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