MINUTES of COUNCL MEETING HELD on WEDNESDAY 18Th SEPTEMBER 2019 at 7.30Pm VENUE: CONSALL NATURE PARK VISITOR CENTRE

MINUTES OF COUNCL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 18th SEPTEMBER 2019 at 7.30pm VENUE: CONSALL NATURE PARK VISITOR CENTRE

Present: Adrian Shufflebotham (Chairman) Helen Maydew (Parish Councillor) Joan Sigley (Parish Councillor) Helen Champeau (Parish Councillor) Stewart Bagnall (Parish Councillor) Cllr. Julie Deakin. Mike Worthington (SCC Councillor & District)

In Attendance: 2 members of the public.

1. Apologies. Cllr. Mafhooz Ahmad.

2. Declaration of Interest. Cllr. Shufflebotham declared an interest as the RSBP lengthsman for Booths Wood in Consall Forge. Cllr. Sigley declared an interest in Planning Application SMD/2019/0490. Cllr. Champeau declared an interest in Planning Application SMD/2019/0519.

3. Minutes of the Meeting held on Wednesday, 7th August 2019. The minutes of the Meeting were declared as a true and correct record and were signed by the Chair and the Clerk.

4. Public Participation. None.

5. Matters Arising. Defibrillator – Ongoing.

6. Reports of Committees and Outside Bodies. None.

Carmen Worthington, Consall Parish Clerk, 74 Folly Lane, Cheddleton, Staffordshire, ST13 7DA Telephone: 01782 550741 Mobile: 07590 536753 Email: [email protected] Website: www.consallparishcouncil.btck.co.uk

7. Planning Applications. a. SMD/2019/0057 – Mr Ben Reeves, Consall Hall Estate, Consall Lane. Proposed change of use and redevelopment of Consall Hall, Private House, Gardens and Wedding Venue to form Hospitality Venue, Wellbeing Hotel and Lodges to enhance the visitor offer and secure the long term viability of the gardens. Develop 15 low-impact, high quality, holiday lodges within the gardens combined with 10 shepherds’ huts and associated services. Demolish existing outbuildings and construct new enhanced wedding venue, including works to the existing walled garden. Install 21 pods to service the quest of the wedding venue and improve access, parking arrangements and traffic flow. Demolish and replace existing hall and construct new contemporary restaurant/hub building (amended design). Refurbish the existing swimming pool and changing rooms to form new spa facilities. Carry out arboriculturally works to the existing gardens including tree removal, pruning and new tree planting.

Following further discussions and Consultation over the revised application, Consall Parish Council are extremely disappointed as it fails to address any of the concerns raised nor address any of its failings with respect to the Churnet Valley Master plan, SMDC’s own planning policies or the NPPF. As such the following comments & observations should be read in conjunction with the objections raised in the Consall Parish Council’s previous consultation response.

The Council further objects on the following grounds:

The number of units listed on the plans is at best confusing and at worst misleading as there does not appear to be a real reduction in the number of beds offered compared to the original plan, and therefore will not mitigate concerns about the volume of traffic generated by the development.

Furthermore, the transport assessment does not include any assessment of the likely impact of the heavy plant required for the demolition or construction phases of the project, nor the delivery of the units prefabricated offsite. We appreciate this would also be included a the Building regulations phase, but given the limited access to the site, a Construction Management & Transport plan should form part of the planning phase given that the ONLY access route is designated as a single track road with passing places, most of which has soft verges. When the regular farm traffic meets this construction plant /traffic as well as residents/walkers, cyclists and horse riders, there will be serious safety concerns, damage to the verges, hedgerows & perhaps more serious consequences.

We also take issue with the transport assessment statement which states the proposed westerly access is “safe and reasonable”. We do not believe this to be the case.

It was also noted that neither the transport assessment nor the tree survey has been updated to reflect the revised number/layout/locations of the accommodation.

The planning statement shows a capacity of 150 guests. This is approximately the population of the parish. To the residents this is… the definition of overdevelopment given the proposed frequency of planned use. This will clearly lead to a loss of amenity to many of the residents in both Consall and neighbouring parishes.

Sustainability: Public transport is not available & the reliance on car journeys is in no way addressed in the revised application. Also, lodges are to be heated by air source heat pumps which are notoriously difficult to run effectively & will certainly not power the proposed number of hot tubs. As there is no mains gas to the site this either requires an overreliance on mains electricity or large scale LPG deliveries which would lead to more traffic not included in the transport assessment or more on grid demand which is not in keeping with the sustainability policies.

The accommodation units are all served by sceptic tanks. There is still no plan on how the efficiency of these units will be monitored or failures mitigated & contained. Given the SSSI status of the adjoining land & the potential consequences of such failures, we feel strongly that this should be included as part of the development plan.

Furthermore, there is no information about how these tanks will be emptied. It seems unlikely that tracks outlined in this development plan will support the size of vehicle required to regularly pump out these units.

Fire: There does not appear to be any consultation with the Fire Authority & there is no explanation as to how fire engines could fully access the development. Building regulations Approved documents (B), section 5 Paragraph 15.1 & table 15.2 State fire access tracks need to be 3.7m wide & Gates 3.1m. Construction of such tracks across the proposed development, along with the required turning spaces are likely to alter the character of the site & as such we feel strongly this should be considered at the planning phase & not left until the building regulations phase of development.

They will also materially influence which trees are to be removed & this is in no way addressed in the either the Tree survey or the design access statement.

Mining: The Mining Authority is a mandatory consultation & given they object to this development based on the likely risks from the legacy & unidentified mine works surely these risks need to be formally surveyed & assessed BEFORE planning approval could be granted.

There is no information as to how the water courses will be protected from contamination from either the demolition or building processes. Similarly, there is no statement as to how, given the industrial past of the site, the very likely situation of “unexpected contamination” will be mitigated to protect the SSSI, River Churnet & its tributaries.

Gardens: Given the emphasis placed in this application upon the preservation of the garden, there does not seem to be any realistic provision for Gardening staff.

Economy: the plan purports to be a great benefit to the local economy & it is noted many of the letters of support from existing suppliers appear to support this. However, it is also noted that the majority of these are NOT in the Staffordshire Moorlands area, so if approved, it is unlikely to benefit neither locals nor the local economy.

Weaknesses”: “Narrowness of lanes” (e.g. Consall area). Sections 5.1.1. Sustainable tourism. 5.1.3-5. Wise growth. 5.1.8. Quality mark. 8.4. Sustainable Transport. Specific issues have been raised about the following: -

• No bus route, or public transport, only realistically accessible by car (5.1). • Volume of traffic it will incur in the village. (5.1, 5.3,5.5,8.4). • Lanes are very narrow, poor passing places, soft verges (P16). • Development is not in-keeping with the overall aim of the Churnet Valley Master Plan (over development). • Situated next to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is a conservation designation & would therefore require specific biological consideration. • No Clear monitoring to ensure efficiency of 40+ sceptic tanks or mitigation in place to prevent contaminated water entering the River Churnet (now a game fish river) in the event of failure. • Carbon footprint & sustainability – proposal for large venue & 45 lodges most with hot tubs will take significant power input. No mains Gas available so unlikely to be a very “green” development.

• Masterplan Specifically states only 10-15 lodges would be an appropriate level of development given the infrastructure in the area. • Comparisons drawn to SMDC decision on much smaller development ref 2018/0575: refused as it is contrary to policies. SS1. SS1a.SS6c. SD1, E3, R1 & T1 (Core) & sections 2,6,9,11 & 12 of the NPPF. This is a considerably larger development so presumably has similar issues.

To summarise as follows:

The Scale of the development remains excessive large given the available infrastructures not in keeping with the village infrastructure & would cause an irrevocable detrimental change to both the village & the Quality of life of its residence. This is evidenced by the proposal being at odds with SMDC’s own Local development framework. Churnet Valley Master Plan, which was adopted by the council 26/3/2014. This application is excessive and is at odds with the following parts of the Master Plan: P16: b. SMD/2019/0490 – Mr & Mrs Messenger, Ambleside, Consall Lane, Consall. Proposed Development: Single storey side and rear extension. Conclusion: No objection providing there is no loss of amenity to neighbouring residential properties i.e. loss of light to windows or gardens or reduced privacy. It was also mentioned that the gable wall is notably higher than that of the existing garage. c. SMD/2019/0519 – Amanda Lancaster, Bramble Paddock, Land North of Rockfields Farm, Cheadle Road, Wetley Rocks. Proposed Development: Erection of an additional stables building and formation of a competition standard ménage. Conclusion: Councillors agreed that it is over development of the site with one abstention.

8. Lengthsman. None.

9. Finance. a. Payments (Agreed & Ratified) Clerks Salary – 2nd Quarter £188.46. Clerks Expenses - £20.00. SLCC – Annual Subs £31.20. Data Protection (ICO) £40.00. Confirmation of Bank Mandate Change Request received.

10. Correspondence. All Correspondence emailed to Councillors prior to the meeting.

11. Items of an Urgent Nature. None.

12. Date of next meeting. The date of the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 30th October 2019.

The Chairman thanked everybody for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 8.47pm.

Signed: …………………………………………………(Chair)

Signed: …………………………………………………(Clerk) Date: …………………………………