial to you but as I said my parent's home is everything that they have worked for. To have peace in their retirement is now ruined because of these plans. I am begging you to reconsider your proposal so that you can have your development, they can have some kind of privacy and the tree can stay alive for another hundred years.

Please can you clarify how Tree 1 can be removed with a Tree Preservation Order in place and would there not be a more suitable layout to enable these trees to remain ?

I hope that by making small changes the old trees can remain to provide comfort and pleasant views not only for my parent's property but for other residents on Rose Lane.

The Local Councillor is aware of my concerns and I will also be sending this email to the Planning Officer for attention.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 55 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

I await your response.

Regards,

Applicant Response

LMA Job number 1567 Page 56 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

3.3.38 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via post from the local community to the current PAC.

LMA Job number 1567 Page 57 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 58 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 59 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 60 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 61 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 62 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 63 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

LMA Job number 1567 Page 64 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

The “alleyways” mentioned are a necessity when constructing terrace housing. All terrace dwellings on the development are generally in blocks of 3, with the exception of 1 block of 5. The “alleyways” are a min. of 2.5m wide and have been positioned to suit more than 1 dwellings. They are a necessity in order to allow the residents access to the rear of their properties as required by DQR and to allow safe routes for refuse disposal. They would be under the management of the client and not neglected to become an unsocial problem.

The layouts provided attached to these comments would result in a much reduced amount of affordable dwellings due to the requirements to maintain separation distances between dwellings.

The space separation between the new dwellings and those on Rose lane is currently in excess of the recommendations given in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2 (Space around dwellings)

3.3.39 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the current PAC. The original comment is in Italics

Sent: 02 July 2020 16:43 To: Admin Subject: land to the rear of 66a mold road,mynydd isa

Dear Mr Maddocks,

Thank you for your letter dated 05/06/20. We have viewed your updated plans and are not reassured .The proposals re a barrier and extra hedging to help protect existing adjacent properties appear inadequate .

I also note there has been a previous professional assessment of the situation re the trees covered by TPO s .This clearly indicates that the trees should be retained with the exception of a couple of ash trees .It is annoying that this report was not more readily available .The removal of theses magnificant trees for a few terrace houses is in my opinion little more than vandalism and the report bears this out . I still remain confused why your plans indicate that you are retaining trees which are clearly outside the boundaries of the development . I can only presume that this is to make it look better to the council.

To repeat my previous comments I fully understand the need for social housing. But I still strongly feel that the proposed development contains far too many houses considering the space available {surely recent events have shown the folly of having too many people too close together } and I also still remain concerned about the access and potential noise /air pollution .

I am glad that the council have instructed that the proposal is restarted from the beginning again as it appeared to me inappropriate to push it through during the national emergency . I understand that this and my previous comments will be forwarded to the planning department .

Yours Faithfully

LMA Job number 1567 Page 65 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

Applicant Response

All boundaries to the site will be subject to the approval of the planning officer as well as the Secure By Design officer ensuring that security and privacy are afforded to both the existing dwelling and those proposed.

3.3.40 Local Resident Comment. The following comment was provided via e-mail from the local community to the current PAC. The original comment is in Italics

3/7/20

Dear Sir

Re: Planning application for proposed housing development at land to rear of 66a Old road Mynyddisa

I believe that the development will result in negative effects on my own property and the local environment including:

• Overlooking and loss of privacy • Shading • Noise and disturbance • Destruction of established trees and ecosystems • Reduction of natural and sustainable drainage

LMA Job number 1567 Page 66 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

The flats are sited within communal gardens with no indication of an effective boundary or indeed replacement trees of a suitable height to enable screening of the flats from my property.

This development will have a detrimental effect on this settled and quiet area which comprises traditional terraced houses and also bungalows with large frontage and established gardens. It will also undeniably affect the volume of traffic on Mold road and Rose Lane.

I have noted my concerns at the removal of established trees at the bottom of my garden. I have real concerns about the disturbance to my garden of removing large trees that are hard up to my boundary wall. I urge you to maintain these trees rather than remove them.

Those trees on my boundary that are to be removed have not had a TPO placed upon them- there are a number of trees on the site however that have a TPO but are to be felled to make way for the proposed development including veteran oak trees which are an important feature of the local landscape, heritage and environment and provide a habitat for many species of insects and birds in addition to guarding against flood risk . Established Rose Lane residents who know the site well are convinced that the removal of such large trees would have drainage implications . Surely sustainable drainage through the retention of trees would be both sympathetic to the environment and effective? Their removal is unacceptable and is causing significant alarm for residents and those in the local community who are able to see and appreciate these magnificent trees while visiting Rose lane . I note from the survey that the arboricultural consultant advised that the layout be amended but the architect made the decision to keep the proposed layout. He also stated that significant new landscape planting would be required to mitigate the loss of the trees. I am unable , from the plans to be reassured that this is the case.

I am sure that you are aware that the Well Being of Future Generations Act 2015 requires all public bodies to ‘work towards “A nation which maintains and enhances a biodiverse natural environment with healthy functioning ecosystems that support social, economic and ecological resilience and the capacity to adapt to change”and that they also have a duty to maintain biodiversity and the resilience of ecosystems and also to work better with communities.

I am not convinced that your plans reflect any ambition to work towards these goals and there is a growing body of local people that share my scepticism. I urge you to reconsider your intentions to remove the trees and for you to modify your plans accordingly- in particular to reduce the number of

LMA Job number 1567 Page 67 of 84

Pre-Application Consultation Report

dwellings on the site - which has been compromised by the large area of land not fit for building on. This would allow trees to be retained and for the dwellings to be built in sympathy with the local environment and to address the close proximity of the proposed dwellings to residents’ boundaries.

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely

Applicant Response

The space separation between the new dwellings and those on Rose lane is currently in excess of the recommendations given in Flintshire Planning Guidance note No.2 (Space around dwellings). These guidance notes are provided to ensure the privacy, overlooking and showing of properties under planning consideration are taken into account.

3.3.41 Posting of documents. Paper copies of the documents requested were sent in the post to the following:

• A request for 7 copies of information from • Request for documents received from • Request for documents from – Email issued with electronic link to site and request for confirmation of which documents were required, no further correspondence received. • Request for documents from – Email issued with electronic link to site and request for confirmation of which documents were required, no further correspondence received. • Request from for drawings in particular the highways works

LMA Job number 1567 Page 68 of 84