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.