24th March 2020.

Higher Kinnerton Community Council (“HKCC”) would oppose any planning application to come forward from this consultation by Elan Homes. Should the application be submitted, this is the second speculative application to come from this developer and it is both unnecessary and unwelcome.

Planning permission for the first development of Kinnerton Meadows was only granted on appeal on the basis that, in accordance with paragraph 6.2 of Technical Advice Note 1 (“TAN 1”), the Planning Inspector attached considerable weight to the lack of a five-year housing land supply as a material consideration in determining the planning application for housing. Based on the number of developers submitting speculative applications on the basis of TAN 1 and the consequent impact on the capacity of local planning authorities to focus on Local Development Plan (“LDP”) preparation to ensure the most appropriate housing sites are brought forward as part of a systematic and rigorous LDP process, paragraph 6.2 of TAN 1 has been dis-applied regarding housing land supply. In this context, Paragraph 15 of the Planning Statement is both mis-leading and inaccurate. Furthermore, stating that the development would be “assisting Flintshire meet its housing targets” is unsubstantiated and HKCC are of the opinion the proposed application would be strongly contested by the local planning authority. Reference to the “significant economic benefits” is not substantiated either. Apart from offering to use a local civil engineering company during the development stage, the proposal does not offer any long-term sustainable employment, infrastructure or economic proposals to the residents of Higher Kinnerton.

Following publication of Flintshire’s Deposit LDP, the proposed site is no longer considered a candidate site and therefore the proposed development would be built out on Green Space. This point has been made in the revised Higher Kinnerton Village Plan which was updated and published in November 2019. The Community Council has given its support to the proposed strategic site of Warren Hall. That development would provide 300 new homes alongside long term employment opportunities for local residents. Elan’s proposal offers none of these benefits to the residents of Higher Kinnerton.

Reference is made to the non – statutory Higher Kinnerton Village Plan. HKCC are of the opinion that the developer is referring to the original document and not the revised Village Plan document updated in November 2019 following the publication of Flintshire’s Deposit LDP. The local amenities assessment is also out of date. For example, the community no longer has a Post Office.

If, as inferred in the Planning Statement, the developer proposes to discount the deposit LDP, then HKCC would point out that in recent years the local community has seen significant development of over 90 new homes which is over and above the 10 – 15% required of a category C settlement set out in the now lapsed UPD.

This is the second pre-application consultation the community has been subjected to in the past 7 months. In 2019, Caulmert Development consulted on land on Sandy lane, Higher Kinnerton for the proposed development of 105 new homes. Alongside this consultation for 95 new homes, should both developers come forward with planning applications then this could represent an additional 200 homes within the settlement boundary of Higher Kinnerton which would be excessive in the extreme. It would also be a significant departure in proposed housing development set out in the deposit LDP. There is no case made on creating sustainable development and one or both prospective developments would add nothing to the long-term aspirations of Higher Kinnerton residents wishing to live in a semi-rural community.

HKCC consider the above to be material considerations which are relevant to any planning application and are grounds for refusal should an application be submitted. Should Elan Homes formally proceed with a planning application then a fuller more detailed response will be provided by the Community Council opposing the scheme.