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.