Planning (Development Management) Address
Stafford Borough Council
Civic Centre
Riverside
Stafford, ST16 3AQ
Date
Planning no: 25/41120/OUT Site North of the Burgage Eccleshall
Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:
(Please write in here your personal comments)
I fully support the following reason for objecting:
Location
The Government states that new housing developments should be on Brownfield sites first ,then Greyfield and as a last resort, in exceptional circumstances, Greenfield. There are brownfield sites available on SBC website and there are 746 empty properties in Stafford Borough (West Midlands Region Survey of Empty Properties). The application does not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances the require this development on a Greenfield site.
The site is bordered by houses mainly occupied by elderly residence whose lives will be constantly disturbed by the traffic using Burgage to access the Stone Road. To one side of the site is the Severn Trent Water Works and to the North, the River Sow.The River Sow is a main river, regulated by the Environment Agency. Houses cannot be built within 8 metres of the River Sow as it is designated as a “main river”, without a permit from the Environment Agency. The site plan shows the nearest property is 9 meters from the river, but excavation, gardens, pavements and access roads works will encroach the 8 meter exclusion zone and therefore permission to build should be rejected.
Water Meadows
The fields adjacent to the River Sow are designated as water meadows, by Stafford County Council (see SBC Survey of Water Meadows) as evidenced by the drains and pond.
Flooding in this area is mitigated by the water meadows absorbing excess water. Building would prevent this and make the flooding that happens regularly in the Burgages much worse. According to Historic England ‘it is not recommended or permitted to build on water meadows because they are flood-prone, have high water tables, and are vital ecosystems for wildlife, any development would require special foundations, significant environmental impact assessments, and likely face legal and planning hurdles due to their ecological value and flood risk’.
The report H SAA/theburgage/AH1068/06/08/25V4 attached to the application says ‘Groundworks carried out ahead of, and during, the construction phase of the development, have the potential to remove/destroy above ground and below ground remains of the water meadows, which would result in substantial harm to a non-designated heritage asset within the development footprint’
Infrastructure
The development will not enhance the lives of existing residents without investment in the already over stretched infrastructure of Eccleshall. Doctors are quoting 4 weeks for appointments, the primary school is combining years because of teacher shortage, the sewage treatment plant is tankering out its overload daily, parking is completely full every day, and flooding is a regular feature
The government states that new developments must be “infrastructure led.” Quite simply this is not the case with this development. It would be reckless for Stafford Borough Council to approve this application before the infrastructure is in place to support it. It would be open to legal challenge
Roads and Access
Traffic through Eccleshall is a huge issue. Ambulances being held up for over 5 minutes whilst large trucks manoeuvre in the high street. What price somebodies life? The junction of The Burgage and Stone Road will be a major issue (main entrance/exit to the proposed development). Not only does it form a staggered junction with Badgers Croft, the road floods at this exact point, creating an accident hot spot. Turning right out of The Burgage towards the High Street, is even more dangerous as there is a bend round which you cannot see oncoming traffic from the left until the last minute.
Parking
There is little public parking in Eccleshall. Consequently, motorists park on the pavements while shopping. The High Street with parking on both sides is too narrow for HGVs and farm vehicles to get through safely, reducing the road to a single lane. There is street parking, but even if a space is available, cars risk being damaged by lorries trying to negotiate the narrow streets. This happened to a local newspaper reporter who visited Eccleshall recently.
Sewage
No investment has been made in the foul drain system in Eccleshall for many years and it simply cannot cope. The system is antiquated. Raw sewage backs up in the fields behind the Raleigh Estate to the north of Eccleshall because Swynnerton STW closed and it was diverted to works in Eccleshall. Severn Trent inform us that there is no planned investment until 2040. Effluent is tankered out of the treatment works on a daily basis. This is situated next to the planned development. This is not a healthy environment for children playing outside or elderly residents who are housed next to it. More tankers on Eccleshall roads means more danger for us all.
Schools
The junior school in Eccleshall is short of teachers and there is only one in this village and no secondary school. What is the point in building more houses for families when there is nowhere to educate them? The Bishop Lonsdale Academy head informs us that even if there was space, finding teachers is a massive problem. The nearest high school to Eccleshall is 6 miles away. This means more cars and more danger for everyone.
Doctors
According to the surgery, they have already taken on more patients, going from 7,850 patients to about 10,000, because of increased housing development in Eccleshall and surrounding areas. They are under severe pressure. More houses mean even longer waiting times for present and new residents.
Transport
Buses are infrequent and unreliable. If you are a key worker wanting to catch a bus to work on a Sunday, there isn’t one. The timetables show that returning from Stafford or Stone is a problem as the last bus is too early. The last from Stafford is at 17.45 and from Stone 15.25. This results in more traffic.
Economy
There is no industry in Eccleshall to employ the already increased population. The industrial estates are not within walking distance. This means more traffic on the already overstretched roads. The nearest well connected train station is 7.5 miles away. The shopkeepers in Eccleshall find their customers are limited by the lack parking.
Flooding
Stafford Street and Castle Street flood on a regular basis when it rains. The show home on the new development on Castle Street flooded in the last heavy rain. (It was passed on appeal as it doesn’t flood – apparently!) There is clear evidence of this as the businesses here have flood defence gates fitted to their doorways. Stone Road/Badgers Croft junction, next to the proposed development, is also prone to flooding. Nearby residents of Stone road observe that the flooding has been made worse after the construction of the Sancerre development. Raw sewage on The Burgage is a repeated, distressing issue. Professor Valerie Curtis wrote in 2019 that in Public Health “the most important thing to get rid of is sh*t.” More houses means more water run off, which means more flooding Eccleshall. In 2023 there was storm overflow 67 times into the River Sow. The connection of storm and foul water drains causes flooding during heavy rain. The environment agency map shows the proposed site floods. The 10 acre, so called country park, will be flooded and unusable due to overflows from the sewage works.
River Sow
The proposed development is next to the river Sow, and alongside the sewage works. In 2024 raw sewage was dumped into the Sow 67 times in 2023 and 26 in 2024 Seven Trent have already told us there is no investment planned until 2040. It is shocking, but SBC should not ignore the health implications.
Trees and hedges
The developer states: “Retention of existing trees and hedgerows and the creation of a new 10 acre country park.” Most people live in Eccleshall because they choose to live in the countryside. Why would we allow them to swap our productive farmland and countryside for a 10 acre country park and the potential loss of protected
trees and hedges? Not to mention the loss of wildlife, which is significant by a river. Red kite, owls, heron, oyster catcher, Great Crested News, bats, otters are all found in this location. We already have the most beautiful country parks around Eccleshall. Its called the countryside. This ‘country park’ will only be accessible through the Burgage, disrupting the residents further, assuming they will want to endure the smell.
Fields
The proposed development is to be built on arable land as stated in the Muller website. Subsequently they changed their mind and downgraded it to “grassland, scrub and a small pond.” Definition of arable: “Land that can be regularly worked to grow crops.” residents observe that the farmer used to tending the land regularly, but has been recently absent. I that to for fill Muller’s description of the land? The number of proposed houses has been increased from 58 to 71. In 2001 there was a residential and settlement boundary in the Neighbourhood Plan to protect Eccleshall farm land. This still remains in place. I emplore our planning department to uphold it. Eccleshall is in the countryside and urbanisation by building in the countryside is contrary the Neighbourhood and Local Plan. Chapter 15, para.198 of the NPPF makes it clear that any new development should be appropriate for the location, taking into account the natural environment as well as site sensitivities and wider impact of the development.
Homes
We are not against building homes in Eccleshall. Our MP Leigh Ingham keeps repeating, “the right homes, in the right place, with the right infrastructure.” This is not being applied Eccleshall. It has a demographic of older people living here. Why not build some bungalows for these people to downsize into, thus freeing up houses for families? There are 37 houses currently for sale in Eccleshall. Why are we
building more? I suggest it’s social housing to rent that is required which can be provided with the 746 empty houses (West Midlands Regional Survey 2024) of which 382 are Council owned.
Our MP Leigh Ingham (spoke about Eccleshall in the House of Commons) and Mathew Pennycock (Housing Minister)
“I emphasise once again my agreement with her about the importance of plan-led development to provide the necessary infrastructure.”
“Local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure.”
“The absence of an up-to-date 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.”
The adopted Stafford Borough plan 2011-2031 required 12% of housing growth in key service villages. Eccleshall’s share should be about 6%, which is 48 out of SBC’s new target of 813. Eccleshall had taken 22% by March 2020. Over 350 homes built in the last 10 years. The leader of SBC said at the recent Cabinet meeting that applications would not be decided on a first come first served basis and that development should be proportionate.
I urge the planning dept to consider the “the Grampian Condition.” It enforces that the infrastructure comes first and the housing follows.
If “brownfield sites come first” and “development is infrastructure led” why is this application being considered?
Please reject it.
Yours sincerely
Signature :
Name:
