Plans for Seven New Homes in Hope Given Green Light by Flintshire County Council

PLANS for seven new homes and the part demolition of an existing property in Hope have been given the go-ahead.
Flintshire County Council’s Planning Committee met on Wednesday, December 13 and granted permission for the plans by Gower Homes Ltd, including associated roads and drainage works, at Foxfield, Fagl Lane.
The committee previously discussed the plans on November 22, when it was decided that a site visit was needed before a decision could be made, so it was deferred on that occasion.
It was also considered on two previous occasions where permission was refused on the sole issue of a lack of certainty that the development could sufficiently mitigate the impact of the additional phosphates from the development, on the River Dee and Bala Lake Special Area of Conservation.
During the meeting councillors heard from a third party speaker who was against the plans and a statement from Hope Community Council was read out. It said that they “strongly object” to the application with concerns on “over-development” the development being “out of character with surrounding properties”.
They added: “It would also intrude on the quiet and respect needed for the neighbouring cemetery.”
They said the area was prone to flooding and raised issues on increased traffic and a proposed  pumping station.
During the meeting, Cllr Bernie Attridge (Ind) said: “At the last Planning Committee I think I instigated the deferral on the basis of the local member Councillor Healey (wanting) a site visit.”
He added: “At the end of the day, the reason that it was refused was due to the phosphate(issue). It’s now been to committee, it’s been to this committee before, it’s been to an appeal inspector. I think it’s about time now Chair through our professional officer’s advice; they’ve heard what’s been said, the report is quite clear before us that the issues raised have all been sorted so I’m for, we move the recommendation before us.”
Cllr Chris Bithell (Lab) seconded the motion.
During the debate concerns were raised about the plan possibly being “back-land development” which councillors were told has a specific definition in planning terms, meaning a development built directly at the back of another property with a shared access drive. This proposal has an access road so by definition (in planning) isn’t back-land development.
They also heard that the proposed road is to “adoptable standard” so normal standards will apply for curbside collection for waste. ‌​‌​‌​​​‍‌​‌​​‌‌‌‍‌​‌‌​​‌​‍‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‍‌​‌‌‌‌​​