Development, Stafford Borough Council
Civic Centre, Riverside
Stafford, ST16 3AQ
Planning Application Objection
APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/410015/out
I wish to object to this application on the following grounds:
1. Local Plan & Housing Targets
• Planning Application Objection
APPLICATION NUMBER:
I wish to object to this application on the following grounds:
1. Local Plan & Housing Targets
• Eccleshall has grown rapidly Over the last 10 years
• The adopted Stafford Borough Plan (2011–2031) allocated 10,000 homes across the Borough, with Key Service Villages intended to absorb 12% of this growth. Yet by March 2020, these villages had already absorbed 22%, almost double the target.
• Eccleshall alone has grown by 350 homes in the past 10 years, the highest of any Key Service Village.
• The Local Plan states that housing should be delivered equitably across the Borough. This has clearly not been upheld.
• Further development in Eccleshall is unsustainable due to inadequate infrastructure and risks permanently eroding its rural identity.
• A recent Parliamentary debate confirmed that other pending developments in the area must be treated as material considerations — collectively, they could increase Eccleshall town’s size by 56%, which is excessive and unjustified.
• This development is outside the settlement boundary shown on the map in the Eccleshall Neighbourhood Plan which is incorporated into the SBC Local Plan (2011-2031)
2. Nature Conservation & Biodiversity
• The Climate Change Topic Paper (Local Plan 2020–2040) and Biodiversity Topic Paper both highlight the importance of protecting natural habitats and mitigating habitat fragmentation.
• This site comprises actively farmed land, used for both grazing and winter feed, contributing to the local rural economy and ecological diversity.
• I personally record birds via the Merlin Bird App and regularly observe buzzards, treecreepers, nuthatches, great spotted woodpeckers, dunnocks, chaffinches, and more.
• The site contains mature hedgerows, which:
o Support birds, hedgehogs, dormice, pollinators, and 500+ plant species.
o Are protected under Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and the Environment Act 1995.
o Have been established for over 30 years, thus qualifying as “important” under UK law.
• No environmental or ecological survey has been mandated, which is unacceptable for land of such high biodiversity value.
• On the south side of Shaws Lane is a water meadow that is fed by a stream coming from an adjacent field under threat from this development as the stream that deeds the meadow originates on tis site. Having 55 houses close by the site of special biological interest will, through noise, traffic, pollution from water runoff and people, severely damage this eco system.
3. Highway Safety & Traffic
• Shaws Lane and Kerry Lane ::
o Narrow (4.25m) and without pavements, verges or passing places
o Popular with pedestrians and cyclists.
o Already congested due to Overton Manor, diversion from the High Street, HGV’s from the metal recycling plant on Garmelow Lane, and farm vehicles.
o Traffic surveys outside of peak times do not reflect the severe congestion when children are delivered to and picked up from, school.
• Residents have had to place cones on verges to protect driveways from damage, indicating unsustainable use.
• The PCSO and Parish Council have placed no parking portable signs to prevent parking on hatched areas of the mini roundabout
The developers claim that a short widened section of Shaws Lane will “ensure safe vehicular access” is misleading — the road remains too narrow beyond as it passes between the school and the Community Centre.
• Development will cause:
o Increased risk of accidents.
o Higher air and noise pollution.
o More commuting due to lack of local employment and services.
o Greater reliance on cars for school, healthcare (A&E is in Stoke), and shopping.
o More congestion near the Primary School and nursery, especially during drop-off and pick-up times.
o There is no secondary school in Eccleshall so children will have to be driven to Stone or Stafford schools.
o
4. Impact on the Community
• Local infrastructure is already stretched:
o One GP surgery.
o One primary school — no local high school (nearest are in Stone and Stafford).
o Limited parking in the village centre (Co-op, High Street).
• Census data shows an aging population, yet there is no provision for bungalows or accessible housing.
• Developers favour multi-storey homes for profit, ignoring community needs which are for bungalows for the ageing population.
• This reflects an ageist approach to housing, leaving older residents without downsizing options.
5. Flooding & Drainage
• The Eccleshall Flood Action Group (formed in 2021) has recorded severe and frequent flooding.
• Severn Trent admits the sewage system is not fit for purpose. Tankers are already used to manage overflows, on a daily basis.
• Planned improvements are 20 years away, yet the situation is deteriorating now.
• Severn Trent admit 67 spills into the River Sow in 2023 and 26 times in 2024
• Severn Trent’s flooding maps show the low flooding risk from the River Sow, but the regular flooding is caused by run off from the houses built on the side of the valley in which Eccleshall sits
• Replacing permeable farmland with housing will worsen flood risk, surface runoff, and strain on sewage infrastructure.
• Approving development before resolving these issues is both irresponsible and unsafe.
6. Noise, Disturbance & Amenity
• Development will increase:
o Noise and light pollution.
o Visual harm by replacing natural landscapes.
o Loss of recreational walking/cycling routes, damaging health and wellbeing
• This site has been assessed as having high/medium landscape sensitivity. The assessment clearly states:
“It may be able to accommodate development, but only in limited situations without significant character change.”
• Existing protected hedgerows surround the site, adding ecological and visual value.
• The lane provides a walking route to The Dells (The Dingle), a historic and beloved local beauty spot (Staffordshire Past Track).
• According to the NPPF (2019), Chapter 16, development should conserve historic environments as “irreplaceable resources”
7. Planning Policy Conflict
• This site is outside the settlement boundary as defined in the adopted Local Plan.
• The proposal does not support sustainable communities and fails on multiple counts to comply with national and local planning policy.
• The Sustainability Appraisal of the SBC Local Plan 2020-240 considered areas for sustainable growth (page 4, table A, Summary of settlement specific growth) Conclusion: ‘Eccleshall -one scenario-0 homes’
• The above document shows (p45) that Eccleshall has had the highest growth (2011 to 2019) of all the Key Service Villages, with 340 houses. Without any increase in infrastructure.
Conclusion
I am not opposed to all development — but this application is inappropriate, unsustainable, and damaging to the fabric of Eccleshall.
It threatens:
• Our local identity and heritage
• Our environment and biodiversity
• Our safety and infrastructure
• The quality of life of current and future residents
Once farmland and hedgerows are lost, they are lost forever.
I respectfully urge you to reject this application in the interests of local residents, wildlife, and the long-term sustainability of our community.
I respectfully urge you to reject this application in the interests of local residents, wildlife, and the long-term sustainability of our community.
Signed:
Leave a comment