12,600-home blueprint should be withdrawn, say inspectors
Concerns over funding to redevelop Gloucestershire's motorway junctions, key to much of the county's furture economic plans, are at the heart of inspectors calls to withdraw a major housing scheme.
*The Raikes Journal is the only independent news outlet in Gloucestershire approved to use the copy of the BBC local government reporting service. Why? Only only independent, credible journalistically-led platforms that meet the BBC’s high standards win that permission.
Inspectors have again suggested a “flawed” blueprint for 12,600 homes should be withdrawn due to capacity constraints at two M5 junctions, writes Carmelo Garcia.
Stroud District Council has been working on its local plan which aims to set out future strategic development and details the levels and types of growth planned for the area until 2040.
The authority was asked in February by planning inspectors to withdraw their local plan amid concerns over the need to upgrade junctions 12 and 14 to accommodate the expected growth.
Victoria Lucas and Yvonne Wright, the inspectors appointed to examine the local plan review, have since replied in writing to a letter from the council raising concerns over it.
They consider withdrawal of the local plan review from examination is the most appropriate way forward.
Among their main concerns are the lack of identified potential funding sources for the necessary improvements needed at the M5 junctions.
“In the letter you say that funding for the M5 junction improvement schemes cannot be secured in advance of the adoption of the plan,” they said in the letter dated April 9.
“To be clear, at no point have we requested or suggested that the necessary funding be immediately available for SDC to spend, or even be definitively confirmed, in advance of the adoption of the plan.
“Essentially, this issue is, and always has been, about whether there is a reasonable prospect of funding being identified and available to ensure that the necessary infrastructure will be in the right place at the right time to facilitate the delivery of the relevant housing sites.”
They say the identification of funding sources is crucial when considering when the improvements will be needed.
The letter continues “…as we have previously stated, both schemes will be required in the early plan period to deliver the housing sites reliant on these infrastructure improvements.
“In summary, the site allocations reliant on these M5 junction improvement schemes require these junctions to be delivered within the first five years of the plan period.
“These schemes will cost between £240m and £330m.
“Despite this, no external sources of funding have been identified in relation to either scheme other than the stated intention to approach the central Government in order to lobby for some funding.
“Clearly considering whether there is a reasonable prospect of this funding being identified within the timescales envisaged is a matter of planning judgement.
“However, due to the lack of significant sources of external funding having been identified at this stage in the examination, we are unable to conclude that there is currently a reasonable prospect that they will be.
“This is because, as previously stated, applying for significant amounts of external funding takes time.”
They go on to say in the letter that potential funding sources have yet to be identified.
And the plan would not be sound if it includes major housing sites reliant on significant and costly infrastructure for which there is no evidence that there is a reasonable prospect of them being funded at an appropriate time.
Opposition councillors at Ebley Mill and campaign groups have called for “humility” and “action” from council leaders over the issue.
Conservative group leader Lindsey Green (C, Berkeley Vale) said it was clear from the inspectors’ letter in August last year that they had serious concerts over the soundness of the local plan.
She said her group has consistently voted against this flawed proposal.
“It is incredible that, more than four years since the plan was submitted for examination, Stroud District Council continues to challenge the Inspectors’ conclusions,” she said.
“This prolonged process is not only incurring unnecessary costs to the taxpayer but is also exposing the district to speculative development risks. Frankly, it’s become an embarrassment.
“I urge the Council to act responsibly, accept the Inspectors’ professional judgment, and begin constructive engagement with local communities.”
Cam Community Action Group have also raised concerns over the “waste of time and taxpayers money”.
“We call on Stroud District Council to show some humility,” a spokesperson said.
“Stop wasting yet more time and taxpayers money and accept the recommendation of Inspectors to withdraw the proposed plan.
“Urgently support and engage the community now with a new sound plan that puts the right development in the right place with the right size plus affordable and social houses for local people supported by the right services and employment opportunities.
“This can be done without wasting hundreds of millions on car based infrastructure with room for nature and preserving our wonderful landscape setting.”
Councillor Chloe Turner (G, Minchinhampton) leader of the Green group on the council said he response was a “disappointment” but they remain committed to seeing the process through to the end.
This will ensure they get the full report setting out which parts of the plan were supported as well as the areas that were not.
She said the council is working with the district’s two MPs to see if they can help with the situation.
“There’s no doubt this is a disappointing response given the Council’s robust letter to the Inspectors,” she said.
“The situation we find ourselves in in Stroud District exposes far wider issues around the delivery of national infrastructure, which cannot be unlocked by district councils.
“The government sets local planning authorities challenging homebuilding targets, and the draft local plan is there to meet that challenge, but motorway junctions are outside the council’s control.
“We are working actively with two of our MPs, Simon Opher MP and Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, to see if they can help unlock the situation, and we will respond to the Inspectors once we have more information from the MPs.
In the meantime, the Plan remains under Examination while all the options are assessed, and this won’t hold up preparatory work on the District’s next local plan.
“We are committed to seeing this through to the end of the process, because that’s how we will get the full report setting out which parts of the plan which were supported as well as the areas that were not accepted.
That evidence will be important to inform our next local plan, which will be required to meet even higher nationally-set housing targets.
“We need a local plan so that the council still has a strong basis for refusing unsuitable development, protecting the environment and ensuring vital infrastructure is still delivered alongside new homes and jobs.”
By Carmelo Garcia, local democracy reporter for Gloucestershire. carmelo.garcia@reachplc.com