Back
on Wednesday 16th January we had a meeting of the Ruscombe Valley
Action Group and the Ruscombe Brook Action Group at the Whiteshill and
Ruscombe Village Hall. About 25 people attended with 9 apologies. The
evening started with two presentations and then went to
discussions/actions. Here's a summary based on the minutes I put
together and looks at the possible threat to the Ruscombe Valley.....
1. Ruscombe Brook Action Group.
Philip Booth opened with a brief history of RBAG dating back to 2005.
He considered how the group formed in response to threats of development
in the valley and a series of sewage incidents that led to the brook
being polluted. Photos of sewage were available to see! Then looked at
the many actions the group have taken including a number of clear ups of
silt and rubbish, 4 conferences, talks to schools, walks along the
length of the brook to consider biodiversity issues, exhibitions,
consultation meetings re Hamwell Leaze and The Lake at The Lawns,
support to other action groups to establish locally, MSc students on
placement testing the brook and working to get a new £13,000 grill
installed to reduce flooding at Puckshole. In addition there have been
many consultation meetings with Severn Trent and others to improve the
sewers. Various works have taken place over the years but it has only
just been in the last months that the problem sewers have been relined
in the Ruscombe valley and along the Randwick tributary.
For a look at the first two years see:
http://www.rbag.org.uk/2009/07/blog-coming-soon.html2. Ruscombe Valley Action Group.
Rebecca Charley outlined the history of RVAG; it is now almost 8 years
since the land in the Ruscombe Valley was advertised for sale. Gladwish
Land Management bought the Land and put it up for sale as 184 individual
plots. The Ruscombe Valley Action Group was formed, with the objective
of maintaining the fields as agricultural land. Much work was done to
protect the fields, develop cross-party support for no development there
and challenge the practice of landbanking.
Some of the history can be found at:
http://ruscombegreen.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/landbankingPhilip
then gave some more background to the threats to development on the
fields over the years. Some of that can be found at the link above. We
are now at the point where locally the immediate threat (in terms of the
Local Plan) to development on Randwick fields has been removed. The
Planning Advisory Panel at the District Council debated the latest
update. See Core Strategy Consultation details at:
http://www.stroud.gov.uk/democracy/meeting.asp?meet_id=1487&com_id=PAPThose draft papers (164 pages) reported an update on the consultations re the threats locally:
Point
0.71 re the Stroud Valleys notes agreement that 300-800 new homes in
the Stroud valleys was about the right level of development.
Specifically it is noted:
By far, the most commonly raised
reservations related to the Preferred Strategy’s suggestion that some
‘edge of settlement’ greenfield sites might be used to supplement the
development of brownfield sites in the valley bottoms. The consultation
document specifically identified land at Callowell Farm and Grange
Fields as possible options (Concept Diagram 1.1iii): there was almost
complete consensus (amongst those respondents who specifically mentioned
these sites) that these proposals should be omitted from the Plan.
However, a small number of respondents did concede that Grange Fields in
particular was a relatively sustainable location, close to the town
centre.
There was vigorous opposition to any possibility of
developing other such sites (including Rodborough Fields, and several
sites in the Slad Valley and the Ruscombe valley), none of which were
specifically proposed in the consultation document.
Next steps as I understand: This
document was to inform Members, the public and stakeholders about key
findings from the Preferred Strategy consultation. It provides a summary
of the responses and is not an exhaustive itemisation of all
representations. The report will help now inform decisions on the policy
choices and direction in preparing a “Pre-Submission” Local Plan
document. The Pre-Submission document will then face consultations - the
final Local Plan will be refined taking into account those
representations and will then be submitted and subjected to examination
by an independent Inspector. The Inspector will consider whether the
Plan is ‘Sound’ and will indicate whether it may be formally adopted as
the key document within Stroud’s Local Development Framework. It is
hoped the allocations will be agreed by councillors in the Spring.
There
has been huge opposition to any development in the Ruscombe Valley and
indeed to Callowell and I am hopeful that councillors will take that
into account when looking at the plan. However there is much negotiation
and discussion as councillors have strong views about development
sites. For example if the site at Eastington/West of Stonehouse or
another proposed site did not go ahead that would put pressure on to
look at all sites again.
Lastly Philip noted the worrying
development in Cam. The inspector approved on 11th January a potentially
71 home development at what is called 'Land Opposite 6 Box Road, Cam'.
This is worse than "bad news"! The inspector, wrongly in my view,
dismissed the council's claims to have a five year housing supply - this
is of grave concern as it means that if we don't have allocations in
place very soon it wont be democratically elected representatives, but
rather government inspectors making the decisions. Already it can be a
battle to fight developments even where there is virtually unanimous
opposition; the government's moves will only make this worse. It is also
in my view, shows the mess the government has made of planning with the
NPPF; even it's own inspectors are openly disagreeing on what the
district's housing supply should be! It seems to be 20% higher or lower
depending on which inspector you get.
Poss useful info -
Frequently asked questions: it is from last year but most info still correct in view of SDC:
www.stroud.gov.uk/info/plan_strat/faqs.pdfPlanning Strategy:
http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_strategy.asp#s=sectioncontent3&p=newconsult
We discussed actions and ways forward - and there will be another meeting 12th March in The Star - contact me for details.
However one of the big issues was the massive sewage 'event' that occurred in the orchard at Humphreys End on 31st January 2013. It may well have been running for 4 - 5 weeks in this state. This seems to have occurred because of faulty workmanship by the contractors of Severn Trent who have been relining the sewer across my land since October last year? Sanitary waste and fat were trapped around the manhole cover and this burst was the end result - see photos.
