Major Shrewsbury firm objects to latest North West Relief Road developments

Solicitors representing Morris Leisure have written to Shropshire Council in relation to the latest developments in the ongoing relief road saga.

It comes ahead of the council taking the application for the road, which was approved last year, back to its planning committee next Tuesday (January 21).

That move is because the council has revealed that the road is likely to create nearly double the amount of carbon as previously expected.

The increase means the council is now saying that the project will take another 20 years to become 'carbon neutral'.

Originally the council had planned to meet the target by 2030, but it is now proposing to extend the deadline to 2050.

Morris Leisure runs a series of caravan holiday home and touring caravan sites, including Oxon Hall in Shrewsbury.

The Oxon site is at the centre of its concerns, with the North West Relief Road set to run close to its boundaries.

Now solicitors at Irwin Mitchell have submitted an objection to the council on Morris Leisure's behalf ahead of next week's meeting.

The objection raises two issues - one that the increase in carbon means the council can not meet its own environmental targets; and the second, that more robust measures are needed to prevent the possibility of water contamination.

Referencing the carbon impact the letter points out that one of the aspirations of the project was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The letter states: "This is a fundamental issue, as an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions was one of the key planks of the council’s rationale for authorising the project to proceed at all.

"The fact that the road will now contribute to a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which is incapable of being fully mitigated until 2050 (if at all), and will singlehandedly prevent the council from meeting its climate commitments, does not just undermine the purpose of condition 41 – it undermines the rationale for the entire development project."

The objection argues that the issue "undermines the rationale for the entire development project".

It adds: "This is a matter which goes straight to the heart of the planning balance for the application and should not be dealt with purely by way of amendments to a proposed planning condition.

"If the carbon impacts of the road are so great, that they will not be capable of being off set for another 25 years, then the permission should not be granted until there is greater clarity over those mitigation plans – to give as much certainty as possible that the impacts are in fact capable of being mitigated successfully.

"If the council is still minded to proceed with the NWRR, in the light of this information, then it should do so on the basis of fully worked out, costed and secured carbon mitigation plans."

The issue over conditions relating water quality is one that has been at the heart of campaigners concerns throughout the planning process.

The concerns were also raised by both the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water.

The application was eventually approved with an agreement to deal with the concerns by planning conditions - where the council has to fulfil obligations set out in writing.

But, the Irwin Mitchell letter calls for more stringent conditions to be attached to the process.

It states: "As previously stated, we do not believe that this is a matter that is legally capable of being resolved by condition - given the severity of the risk and the strength of the Environment Agency’s concerns."

It adds: "Linking the discharge of this condition solely to piling works for the viaduct, is wholly inadequate. Such a late trigger does not prevent the risks identified from construction activity relating to other sections of the road."