Introduction
Eccleshall is included in the 2025 Sunday Times list of best places to live. It’s described as a ‘village in appearance and spirit, despite being officially a town with a population of around 6,500. The list highlights Eccleshall’s strong community, vibrant high street, and historical features like Grade II listed buildings’.
The centre of Eccleshall is a conservation area. Conservation areas can be affected, not just by what goes on inside them, but by their settings and approaches.
To increase the size of Eccleshall by 25%, in one huge development, is not a sustainable growth pattern.
The reasons this application must be rejected are many, some of which are:
• It is a Greenfield development on grade 2 BVM land, a last resort according to Government policies.
• The site has high biodiversity, which will be destroyed.
• Increased traffic will overwhelm already inadequate road structure and lack of local parking facilities.
• There are few employment opportunities, so requiring commuting to more urban areas, or the M6 / rail connections.
• The sewerage treatment situation for Eccleshall is already completely overwhelmed, and is not likely to be fixed for 20 years.
• Although Borough/Parish Local Plans are being reviewed, this development is way out of scale to what the council thought of as sustainable growth.
• There are minimal public transport links to anywhere.
Details
Local Plans and Policies
There are a number of Council plans which currently would rule out such a development. Some are under review, but it would take a conscious effort by SBC and PC to change or ignore their previous decisions to favour this huge development. The government recognises that the lack of an up to date local plan, doesn’t mean the existing one should be ignored.
In a recent parliamentary debate on the plans for Eccleshall, the Minister of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Mathew Pennycook commented, “The absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable.”
Eccleshall is surrounded by plans for housing developments and pre-applications are flooding in. There are a total of over 1500 houses planned (increasing the town by 75%). Again, the absence of an up to date local plan doesn’t mean a free-for-all approach. Mr Pennycook stated, “…but for specific applications, it might be worth stressing that other proposed developments can be a material consideration in the determination of an individual planning application.”
Stafford Borough Council Documents
Eccleshall Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2011 – 2031
The current development boundary extends to the eastern edge of Sancerre Grange. Map 1 Page 14.
It includes provision for the recent houses built and the one in progress on Castle Street. The presentation to the PC acknowledged their proposal was outside the boundary. I urge the PC and SBC to maintain the current boundary. If they are forced to abandon it, there is no limit to the extent of Eccleshall and it could cease to exist as a pretty country town, swallowed up in an urban sprawl.
Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Stafford Borough Local Plan 2020-2040
The BC considered areas for sustainable growth, some with several options, some with only 1. See page 4, Table A: Summary of settlement-specific growth:
‘Eccleshall – One scenario – 0 homes’
Stafford Borough Local Plan 2020 – 2040 – Issues and Options Consultation Document
The above document shows (p45), that Eccleshall has had the highest growth (2011 to 2019), with 340 houses, of any of the Key Service Villages. Perhaps now is the time to call time and let other communities take their share.
Let’s not forget that Government policies place priority on brownfield sites, and development surrounding Stafford, not least for environmental reasons. Closer access to employment (less travel) public transport links, etc.
The north end of Stafford town centre has for years been in decline. It is a wasteland of ugly 60s/70s style buildings, many unoccupied for years. Urban regeneration with modern efficient housing could lift it out of the decline and create a vibrant cityscape along side business growth. It has access to rail and road links already in place, as well as pedestrian access to shops and parkland.
Attaching the majority of housing growth to, and within, these urban areas is a far more sustainable, greener approach than randomly spreading out into the countryside.
High Biodiversity
Almost the first comment made by the Bloor’s visiting speaker was to dismiss the land from having any value, by mentioning a lack of biodiversity. By inference, it would therefore be better to take it out of food production and cover a good proportion of it in brick, concrete and tarmac. This was both condescending and inaccurate. In reality the land has high biodiversity. Bird species known to inhabit the site, and seen on a regular basis include:
1. Barn owls. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981. schedule 1
2. Red kite. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981.
3. Peregrine falcon. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981
4. Kestrel. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981
5. Sparrow hawk. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981
6. Common buzzard. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981
7. Little owl. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981, lower protection.
8. Tawny owl. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981
9. Red wings. Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981
10. Spotted wood pecker . Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981
11. Green wood pecker . Protected under wildlife and countryside act 1981
Source: Director of the Gentleshaw Wildlife Centre, adjacent to the site.
Many of these birds are carnivorous, so it follows that there is a population of food source species, such as small rodents, to sustain them. There are also long established ponds on the site which, by their very nature, will add to the biodiversity.
If these birds found themselves living in the middle of a building site, and then a housing estate, then many may be pushed out of their homes.
If it is true that the council have absolved Bloor Homes from carrying out an environmental survey, then this is misguided. I hope, it’s not a deliberate attempt to streamline the process for the development to go ahead.
Loss of Agricultural land for Food Production
The land in question is currently used for food production. Usually it sustains a variety of crops, two per year. I would urge the authorities to investigate the impact of losing this BMV2 farm land. Here are some points to consider:
CPRE
The Campaign for the Protection Rural England (CPRE) published an assessment of the scale and impact of buildings swallowing up land for food production. They said, “England’s future food security has been called into question after losing farmland capable of feeding the combined populations of Liverpool, Sheffield and Manchester their five a day”.
The loss of agricultural land to tarmac and concrete is made more impactful when consideration is given to the fact that, in the coming years, England is expected to loose huge tracts of productive land in other parts of the country due to climate change.
The government recognises this is its guidelines on the subject.
Guide to Assessing Development proposals on Agricultural Land – (UK government guidance)
This Government document, designed to guide planning decisions, states in paragraph 1.1
”A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment sets out the government’s 25-year plan to improve the health of the environment by using natural resources more sustainably and efficiently. It plans to:
* protect the best agricultural land…”
Paragraph 1.3 states:
Planning authorities must consult Natural England on all non-agricultural applications that result in the loss of more than 20 hectares (ha) of BMV land, if the land is not included in a development plan. For example, this includes the likely cumulative loss of BMV land from the proposed development if it’s part of a phased development.
I urge SBC to publish their consultation with Natural England, or if they haven’t carried out their obligation to do so, put the planning process on hold whilst they do so.
Minister of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Mathew Pennycook commented in relation to Eccleshall,
“The NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should recognise the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land—namely, land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality.”
The government acknowledges that incremental loss of food production capability affects food security. It’s not in our favour, for a carbon reduction future to concrete over productive rural England and get our green beans from Kenya.
Infrastructure, Public Transport, and Traffic
Road Infrastructure
There are 6 arterial roads into Eccleshall, all single carriageway. There are no bypasses, so every route and journey from one side of the town to the other means passing through the town centre. There are two junctions with mini roundabouts and it is not possible for any two vehicles larger that a car to pass each other. Some approaches can’t even take two cars due to on street parking. This situation is exacerbated by there being no off street public parking facilities at all.
Consequently, when a truck or tractor tries to pass through, grid lock ensues, especially if the vehicle is passing down the High Street. No-one can get into the High Street from 3 directions whilst the larger vehicle comes though. This occurs multiple times every single day.
Several hundred more cars adding to the mix will only add to the already severe congestion. Further problems can be foreseen with the spine road proposed on the Bloor development. This will provide an unsuitable unofficial ‘Eastern Bypass’ with traffic moving from Newport Rd, Stafford Road to Stone Road using this and Green Lane as a proverbial ‘rat run’.
Of course the arterial roads, particularly to Newport, Stone, and Stafford will have already significant peak time congestion much increased. This is mainly due to there being little local employment opportunities resulting in Eccleshall becoming more of a dormitory town.
Public Transport
There is no frequent public transport to any destination throughout the day. Buses do pass through, but infrequently.
If large housing developments are concentrated closer to Stafford not only are their greater employment opportunities, but better access to more schools, doctors, hospital, shopping facilities and easier access to major road and rail routes. Also, because of economies of scale, public transport access and frequency are more likely to follow.
Lack of Employment
Business development in recent years has continued along the M6 corridor close to Stone and Stafford. Eccleshall has a couple of small rural industrial estates. A large influx of people will almost certainly have to commute to other areas, and to motorway and rail links for work.
Larger housing development closer to Stone and particularly Stafford makes more sense from a sustainability point of view.
Sewerage
The sewage plant that serves Eccleshall is not fit for purpose. It is overwhelmed even in normal operation and has to have effluent evacuated by lorry to stop it from overflowing. During times of heavy rain, surface water from properties and roadways bulk up the volume that the sewage system has to cope with, and there are regular floods. It has been reported that plans to improve the system to cope with even current levels of flow won’t be completed for 20 years. To add 25% to Eccleshall’s built environment just from the Bloor site, let alone from over a thousand more potential houses from other sites would be catastrophic for the environment at a time when outflows into rivers is at an all time high. It’s not inconceivable to envisage the river Sow becoming a potential candidate for an open sewer.
Conclusion
By allowing this proposal to go any further, the PC and BC would have to overturn their own Plans and policies, dismiss Government guidance on agricultural land use, set a course for an environmental disaster of sewage overflows and gridlocked road ways. The destruction of food production land, able to soak up increased rainfall, and a species rich corner of England’s green and pleasant land, is unsustainable. It is the epitome of ‘houses on the wrong land in the wrong place’. This ‘free for all’ approach would set one of the most desirable English small towns into a future major urban development sprawl from which there is no going back.
I propose that Bloor Homes be informed that this development will not be tolerated if the SBC / PC have the integrity to stand by their, and the government, policies and guidelines. It’s time to stop the rot and look to truly sustainable levels of house building for Eccleshall.
Leave a comment