I've objected, comment left as follows:
There are several reasons to oppose this.
1. Traffic. The B5067 is a very busy road, used by huge lorries taking a short cut from the A5 at Shottaton. How ridiculous to build family homes adjacent to such a busy road. It's a fatal or serious injury accident waiting to happen. Occupiers of the proposed houses would inevitably park their cars on Ruyton Road (which incidentally is the correct name of this road, not Station Road). There will be one smash after another.
2. The junction with the road to Weston Lullingfields - so many accidents - the junction to this proposed development, with up to 40 additional vehicles, will cause mayhem.
3. The support document from Berrys is misleading. It focuses on the report of the Planning Inspector at Bomere Heath but there is no reason to apply the same criteria to a development in Baschurch. In Baschurch there is already an oversupply of such homes. They take a long time to sell or to let - there are several available right now in Kings Road for example. Ditto in Eyton Lane, the new houses behind the old hospital take ages to let out or to sell. They are not snapped up.
4. The Council has land behind The Wheatlands, which is within the village envelope, for this very purpose, and which is a much safer site. Where is the sense in building on land outside the development boundary?
5. The infrastructure here is creaking as it is so overloaded. It is well known that the sewage works can't cope and yet Berrys consider it sensible to add another 20 or so houses to it. They talk of a regular bus service - in reality it's once every two hours, and not at all in the evenings or on Sundays. There is no train and Network Rail has refused to reopen the former station. That means the only realistic transport is cars. As the Council has already approved development of a huge number of additional houses elsewhere in the village, where are all these cars going, what roads are they going to use? The schools are oversubscribed - the proposal is to build family homes to appeal to families with young children. The reality is that there is nowhere for these kids to go. The road surfaces are atrocious. Prescott Road has huge potholes. The surfaces are covered in loose gravel. Shropshire Council pursues a strategy of patch and mend on the cheapest possible basis. In no time the road is a mess again. Another 40 cars? oh great. Berrys report suggests that the doctors surgery is within 400 metres - er no, I don't think so. It's a mile the length of Prescott Road, meaning that people would drive, and the Council considers that there is already a parking and traffic problem at that end of Prescott Road. Same with the Spar shop, the reality is that people would drive there.
6. There is no employment created by this proposal, a fact which Berrys conveniently ignore. The support document is littered with 'in our professional opinion' - I'd like to hear their 'professional opinion' on the total lack of additional employment for people who might live in the houses they are so desperate to see built.
7. I'm faily sure that there are badgers and newts on the land.
8. I think that the Council refused consent to the owner of Russell Croft on the basis that the development would not match the locality. How would 20 cheap houses and a tatty car park add to the visual beauty of this area? No screening proposed, in fact the proposed development rejoices in its outline ugliness. Hard lines, no screening, an economy development to be just thrown up. Ugh. Whilst the owners of properties on the south side of Ruyton Road can speak for themselves, there will be huge loss of visual amenity.
9. No play equipment for children in the proposal. That's not surprising because of the density of the proposal. The proposal therefore does not benefit all sectors of the community, and least of all those at whom it is aimed. Children would have to cross the busy road to reach the nearest playground, I am fairly sure that children and heavy lorries generally don't mix too well. There appears to be no provision for deaf or blind people, or other people with disabilities, either.
10. I walk and run along this road frequently but I have seen no statutory signs posted concerning this proposal. Nor is the development in the last local plan.
In summary - no thank you. The Wheatlands is a much better site. Incidentally in the email from berrys they say that they are under time constraints as the development schedule for the site is tight. That is outrageous. They are proposing to build on the countryside, and it deserves proper consideration, not a rushed decision to suit them and their clients.
There are a number of simialr objections on the site - I didn't read them before I posted mine.
Regards, Ed Austin
-- Yoland Brown Brownhill House B&B, Ruyton XI Towns, nr. Shrewsbury SY4 1LR ShACC - Shropshire Alternative Car Club www.eleventowns.co.uk www.eleventowns.com www.ShACC-uk.org Tel: 01939 261 121 Fax: 01939 260626
