Decision to refuse permission for new Eccleshall homes overturned

Stafford Borough Council rejected the application for land off Castle Street in April last year, because part of the proposed site was outside Eccleshall’s settlement boundary.

There were also 149 objections submitted to the council. Concerns included the number of houses, traffic congestion and highway safety, a worsening of flood risk and intrusion into a rural area beyond the town’s settlement boundary.

Applicant St Philips appealed against the council’s decision. And this month the planning committee was informed that the application had been allowed on appeal.

Planning inspector Thomas Hatfield said: “The development would provide up to 37 new dwellings, 40 per cent of which would comprise affordable housing, in an accessible location close to services, facilities, and public transport connections.

“It would also generate economic benefits through the creation of employment and the purchasing of materials and furnishings. In addition, the planning obligation would provide contributions towards primary and secondary education, open space provision, and sports facilities.

“Overall, whilst there is some conflict with the locational requirements of the development plan, the harm associated with the development would be limited. Moreover, a number of significant benefits would be delivered. In these circumstances, the conflict with the development plan would therefore be outweighed by other material considerations.”

Councillor Marnie Phillips, speaking at the latest borough planning committee meeting, said she was disappointed with the appeal decision.

She added: “With the fact the development is in the Conservation Area and the area of the Grade II Listed Eccleshall Castle I think it’s a real shame it has been allowed on appeal.

“With the number of residential dwellings on there, we have seen how they can get crammed onto estates. It’s a real shame for the area and a shame that we’ve had no say over the number of dwellings that will be put on this site.”

Councillor Michael Dodson said: “It would seem we had taken most reasonable measures to try and present this development – it’s outside the development boundary, outside the plan, inside a Conservation Area and it’s impacting on a Listed Building.

“I can fully understand why this development was refused and I’m at a loss why the inspector sought to override everything we as the local community had put in place to stop it.”

But planning officer John Holmes said: “The site is almost wholly within the settlement boundary – I think that’s the main reason why it was approved.

“Our reason for refusing the application centred mainly on the balancing pond for the development being outside of the settlement boundary. It’s clearly development; alright it might be relatively low compared with housing but it’s still outside.

“What the applicant has done is got more houses within the application site and pushed the balancing pond to land outside the settlement boundary, thereby getting more houses within the settlement boundary, which we thought was unacceptable.

“It is disappointing that the Inspectorate decided to approve this application. If it had been slightly smaller and wholly within the settlement boundary I think we would have had to approve it because it would have been in accordance with the settlement boundary, Local Plan and Eccleshall Neighbourhood Plan boundary as well.

“But a relatively small part – the balancing pond and a little bit of the access road – was outside the boundary and the inspector didn’t see that as a reason to refuse the application.”