My objection to Terrace Lane development filled in online.

Link
Land adjacent to Brooklyn Farm

My comments are not yet showing acknowledgement has been given. Given my previous difficulties with FOIE's this is not a good sign.

Reasons not to have it.

1. It affects house values of those that back onto the field
2. It is for 12 stables. It's too large.
3. Access will be via Terrace Lane which is very narrow.
4. Once planning is given they will be looking to build a house due to the number of horses
that will need to be looked after.
The following could be used " Security and well-being of the horses would be a material consideration"

5. This is the thin end of the wedge. Once this development is granted there will be ongoing pressure to allow further residential expansion. Penyffordd's share of Flintshire UDP housing is already approaching 30% of the current village which is an unfair obligation.
6. The field has a footpath on which local people walk their dogs. Horses can be dangerous creatures and have a capacity to kill or seriously injure local people and their dogs.
7. It's a business development on greenfields.

8. Question - Is it outside boundary for development?
9. The smell of horse urine down wind of stables would be offensive.
10. The impact on the visual amenity of nearby residential properties
11. The buildings would harm the rural character of the locality.
12. The buildings would underminine the openness of the countryside.
13. I am told that horses require an acre each. I understand the proposal is for 12 horses and the field is 9 acres with the buildings and manage taking up a proportion of the 9 acres. This means insufficient grass requirements for 12 horses.
14. I am told the building is large enough to have an upstair area. If this is so it would appear that plans are in place to use this area as accommodation.
15. Work has started and a substantial amount of money spent before planning consent has been given. I find this flagrant breech of planning rules of considerable concern.
16. The fields have been used for many years as a village common by many villagers. This will amount to the removal of a village amenity.

postscript. The way that the new owners are going ahead before planning permission is granted suggests that permission is a mere formality.

It was interesting which community councillors were not at all bothered about this breach of planning law. Why do they turn up?