So its not just a problem in Shropshire

A very short post which says it all really - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9923687/Planning-investigation-wed-say-cut-down-trees-before-they-object.html

Save Our Mere

This blog is intended to highlight the potential environmental impact of a proposed development adjacent to the conservation area around Ellesmere.

Ellesmere is a small market town whose pride and joy is a magnificent natural lake which gives the town its name. Surrounding the mere is a beautiful area of woodland, which is a designated conservation area, and provides a place for locals and visitors alike to exercise and enjoy the peace and quiet. This woodland has been enjoyed for generations by a huge number of people from the surrounding area and is a very popular tourist attraction bringing in much needed business to the town during the summer months.

Although there have been developments in the recent past around the mere, including the development of the caravan park for housing, none of these have had the potential impact of the currently proposed development adjacent to the cemetery on Swan Hill. Although there is a current and viable plan for the old dairy crest site just across town which provides for 400 houses, a planning proposal has been submitted for a small parcel of land which at its closest point is only approximately 20 meters from the mere edge as illustrated below.

A map illustrating the proximity to the mere of the proposed development

The same view but this time from Google Maps, note the scale in the bottom left corner

The plan is to build 22 houses on the small triangular field which sits along side the conservation area and the cemetery. This will this utterly destroy the feeling of being in the country whilst walking around the mere, the woodland is at its narrowest point as you follow the path along the border of this field and 22 houses will not only be perfectly visible but also the domestic noise will ruin the tranquility this woodland currently affords. The park will cease to be a park at this point and will feel more like a semi urban foot path with houses lining the path only 15 meters away and clearly visible.

Added to this the peace currently afforded to people visiting the cemetery will be severely impacted and any feeling of privacy lost. We will all end up there one day and we should preserve it for those who may come to remember us.

In terms of conservation, the mere side park is currently, relatively undisturbed with few domestic cats hunting and only dog walkers to disturb the animals who can steer well clear of this threat. The woodland plays host to many ground feeding birds, small mammals and amphibians who in turn support a population of barn owls. Development of this site would render a large tract of the conservation area unusable by these animals and would significantly detract from the mere's value as a destination for visitors.

This field also acts as a barrier to potentially harmful runoff water into the mere, it freely drains into the mere being situated above it and any development of this land would potentially cause harmful pollution of the mere. Given that this is not a running water course any pollution does not simply wash away but will cause problems for wildlife on an ongoing basis.

The Site Assessments

There has been something of a lull over the past few days after the excitement of last weeks public meeting but things have begun to warm up a bit in Ellesmere again. Firstly a (slightly overdue) FOI request has now produced a complete paper trail of the application to build next to the mere. There are a few interesting points and I will link the documents below:

• Assessment stage 2a states:
• The site lies "Within the buffer zone of the conservation area"
• The site is "Within buffer zone of ‘The Mere’ Wildlife Site"
• The site has "6 x single TPOs & 2 x groups of TPOs covering a total of 11 trees"
• The final tally was -4 ie 4 more points against development than in favour
• Assessment stage 2b states
• The study states that a cemetery extension would appear to be the most sensible use of the land.
• The land owner has offered a strip of land along the boundary with the cemetery that could be used to either provide a small extension capable of accommodating around 75 extra burial plots or a footpath link from Swan Hill through to Cremorne Gardens. 
• Site immediately adjacent to a Conservation Area, a 19th century cemetery and Cremorne Gardens, a designed landscape of regional significance. Development may not be acceptable on this site and a full Heritage Assessment would need to be prepared in discussion with the LPA prior to submission of any application
• This site is immediately adjacent to a County Wildlife Site and to the Environmental Network. Site design will need to take into account the need for a buffer to separate any development from the ecologically sensitive designated site. This may limit the achievable density on the site. Lighting on the site will need to take account of the presence of foraging and commuting bats.
•  TREES & HEDGEROWS WILL BE A MINOR CONSTRAINT    
• The plot immediately adjacent to The Cremorne Gardens of The Mere at Ellesmere Park. This is considered a ‘quiet recreation garden and this proposed development could impact on the park. The Cremone Gardens are registered as a historic designed parkland and therefore there are some concerns about visual impact on gardens and could be detrimental to the historic character of the park. There are also some concerns about groundwater in terms of level to The Mere and contamination of The Mere. There could be increased general disturbance to wildlife on the narrow strip between the development and The Mere. 
• Of those respondents who have expressed an opinion about the future direction of growth, the majority are in favour of development to the south and west of the town along the main transport routes with good access to employment and infrastructure.
• The impact of development on Cremorne Gardens, The Mere and the Conservation Area is a significant consideration. 

Those were the highlights, there is plenty more but most of the key points have already been covered, to my mind to environmental points overwhelmingly outweigh the argument in favour which simply consists of its proximity to town.

One of the other documents was a little more illuminating.

Letter 31 Jan 12

This is a very interesting document and lends weight to the discussion I had with one of our own town councillors this evening, the town council has never has backed this plan, the land swap is a deal which has been brokered between Shropshire County Council and the landowner with a complete disregard for the opinions of the residents of Ellesmere and the town council.

There is no green lane next to 1 Swan Hill, its a driveway with no public access, the only people who would benefit from the proposed footpath are the prospective residents of the development. Also note the all important OR, thats 75 plots for the cemetery OR a footpath. Let us just reiterate one point, there is a footpath on either side of Swan Hill and nowhere to park in-between, there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever in having a new footpath for the current residents of Ellesmere.

So I owe Ellesmere town council an apology, there was never a deal and after tonights meeting its clear that there is no support for this plan from the council, in fact its now clear that there are several members who are most anxious that this plan is properly opposed and the landowner is brought to book for the damage to the trees.

There was an agreement to raise the issue of the disgraceful deployment of barbed wire (thats barbed not barb) as well this evening. Not only has the entrance way been turned into something akin to stalag luft but the entire perimeter has now been furnished with 2 strands of barbed wire, that includes both the perimeter with the cemetery which is quite distasteful but it also lines the perimeter of a footpath through the mere park. This is particularly dangerous as it is at eye level for a 5 year old and literally lines the path through the woods.

To end it seems that we are to have another public meeting, this will be organised by Ellesmere Town Council and will afford another opportunity to hear the concerns residents have regarding the SAMDEV plan.


Stage 1 Site Assessment Stage 2a Site Assessment Stage 2b Site Assessment

The Public Meeting

This has been an important week in the consultation process with the public meeting and its associated publicity opportunities. There have been several key discoveries and  I will try to relate them in the following post.


Firstly the council came out with their arguments in favour of development next to the mere, these being the proximity of the site to the centre of town, as they put it, the good access to the site and they also set great stock by the "opportunity this affords to extend the cemetery". 


Franky it was difficult to approach the last point without seeming rude during the public meeting, to accept a 5m strip of land to extend the cemetery in return for building 22 houses is utterly derisory and I cannot criticise it strongly enough. This point certainly drew plenty of opposition last night from the 200 residents of Ellesmere who turned out to the public meeting and to be honest it highlights that this proposal is the result of some very questionable logic and merits investigation by someone. 


If the cemetery cannot be extended into this field then so be it, we obviously cannot force the purchase, its been tried and didn't work, but the fact that it cannot be used for the cemetery does not automatically mean it should be built on. We should simply look elsewhere for a suitable site and leave this field be, in fact there is a discussion to be had as to whether the field should be incorporated into the conservation area to put its development beyond doubt.

For this site to emerge as a front runner from 14 proposals in Ellesmere beggars belief, especially since the town council came out strongly in opposition to this part of the plan. This certainly makes a mockery of the statement by Mal Price, the head of planning for Shropshire,  in this article in the Shropshire Star where he states that “All the sites and all the figures being put forward, have been generated by the local communities”. No they havent, in this case it was put forward by the owner, a County Councillor from Berrington, sorry, it may be inconvenient but its a fact.

Back to the debate, I think the statement that this site has good access could use a few pretty pictures to illustrate the opposing point of view. This is the only route out of the increasing built up Swan Hill area, its a single carriageway road and as you can see whichever way you are going you generally have to wait for the oncoming traffic to pass. According to the Ellesmere place plan - "Employment self containment in Ellesmere is comparatively low, at 36.1%, although this is typical for a town of its size.  There are fewer jobs in the town, at 1,167, than there are resident workers."

Anyone moving to this site would not be working in town, they will be commuting to Wrexham, Oswestry or Shrewsbury and therefore will simply add to the congestion at this point. This next picture is the access from the field itself, again single carriageway and this time obscured by the cemetery, we may not be able to extend it but we still cannot move it. 


I simply cannot understand why a professional planning officer would stand in front of 200 people and argue that this site has good access. Dont forget this is not simply saying the site has good access as an aside but using the good access as a reason to put the site forward before 11 other sites in Ellesmere. I hate to think what the access was like in the other proposed sites!


Moving on to another important point and that is a quick review of the consultation process, the lack of publicity for this is well trodden ground, the lack of an offline option for resident to lodge an opinion has also been covered in previous posts and we, as residents, have had to step in and gather 83 written objections which were presented yesterday at the meeting. What is really important however is how the consultation moves on from here, if the Council are to retain any semblance of this exercise being a consultation this proposal must be dropped, its that simple. Here are a few points:

• 200 Ellesmere residents attended the meeting last night and 100% voiced their opposition to this plan during a show of hands
• Ellesmere's own town councillors came out in opposition to the plan
• The Chair of the meeting, Ann Hartley, Deputy Leader of Shropshire County Council, brought a halt to the proceedings because in her own words (roughly) "I can see this plan is not going to be put forward". If my quote is inaccurate it certainly captures the thrust of the statement and it should be appearing in the Shropshire Star verbatim next week.

There is another point which we need to be clear on, during a radio interview linked here (2 hours 17 minutes in) there was just a hint that the missing 3,300 Ellesmere residents from last nights meeting might somehow be in favour of this development. When you extrapolate something you extend the trend to encompass the missing data, 100% opposed implies 100% opposed when extrapolated. It does illustrate a fair point however, there is simply no substitute for everyone filling out the questionnaire although apparently its perfectly acceptable to skip the boring bits, I wish I had known that!

Before you do however, that is if you still haven't done it, there are a couple of other small points which were brought out during the discussion yesterday. It turns out the following field which sits opposite the petrol station has somehow found itself inside the development boundary! This came out in a sort of "how did that get in there" moment. The rest of us have been so blinkered by the Swan Hill development that this snuck in right under the radar and needs just as much opposition as the former development. Just because there has not been an application for development it does not for a second mean that one will not be forthcoming if it finds itself within a new development boundary. 

Also it was well worth studying the proposal for the extension of the quarry, although this development is in a less sensitive area it does butt up quite closely to the canal side and this is another area where the Council need to put in safeguards to ensure it does not encroach on the public spaces.

I think that about covers the main points raised during the last few days, of course there were many more very interesting issues concerning infrastructure, drainage and the scale of the proposals but I will like to invite anyone with a more complete understanding of these issues to add their comments rather than try to cover them myself.

Finally there are a couple of links to the radio interviews which were aired on the 3rd and 4th May

Before the meeting http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00qx6kx scan to 2 hours 19 minutes

After the meeting http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00qy000 scan to 2 hours 17 minutes

The Argument In Favour

We have finally been afforded a glimpse of the process which led to this proposed development being added to the SAMDEV plan for Ellesmere. Shropshire County Council have published a document detailing the issues and responses to the SAMDEV plan from the 12th March. The land owner, Councillor Claire Wild, has opened the batting with a lengthy argument in favour of the development which follows in blue, along with a few self indulgent counter arguments.

SAMDEV Issues and Responses you need page 32, the rest is pretty bland

These comments relate to the parcel of land (2.5 acres) off Swan Hill, Ellesmere adjacent to the cemetery (ref: ELL016).

This is an available site for development, close to the urban area and surrounded by developed land. The site is easily accessible to Ellesmere Town Centre by foot (400m) and is linked to the cycling network (National Cycle Route 31), It is within 1km of Ellesmere infant, primary and secondary schools and there is a well equipped play area within 200m of the site.

Let us first look at the definition of surrounded "Be all around (someone or something)" I would like to pour scorn on the statement that this piece of land is surrounded by developed land. Yes the cemetery could be defined as developed by virtue of it not being virgin agricultural land and yes the mere park could be described as developed by virtue of it being a public space but can we look at this with a single grain of common sense. To suggest that this parcel of land is somehow hemmed in by urban sprawl is derisory.

Actually on a wider point the road from Swan Hill onto the main Shrewsbury road is congested and single file as it goes past the telephone exchange. Added to this the primary school is full, my child was told he might not be found a place this year and as the wharf development comes online this will only worsen.

Public transport links are also easily accessible and the site is also close to employment opportunities, shops and services and the existing market town infrastructure could easily serve this small development.

The fourth statement on the SAMDEV plan - "There are fewer jobs in the town than there are resident workers and most workplaces in Ellesmere are small." I would debate that this fact negates any advantage of having a development which is close to the town over any other areas in Ellesmere. i.e. any new residents will be joining us on the commute out of town every morning so why build specifically close to the town.

Ellesmere is a market town at the top of the settlement hierarchy. land adjacent to the cemetery at Swan Hill is a sequentially preferable and more sustainable housing site than some already included within the current development boundary for the settlement.

Sustainable is a much abused and overused word in my opinion but maybe I am missing something.

The site is 400m from Ellesmere town centre, which offers services, facilities and employment opportunities. It is within 1km walking distance of Ellesmere Infant, Primary and Secondary schools. There is a well equipped children’s play area within a 200m walk from the site. The site is not just accessible to facilities by foot but it is also adjacent to National Cycle Route 31.

I would also suggest that the proximity to a cycle route is irrelevant, yes in towns and satellite villages to major commercial centres having easy access to a cycle route would encourage people to cycle to work but this is Ellesmere. Where are you going to cycle to on a daily basis? Would anyone seriously consider a commute to Oswestry or Shrewsbury by bicycle? You wouldn't last a week.

Planning permission was granted on an area to the western part of the site for a cemetery in 2001. In permitting this development the former North Shropshire District Council accepted that the site forms part of the urban fabric of Ellesmere.

I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between the potential impact of using this field as a cemetery and popping 22 houses on it. Cemetery residents are quiet by their very nature, they dont require cars, they dont play load music or wash their cars on a sunday morning with nasty chemicals. This statement is absurd and anyhow that was back in 2001, in 2009 the council rejected a development plan by councillor Wild on the following basis: "Site rejected as it contributes to the setting of The Mere and Cremorne Gardens and is separated from existing housing by the Cemetery."

Current planning policy guidelines

(PPG1) promotes sustainable development within urban areas and PPG3 states that most new housing should be within urban areas, it also states that sites should take into consideration the availability of shops and services within walking distance. PPG3 also states that planning policy should look at the existing capacity of infrastructure of services; this development easily meets this criteria.

PPG13 states that planning policy should promote accessibility to jobs, shops and leisure services within walking and cycling distance again this site delivers these objectives.

Covered.

You will be aware that all the surrounding area has been developed. The site is easily accessible by foot, cycling and public transport. The site is close to jobs, shops and services and the existing infrastructure and services could easily serve this new, small development.

Covered and absurde.

As part of the consultation process in your deliberations regarding future site allocations I urge you to promote the relationship of this site to the urban area and surrounding land use and include this site for future development.

Well I urge the council to use a little more common sense and promote the far more obvious relationship between this site and the conservation area which "surrounds" one side of it. The SAMDEV plan will cause ample problems with infrastructure in its current form even without this extra development.

The local council will have enough trouble attempting to get the developers to keep up with the pressure on infrastructure without adding to that pressure and ruining the mere park in the process. In order to support the rest of the developments which are 800 or 320 houses depending upon who you ask (apparently those houses which have already had planning permission on the wharf don't count) the town will need to provide more employment opportunities.

Tourism has great potential to help to stimulate the local economy but if we ruin the mere park, aside from having to live here and see the consequences on a daily basis, the boost in visitor numbers will not happen. Ellesmere could become just another over developed and debased little market town instead of an oasis for visitors and locals alike.

The new national planning framework

A new national planning policy has been published by the government on the 27th March - the document is linked here.

I have had a skim and pulled out a few choice highlights from page 25 onwards which deals with conservation and environmental guidelines:

109. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

environment by:

• protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
• recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

110. In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to

minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural

environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or

amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.

113. Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which

proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or

geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged. Distinctions should be

made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated

sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives

appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make

to wider ecological networks.

118. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should

aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following

principles:

• if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
• planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;

123. Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

• identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.

131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take

account of:

• the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality;

Call me biased but this development fails just about every test in the document, building 22 houses on the banks of a kettle mere, alongside a conservation area and on a small field containing some magnificent historic trees (or whats left of them) is just wrong.

The view from 2009 and we have a public meeting date

I found a very interesting little document on the Shropshire County Council website today, it turns out that the proposal to build on the land between the cemetery and Cremorne gardens was rejected in 2009 for the following reason;

ELL016 Ellesmere Land adj. cemetery

Site rejected as it contributes to the setting of The Mere and Cremorne Gardens and is separated from existing housing by the Cemetery.

http://shropshire.gov.uk/planningpolicy.nsf/viewAttachments/MCAL-8QEEM5/$file/2009-final-strategic-housing-land-availability-assessment-appendix-7.pdf

I wonder what changed? The document does state that the areas might hold some potential for the future but it seems odd that a decision should be revoked in only a matter of 3 years. I would argue not only has nothing changed, it still contributes to the setting of the mere, but also many other far more relevant development areas have been identified.

We also, finally, have a date for a public meeting to discuss the SAMDEV with Shropshire Council planning officers in Ellesmere. This meeting is to be held in Ellesmere Town hall on Thursday 3rd May between 7pm and 9pm as detailed here. Hopefully we will be able to produce a decent turnout to back up our concerns!

Something else which has turned up this week is a Facebook page called plan my Shropshire, I have popped a few posts on but mysteriously some of the less positive ones have disappeared as if by magic. The posts were not abusive or unpleasant in any way, simply backing up some other users experiences of the "consultation" process and drawing attention to this little protest page, obviously it was deemed off topic.

A progress update

The campaign to stop the development on the edge of the conservation area at Ellesmere rumbles gently on with some good news and some dead ends. If there is one element of this whole shambolic process which has continued to irritate me it is the lack of any communication, outside of the website, from Shropshire County Council to the people of Ellesmere. There is a plan "under consultation" which is going to form the basis for a significant enlargement of the town not to mention the potential impact of the mere-side development and nobody knows about it! The only reason we know is because the land owner started knocking down trees which led one inquisitive neighbour to get online to find out why.

The town council practically disown the "SAMDEV proposal" because it came from Shropshire Council, they will neither comment upon it or oppose it as it has changed from the original plan they sent up to Shrewsbury in a few significant places. The local MP Owen Paterson refuses to get involved because he is not a democratically elected member of the Council in question and so in effect all of the democratic processes are ignoring the problem. Shropshire council are supposed to be holding a public meeting as a part of the consultation but they are on holiday and cannot set a date until May so 2/3rds of the consultation time will be lost before we are even officially told of the plan. I would like to share with you a few facts about this plan to which you can draw your own conclusions:

1. There has been no official, public notice to the people of Ellesmere that there is a proposal to build between the cemetery and the mere.
2. If this plan is adopted the towns development boundary will be moved to just 20 meters from the mere edge to encompass this field.
3. The field is owned by a Shropshire Councillor, Claire Wild who sits on the central planning committee.
4. When Ellesmere Council sent in their proposal for the SAMDEV plan this field was marked as "Protected" and was not marked for housing development.
5. When Shropshire Council published the plan it had been marked for development of 22 houses.

Moving on, the Border Counties Advertizer has decided to print a nice piece regarding this campaign, page 12 in todays paper, so thank you to them for flying the flag and we are close to hitting a few milestones in terms of exposure. We are just on the cusp of our visitor counter hitting the 1,000 mark which must mean that a few more people are aware of this plan than would have been if it had been left to the Council. Also our Facebook group is just about to hit the 50 mark so thumbs up to everyone who has joined up and if anyone else would like to "like" us click here.

Your chance to join the "consultation"

Apparently the SAMDEV plan has been under "consultation" since the 1st March and yet there have been no public notices, no letters to residents and nothing in the local library. In fact unless you knew where to look for it, and even this presumes you have access to the internet, you would be unable to view the plan never mind comment upon it. Given that there is a closing date of the 8th June time is ticking away quite quickly and up to now all you have been able to do as far as contributing to the "consultation" is concerned is fire angry emails to an anonymous address at the council.

But that all changed this morning! We now have an online questionnaire, only 24 days late....

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SC_SAMDev_preferred_options_consultation_Ellesmere

Of course this is still utterly useless to anyone who is not online which probably includes a good half of the residents of Ellesmere and anyway how would they even know about the plan.

Apparently the ever increasing shift to online consultations" is all about saving money, you can pretty much pin anything on "the cuts" it seems but frankly I find that a weak excuse. A couple of dozen posters would cost very little (*cough* compared to a final salary council pension *cough*) and I feel is the very least we should expect. So make some tea and fill out the questionnaire.....

The Land Swap

One element of this plan which is a little confusing is the proposed land swap which consists of a 5 meter strip of land on the boundary with the cemetery. Apparently some members of the burial committee met with the land owner at the field in question a couple of days ago to mark out their side of the deal. Markers were placed and everyone was apparently handshakes and smiles after the meeting which presumably means the burial board are going to support the plan as they feel they can get another row of Ellesmere residents (i.e) you and me into this strip. Its straight from Faust, or for the younger generation, The Simpsons episode where Homer sold his soul to the devil for a doughnut. In supporting this plan and accepting a 5 meter strip it ends once and for the debate over how to extend the Cemetery as there will be 22 houses in the way.

The curious thing is though it seems this strip of land has already been promised to someone else as the town council, according to the SAMDEV plan have decided to support the application on the basis that the strip of land in question goes to them for use as a footpath! Now I can pick holes in that idea till the cows come home because there is already access to the mere park at the bottom of the hill on both sides and nowhere to park in-between so in order to use the proposed path you would already have had to walk past one.

Surely you cannot use a strip of land 5 meters wide for both burial and as a footpath its just not that wide given the cemetery would need at least 4 meters for a plot with access to maintain it. This surely means that either the "doughnut" has been promised to both committees or the SAMDEV is wrong because the burial committee certainly looked like they knew what they had been promised.