Mankley Field decision could have 'severe implications' for SDC

Mankley Field decision could have 'severe implications' for SDC

Mankley Field decision could have 'severe implications' for SDC

First published in News Stroud News and Journal: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

MORE than 100 residents attended an emergency meeting to discuss how to fight plans for 150 homes in Leonard Stanley.

The meeting was called after it was revealed that new plans by developer Gladman for homes on Mankley Field had been recommended for approval.

The original plans, which attracted nearly 260 letters of objection and a petition with more than 1,000 signatures, were unanimously rejected by Stroud District Council’s development control committee in September.

During the meeting on Tuesday, February 11, district and parish councillors and members of the Mankley Field Action Group explained the implications of the recommendation.

Leonard Stanley Parish Council chairman Graham Davies said SDC’s planning department had been left in a position where it could ‘no longer defend the development’.

According to Cllr Davies, there would be ‘severe implications’ to SDC should the development control committee vote against the recommendation when the plans are discussed on Tuesday, March 11.

The district council representatives for the Stanleys, Stephen Lydon and Nigel Studdert-Kennedy, said they were united in their opposition to the development.

Cllr Lydon explained that if the application were refused next month but approved on appeal, SDC could have its power to act as the planning authority taken away by Secretary of State, Eric Pickles.

“There is a policy which allows Mr Pickles to take away our planning powers if SDC loses between 40 and 50 per cent of appeals and thanks to the new national planning policy framework we have already lost a substantial amount,” he said.

Cllr Studdert-Kennedy explained that the planning committee was ‘independent’ and therefore still had the power to turn down the application however residents needed to be aware of the consequences.

Action group chairman Diane Odell said she would ‘continue to make as much noise as possible’ to stop the development.

She called for residents to write to members of the planning committee, MP Neil Carmichael and to Mr Pickles asking him to ‘call the application in’ so a planning inspector would make the final decision.

For more information about the action group see www.savemankleyfield.co.uk

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:21am Wed 19 Feb 14

jaytee8937 says...

Your wording in the article quotes Cllr Lydon saying, 'thanks to the national planning policy framework we have already lost a substantial amount.' (Appeal decisions). The appeals are being lost because S.D.C. does not comply to the planning policy framework, not because of its existence. They have been disregarding warnings for many years now and are in a pickle.( no pun intended).They are loosing appeals because they have no grounds for refusal. They lost an appeal at Eastington and withdrew a reason for refusal just before the Appeal- that they could not prove that they had a 5 year supply of housing. They finally admitted it and knew that they would loose and possibly have costs awarded against them. Mankley Rd will be the same, then Woodside Lane, Summer St, Rodborough Fields..... the list goes on. Don't blame Builders and developers they are following the rules laid down by the Government. Sack the Cllr's.
Your wording in the article quotes Cllr Lydon saying, 'thanks to the national planning policy framework we have already lost a substantial amount.' (Appeal decisions). The appeals are being lost because S.D.C. does not comply to the planning policy framework, not because of its existence. They have been disregarding warnings for many years now and are in a pickle.( no pun intended).They are loosing appeals because they have no grounds for refusal. They lost an appeal at Eastington and withdrew a reason for refusal just before the Appeal- that they could not prove that they had a 5 year supply of housing. They finally admitted it and knew that they would loose and possibly have costs awarded against them. Mankley Rd will be the same, then Woodside Lane, Summer St, Rodborough Fields..... the list goes on. Don't blame Builders and developers they are following the rules laid down by the Government. Sack the Cllr's. jaytee8937
  • Score: 1

4:24pm Wed 19 Feb 14

GlawsStudent92 says...

Oh dear "jaytee8973", clearly doesn't understand the issue and haven't read the article...

Firstly, where does either Cllr attack builders or developers? Their fire is completely focused, rightly, on the Government. You say "they have been disregarding warnings for many years now" - when did the NPPF come in being? March 2012.

This is simply about democracy. Local community completely opposed to the development. Local councillors completely opposed. Planning committee completely opposed. Yet, because of the Government's NPPF - completely supported by Neil Carmichael - we can all be rode over roughshod. What are we meant to do? Lie down and let government do what they want? I am just glad, as a Leonard Stanley resident, to have local residents and local councillors willing to stand up, say no and enough is enough.

Sack the Cllrs? No - sack the government and its Stroud lackey Neil Carmichael, and give power back to local government.
Oh dear "jaytee8973", clearly doesn't understand the issue and haven't read the article... Firstly, where does either Cllr attack builders or developers? Their fire is completely focused, rightly, on the Government. You say "they have been disregarding warnings for many years now" - when did the NPPF come in being? March 2012. This is simply about democracy. Local community completely opposed to the development. Local councillors completely opposed. Planning committee completely opposed. Yet, because of the Government's NPPF - completely supported by Neil Carmichael - we can all be rode over roughshod. What are we meant to do? Lie down and let government do what they want? I am just glad, as a Leonard Stanley resident, to have local residents and local councillors willing to stand up, say no and enough is enough. Sack the Cllrs? No - sack the government and its Stroud lackey Neil Carmichael, and give power back to local government. GlawsStudent92
  • Score: 2

8:07pm Wed 19 Feb 14

jaytee8937 says...

Good point 92, but as a resident in Leonard Stanley you would not be in this situation if SDC had met their legal obligations. I agree that Mankley Rd is not a good site but the council were well aware of the outcomes of planning inaction on their part. The NPPF is a guideline for all councils to follow and a 5 year supply is one criteria that has not been adhered to. Stroud has been dumping its allocations on Glos City boundary for years but now the well is dry as the NPPF also contains obligations to neighbouring authorities.Finally the thought of giving power back to the present local Government in Stroud is the stuff that nightmares are made of.
Good point 92, but as a resident in Leonard Stanley you would not be in this situation if SDC had met their legal obligations. I agree that Mankley Rd is not a good site but the council were well aware of the outcomes of planning inaction on their part. The NPPF is a guideline for all councils to follow and a 5 year supply is one criteria that has not been adhered to. Stroud has been dumping its allocations on Glos City boundary for years but now the well is dry as the NPPF also contains obligations to neighbouring authorities.Finally the thought of giving power back to the present local Government in Stroud is the stuff that nightmares are made of. jaytee8937
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Sheepdog1 says...

Gladman was described by an MP in a Sunday Times article as "rapacious and profiteering" - a fair description.
A similar totally inappropriate application from them in South Derbyshire was unanimously refused. Policy should be closely examined by the local community and the Planners. The Planning Committee's job is to interpret policy and guidance in the interests of the community it serves, not run scared of bully-boy developers.
Gladman was described by an MP in a Sunday Times article as "rapacious and profiteering" - a fair description. A similar totally inappropriate application from them in South Derbyshire was unanimously refused. Policy should be closely examined by the local community and the Planners. The Planning Committee's job is to interpret policy and guidance in the interests of the community it serves, not run scared of bully-boy developers. Sheepdog1
  • Score: 3

11:40am Fri 21 Feb 14

jaytee8937 says...

Gladman are interpreting policy and guidance in the interests of their client. They stand to make a profit from it as does their client. Both will be taxed. Why would they not try to make a profit - do you describe Sainsburys as rapacious and profiteering ??
Gladman are interpreting policy and guidance in the interests of their client. They stand to make a profit from it as does their client. Both will be taxed. Why would they not try to make a profit - do you describe Sainsburys as rapacious and profiteering ?? jaytee8937
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree