Key Planning Reasons to Object

By Stephen Harding

KEY PLANNING REASONS TO OBJECT

Land West of Blurtons Lane, Eccleshall (c.480–500 dwellings)

• Disproportionate scale in a Key Service Village
  Eccleshall is intended for limited, locally scaled growth. A scheme of nearly 500 homes is strategic-scale development and would deliver around 40% of the total housing allocation intended for all Key Service Villages combined, undermining the settlement hierarchy and spatial strategy.
• Five-year housing land supply does not justify this location
  Although the Borough currently lacks a full five-year supply, it has over-delivered housing overalland passed the Housing Delivery Test. The shortfall is a timing issue, not a failure to plan. National policy does not require disproportionate village-scale development to address a borough-wide technical shortfall.
• Highways impact is under-assessed
  The Transport Assessment relies on junction modelling and does not reflect real conditions, includingthrough-traffic, HGVs, agricultural vehicles and M6 diversion flows. Local roads are narrow rural routes not suited to sustained traffic growth.
• HGV and construction traffic risks
  Existing and construction-related HGV movements are underplayed. Prolonged construction traffic would pass through the village on unsuitable roads. The Construction Management Plan is principles-only, with key details deferred.
• Village parking already at capacity
  The application does not assess existing parking saturation or displacement parking from new residents, school and health uses. Parking pressure would worsen, affecting safety, emergency access and residential amenity.
• Drainage and sewage capacity is uncertain
  Foul drainage relies on future water company upgrades that are not programmed or guaranteed. Existing system stress and sewage incidents undermine confidence in “no detriment” conclusions. Mitigation depends on third parties outside the applicant’s control.
• Infrastructure delivery is not guaranteed
  School and medical facilities are proposed in principle only. Delivery depends on third parties and may lag behind housing occupation, placing immediate pressure on existing services.
• Cumulative impact underestimated
  The combined effect of housing numbers, traffic, drainage demand and service pressure would placeunplanned and excessive strain on Eccleshall beyond what was envisaged in the Local Plan.
• Planning balance weighs against approval
  Harms are immediate, certain and irreversible (scale, traffic, drainage, village character), while benefits are conditional and delayed. This creates a weak and risky case for approval and a defensible basis for refusal.