Neil Carmichael praises Neighbourhood Plans during Parliamentary debate

Stroud News and Journal: Neil Carmichael praises Neighbourhood Plans during Parliamentary debate Neil Carmichael praises Neighbourhood Plans during Parliamentary debate

STROUD MP Neil Carmichael this week praised the work of communities in Chalford, Dursley and Eastington in working towards compiling neighbourhood plans, during a debate in the House of Commons.

During questions to Nick Boles, Minister for Planning, Neil asked whether the Minister agreed that neighbourhood plans were an ‘appropriate protector against inappropriate developments’, with which the Minister concurred.

In July last year Neil held a seminar inviting town and parish councils to discuss developing a neighbourhood plan with key local planning consultants, and has been a champion of local communities having the ability to shape development in their areas.

Neil is currently supporting residents in Kings Stanley and Leonard Stanley, who are opposed to development at Mankley Field, and has noted the failure of Stroud District Council to implement a local plan which would protect such areas from developers.

Speaking following the debate, Neil Carmichael commented: “Neighbourhood plans are crucial in giving communities a strong voice to choose what, and where, development takes place within their area. “I am delighted that Chalford, Eastington and Dursley, among other communities, have taken the initiative, and hope that more will follow suit.

“Stroud District Council’s failure to prepare a local plan has opened the door to developers, but by adopting a neighbourhood plan communities can keep large-scale developments in unwanted areas at bay.”

Planning Minister Nick Boles will be visiting the Stroud constituency in April, to discuss development sites around the district.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:30pm Thu 6 Mar 14

richardhillary says...

I am particularly vexed that Mr Carmichael had the opportunity to ask the Planning Minister a question and he chose to promote his own misguided opinion of Neighbourhood Plans rather than stand up for the hundreds of his constituents who are currently battling inappropriate developments in his area.
In fact, it would appear from the official report that he could not even ask the question he intended to ask correctly. The official record of Mr Carmichael's question to the Planning Minister implied that Neighbourhood Plans were actually in place in the 3 districts mentioned, along with 12 others around his constituency. This is not the case and I have written to Mr Carmichael to ask for an explanation.
Neighbourhood Plans will not prevent inappropriate development in the areas they cover under the current National Planning Policy Framework. They have not been designated primacy over Local Plans in the decision hierarchy and have not held up under appeal by developers in the cases where they have been tested.
This is a red herring and I am surprised that this paper has printed this article without checking what Mr Carmichael actually said, particularly as I had highlighted this to the Editor on Monday. I would have hoped that the SNJ would question him on the apparent inaccuracies of his statement and asked him for supporting information about the effectiveness of Neighbourhood Plans.
The only thing that I can see stopping inappropriate developments in our area is for a tightening of the definition of sustainable development in the NPPF. I would suggest that, if proposed developments will have a significant impact on an area, the one at Mankley Fields for example will increase the housing provision in the Parish by nearly 30% in one go, they should be screened against key sustainability criteria before reaching the application stage. These criteria could include local and national population growth, local housing market conditions, affordable housing need, available employment in the area and infrastructure. It would be a very simple process to create a metric of these and score a development against that. If the development scores lower than a threshold it would not be considered.
This would not prevent all development as smaller schemes would have less of an impact therefore score higher, it would however put paid to these get rich quick schemes that developers such as Gladman specialise in and which create the most damage.
It does gall me that Mr Carmichael can receive this positive publicity in this paper when his voting in the past has helped to create the misery and uncertainty that is being felt by a considerable number of households in this area, through his blind support for his Government and their dysfunctional planning policy.
I am particularly vexed that Mr Carmichael had the opportunity to ask the Planning Minister a question and he chose to promote his own misguided opinion of Neighbourhood Plans rather than stand up for the hundreds of his constituents who are currently battling inappropriate developments in his area. In fact, it would appear from the official report that he could not even ask the question he intended to ask correctly. The official record of Mr Carmichael's question to the Planning Minister implied that Neighbourhood Plans were actually in place in the 3 districts mentioned, along with 12 others around his constituency. This is not the case and I have written to Mr Carmichael to ask for an explanation. Neighbourhood Plans will not prevent inappropriate development in the areas they cover under the current National Planning Policy Framework. They have not been designated primacy over Local Plans in the decision hierarchy and have not held up under appeal by developers in the cases where they have been tested. This is a red herring and I am surprised that this paper has printed this article without checking what Mr Carmichael actually said, particularly as I had highlighted this to the Editor on Monday. I would have hoped that the SNJ would question him on the apparent inaccuracies of his statement and asked him for supporting information about the effectiveness of Neighbourhood Plans. The only thing that I can see stopping inappropriate developments in our area is for a tightening of the definition of sustainable development in the NPPF. I would suggest that, if proposed developments will have a significant impact on an area, the one at Mankley Fields for example will increase the housing provision in the Parish by nearly 30% in one go, they should be screened against key sustainability criteria before reaching the application stage. These criteria could include local and national population growth, local housing market conditions, affordable housing need, available employment in the area and infrastructure. It would be a very simple process to create a metric of these and score a development against that. If the development scores lower than a threshold it would not be considered. This would not prevent all development as smaller schemes would have less of an impact therefore score higher, it would however put paid to these get rich quick schemes that developers such as Gladman specialise in and which create the most damage. It does gall me that Mr Carmichael can receive this positive publicity in this paper when his voting in the past has helped to create the misery and uncertainty that is being felt by a considerable number of households in this area, through his blind support for his Government and their dysfunctional planning policy. richardhillary
  • Score: 7

5:05am Fri 7 Mar 14

jaytee8937 says...

If SDC had included West of Stonehouse in the Core Strategy none of these 'get rich schemes ' would have seen the light of day. SDC has been responsible for under supply of housing in the area for over 20 years. They say they want affordable housing but it will not happen without larger scale development. Too much looking after their jobs rather than applying themselves to the rules of the game laid out in the NPPF - a pillar of the Tory manifesto when they were voted in. It was all there in black and white but now they are complaining!!!!! In all this xenophobic ranting nobody seems to say anything about employment in the area . If this is not addressed then Stroud will not require much housing and in a few years time it will become so gentrified and expensive that nobody under 50 will be able to afford a house in the area and more tumbleweed will be rolling down the High St. Maybe that's how some of the main protesters want it so their little acreages in the country will be even more valuable and the grandchildren can ride a pony in the orchard.
If SDC had included West of Stonehouse in the Core Strategy none of these 'get rich schemes ' would have seen the light of day. SDC has been responsible for under supply of housing in the area for over 20 years. They say they want affordable housing but it will not happen without larger scale development. Too much looking after their jobs rather than applying themselves to the rules of the game laid out in the NPPF - a pillar of the Tory manifesto when they were voted in. It was all there in black and white but now they are complaining!!!!! In all this xenophobic ranting nobody seems to say anything about employment in the area . If this is not addressed then Stroud will not require much housing and in a few years time it will become so gentrified and expensive that nobody under 50 will be able to afford a house in the area and more tumbleweed will be rolling down the High St. Maybe that's how some of the main protesters want it so their little acreages in the country will be even more valuable and the grandchildren can ride a pony in the orchard. jaytee8937
  • Score: 0

11:45am Fri 7 Mar 14

Nimue Brown says...

Current proposed developments don't offer much in terms of affordable housing, jaytee. Developers have no interest in affordability, only in profit. Some proper local control over planning would actually improve our chances of getting sustainable development that delivers in response to local needs. The timing that required councils to have local plans in place before that was realistically possible, is something to be laid at the government's door, not blamed on the council. It is the Tories in Westminster who have left us exposed to profiteering developers.
Current proposed developments don't offer much in terms of affordable housing, jaytee. Developers have no interest in affordability, only in profit. Some proper local control over planning would actually improve our chances of getting sustainable development that delivers in response to local needs. The timing that required councils to have local plans in place before that was realistically possible, is something to be laid at the government's door, not blamed on the council. It is the Tories in Westminster who have left us exposed to profiteering developers. Nimue Brown
  • Score: 1

2:23pm Fri 7 Mar 14

jaytee8937 says...

Sorry to disagree. Under the previous RSS Stroud was not performing and that has continued. They have not hit any targets for years and have dumped allocations on Glos City boundaries claiming they have complied. The well is now dry there so they are up a creek with no paddle. How can a plan go forward with the largest allocation being 'Windfall' sites? SDC are admitting that their strategy for future development in the area is based on sites they have not allocated but might come forward into the future? This is the antithesis to planning. A total abrogation of responsibility. Its like waiting for a wealthy relative to die to balance the books. How can any supposed authority voted in by us go forward with such a strategy??? They are incompetent and the mess that is Stroud is firmly at their door and the vested interests they listen to. The whole issue has been stuffed by a few vocal individuals and councillors with no stomach or balls.
Sorry to disagree. Under the previous RSS Stroud was not performing and that has continued. They have not hit any targets for years and have dumped allocations on Glos City boundaries claiming they have complied. The well is now dry there so they are up a creek with no paddle. How can a plan go forward with the largest allocation being 'Windfall' sites? SDC are admitting that their strategy for future development in the area is based on sites they have not allocated but might come forward into the future? This is the antithesis to planning. A total abrogation of responsibility. Its like waiting for a wealthy relative to die to balance the books. How can any supposed authority voted in by us go forward with such a strategy??? They are incompetent and the mess that is Stroud is firmly at their door and the vested interests they listen to. The whole issue has been stuffed by a few vocal individuals and councillors with no stomach or balls. jaytee8937
  • Score: 2

12:42pm Mon 10 Mar 14

richardhillary says...

Jaytee you seem to be missing the point here, Mr C was not talking about Local Plans but Neighbourhood Plans.
Xenophobic ranting? By xenophobic do you mean "having or showing an intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries". Because I leave that to UKIP. As a "blow-in" myself I'm eternally grateful for the welcome I've been given to the area in the last 10 years.
Also In Leonard Stanley we will have had an increase of 50 affordable homes in a 3 year period once the Mankley Road development is in place without any large scale commercial development. It doesn't have to come from 150+ home schemes. Broad Meadow provided 11 affordable/social houses out of a total of 30 and that seemed to make money for the developer. In fact, recently developers have only been able to start on schemes because they have know they have guaranteed income from that element of the scheme.
Also, you sound a bit wound up, perhaps you should calm yourself a little as it's not good for the health.
Jaytee you seem to be missing the point here, Mr C was not talking about Local Plans but Neighbourhood Plans. Xenophobic ranting? By xenophobic do you mean "having or showing an intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries". Because I leave that to UKIP. As a "blow-in" myself I'm eternally grateful for the welcome I've been given to the area in the last 10 years. Also In Leonard Stanley we will have had an increase of 50 affordable homes in a 3 year period once the Mankley Road development is in place without any large scale commercial development. It doesn't have to come from 150+ home schemes. Broad Meadow provided 11 affordable/social houses out of a total of 30 and that seemed to make money for the developer. In fact, recently developers have only been able to start on schemes because they have know they have guaranteed income from that element of the scheme. Also, you sound a bit wound up, perhaps you should calm yourself a little as it's not good for the health. richardhillary
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Mon 10 Mar 14

jaytee8937 says...

Say goodbye to Mankley Rd. It will be lost on appeal and get ready for Woodside Lane. I am calm but get annoyed at councillors and your lovely Mr C who are paid by us but in any corporation would have been sacked by now for gross inefficiency and misleading those that pay their wages and expenses. There is NO neighbourhood plan in place in SDC and they carry little or no weight in the Local plan even if they were in place. He is a politician - you can tell he is lying......his lips are moving. He has to tow the party line and not denounce the NPPF. Let me know what its like getting out of the Stanleys in 5 years time past the potential Supermarket onto the Bypass and joining up with all the traffic, commuting out of Urban area sites/Brownfield sites proposed for residential,getting to work elsewhere in the County.
Say goodbye to Mankley Rd. It will be lost on appeal and get ready for Woodside Lane. I am calm but get annoyed at councillors and your lovely Mr C who are paid by us but in any corporation would have been sacked by now for gross inefficiency and misleading those that pay their wages and expenses. There is NO neighbourhood plan in place in SDC and they carry little or no weight in the Local plan even if they were in place. He is a politician - you can tell he is lying......his lips are moving. He has to tow the party line and not denounce the NPPF. Let me know what its like getting out of the Stanleys in 5 years time past the potential Supermarket onto the Bypass and joining up with all the traffic, commuting out of Urban area sites/Brownfield sites proposed for residential,getting to work elsewhere in the County. jaytee8937
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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