Archaeologists address issues concerning Ellesmere caravan site build
Further developments have surfaced off the back of the proposal to build a caravan site in Shropshire, near to Ellesmere Castle – this time by archaeology experts.
Having already gained over 40 official objections and a momentum-building campaign entitled ‘No to Castlefields caravan park, Ellesmere’ with hundreds of members opposing the plans, the Council For Archaeology (CBA) have also stated they are against plans to bring a new caravan park to Ellesmere.
This opposition from the CBA comes shortly after building consultants, Richard K. Morriss & Associates, claimed that plans for a new park would have no impact on the surrounding area.
The CBA deems the visual impact on the site as “wholly inappropriate” following Euro Source and Find Limited’s proposal to turn the Castlefields car park into a caravan park for 30 touring caravans, 24 static caravans and a two storey building for staff accommodation.
Representative of CBA, Rob Lennox, spoke of the proposal, saying: “The application documentation contains a major omission in neglecting to consider that the site is within the Ellesmere Conservation Area Boundary.
“The tranquillity would be adversely impacted by the change of use, and the landscape quality would be impacted through both visual impact of the caravans and the detraction from the overall aesthetic of the Castlefields.” he continued.
The CBA also claims that the value of the caravan park outweighing impacts on the site are false and that the car park and picnic area add amenity value for visitors.
“The applicant claims that the economic value of the proposals would outweigh the impacts on the site. We consider the strength of this claim is overstated and that the proposal does not represent a substantial economic gain for the area and would nonetheless be offset by the loss of revenue from the car park.” said Mr. Lennox.
The CBA has put forward the claim that the application was unsustainable in line with the National Planning Policy Framework.
What do you think of this on-going issue and which side do you agree with? Let us know below.
