Can neighbourhood plans stop unwanted developments?

Stroud News and Journal: Can neighbourhood plans stop unwanted developments? Can neighbourhood plans stop unwanted developments?

CONTROVERSY surrounding the effectiveness of neighbourhood plans has surfaced as residents question their ability to stop unwanted developments.

During a recent parliamentary debate about planning Stroud MP Neil Carmichael asked Nick Boules, Minister for Planning, whether he agreed that neighbourhood plans were an ‘appropriate protector against inappropriate developments’, with which the Minister concurred.

However, residents who have been fighting an application for 150 homes in Leonard Stanley have questioned Mr Carmichael’s emphasis on neighbourhood plans which they see as ‘untried and untested’.

Leonard Stanley resident Richard Hilary said the idea that neighbourhood plans will somehow save the countryside is ‘unlikely to be the case’.

According to Mr Hilary there are many examples where Local Plans have already been successfully appealed against by developers therefore there ‘seems little chance that neighbourhood plans will survive the appeal process’.

“When the Mankley Field Action Group met Mr Carmichael a few weeks ago to enlist his support he kept referring to neighbourhood plans and how they would prevent this type of inappropriate development from happening,” said Mr Hilary.

“This is not what the group wanted to hear, they wanted specific help for their immediate problem, not some promise of supposed salvation in a few years time when it would be too late.”

A neighbourhood plan allows members of the local community to have their say in the planning process. This would include deciding where new homes and offices should be built, what they should look like and it can also be used to protect certain areas from development.

Once a neighbourhood plan is successfully adopted as a result of a community referendum it then becomes a statutory document.

Cllr Martin Whiteside (Green, Thrupp) said: "Neil Carmichael is misleading his constituents as the rules drafted by Eric Pickles make it clear that a neighbourhood plan is not sufficient to prevent a much loved green field being bulldozed and concreted."

"A neighbourhood plan is still the best way to fight inappropriate developments," said Mr Carmichael.

“Unfortunately a neighbourhood plan is not going to help residents fighting the Mankley Field application but starting the process now could protect the Stanleys and other parishes in the district from future developments,” said Mr Carmichael.

“I am opposed to the Mankley Field application as I think that it is the wrong location and the wrong scale and hopefully Stroud District Council’s planning committee will refuse it."

SDC’s development control committee is due to make a decision regarding the Mankley Field application tonight, Tuesday.

See the SNJ website for a full report tomorrow. Or follow @KateWilsonSNJ on Twitter for updates during the meeting.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:16pm Tue 11 Mar 14

GlawsStudent92 says...

Is our MP having a laugh? Or is he just a hypocrite as quote from the article shows? What a joke he is - bring back David Drew!

"A neighbourhood plan is still the best way to fight inappropriate developments," said Mr Carmichael.

“Unfortunately a neighbourhood plan is not going to help residents fighting the Mankley Field application"
Is our MP having a laugh? Or is he just a hypocrite as quote from the article shows? What a joke he is - bring back David Drew! "A neighbourhood plan is still the best way to fight inappropriate developments," said Mr Carmichael. “Unfortunately a neighbourhood plan is not going to help residents fighting the Mankley Field application" GlawsStudent92
  • Score: 2

4:49pm Tue 11 Mar 14

BigBoy22 says...

GlawsStudent92 wrote:
Is our MP having a laugh? Or is he just a hypocrite as quote from the article shows? What a joke he is - bring back David Drew!

"A neighbourhood plan is still the best way to fight inappropriate developments," said Mr Carmichael.

“Unfortunately a neighbourhood plan is not going to help residents fighting the Mankley Field application"
He's not having a laugh and he's not a hypocrite..... he's just clueless. Same story throughout his time as our hapless MP.
[quote][p][bold]GlawsStudent92[/bold] wrote: Is our MP having a laugh? Or is he just a hypocrite as quote from the article shows? What a joke he is - bring back David Drew! "A neighbourhood plan is still the best way to fight inappropriate developments," said Mr Carmichael. “Unfortunately a neighbourhood plan is not going to help residents fighting the Mankley Field application"[/p][/quote]He's not having a laugh and he's not a hypocrite..... he's just clueless. Same story throughout his time as our hapless MP. BigBoy22
  • Score: 4

6:45am Wed 12 Mar 14

jaytee8937 says...

He has to tow the party line but the true villains here are the district councillors who have been fully aware of their obligations under the NPPF but have adopted the usual head in the sand pose spraying blame like shrapnel in any direction they can find. They have contributed enormously to the slow demise of Stroud and its environs but claim they are blameless. They, like our Mr C, are also clueless and hypocritical - maybe its a prerequisite to be a politician at any level!!!! As for Drew........ great strategy, keep silent and let others fire the bullets. Never show your head above the parapets.
He has to tow the party line but the true villains here are the district councillors who have been fully aware of their obligations under the NPPF but have adopted the usual head in the sand pose spraying blame like shrapnel in any direction they can find. They have contributed enormously to the slow demise of Stroud and its environs but claim they are blameless. They, like our Mr C, are also clueless and hypocritical - maybe its a prerequisite to be a politician at any level!!!! As for Drew........ great strategy, keep silent and let others fire the bullets. Never show your head above the parapets. jaytee8937
  • Score: -1

10:22am Wed 12 Mar 14

GlawsStudent92 says...

Jaytee8937, you haven't got a clue... David Drew can't speak on planning issues in public as he sits on the Planning Committee - it would be unlawful for him to do so. However, if you had bothered to watch last night's committee meeting (and many more before it), you'd have seen that David Drew buys, loads and fires the gun, demolishing both the argument of developers and government. Contrast that to our MP, who as this article demonstrates has done nothing to help our local communities other than carry on his role as a government stooge.
Jaytee8937, you haven't got a clue... David Drew can't speak on planning issues in public as he sits on the Planning Committee - it would be unlawful for him to do so. However, if you had bothered to watch last night's committee meeting (and many more before it), you'd have seen that David Drew buys, loads and fires the gun, demolishing both the argument of developers and government. Contrast that to our MP, who as this article demonstrates has done nothing to help our local communities other than carry on his role as a government stooge. GlawsStudent92
  • Score: -3

11:36am Wed 12 Mar 14

jaytee8937 says...

I have watched many before and last night was another hot airfest and I am afraid anyone who sits in Parliament representing Stroud will be a government stooge. Salary, expenses and future pension keep them keen with an eye on national polls.
I have watched many before and last night was another hot airfest and I am afraid anyone who sits in Parliament representing Stroud will be a government stooge. Salary, expenses and future pension keep them keen with an eye on national polls. jaytee8937
  • Score: 1

2:37pm Wed 12 Mar 14

jaytee8937 says...

I have thought more and can not understand Drews' position in permitting the gentrification of Stroud. How can it help his political position? I am old enough to remember Kershaw and the times when a monkey with a blue rosette would win Stroud. 1500 houses and the 30% social housing component in West of Stonehouse would surely reinforce his election hopes. Allowing most areas of Stroud to become unaffordable for working people and even more gentrified would surely weaken his base. Add in the Green vote and his position is even more shakey. Maybe I am missing something here.
I have thought more and can not understand Drews' position in permitting the gentrification of Stroud. How can it help his political position? I am old enough to remember Kershaw and the times when a monkey with a blue rosette would win Stroud. 1500 houses and the 30% social housing component in West of Stonehouse would surely reinforce his election hopes. Allowing most areas of Stroud to become unaffordable for working people and even more gentrified would surely weaken his base. Add in the Green vote and his position is even more shakey. Maybe I am missing something here. jaytee8937
  • Score: -1

5:25pm Wed 12 Mar 14

GlawsStudent92 says...

jaytee8937 wrote:
I have thought more and can not understand Drews' position in permitting the gentrification of Stroud. How can it help his political position? I am old enough to remember Kershaw and the times when a monkey with a blue rosette would win Stroud. 1500 houses and the 30% social housing component in West of Stonehouse would surely reinforce his election hopes. Allowing most areas of Stroud to become unaffordable for working people and even more gentrified would surely weaken his base. Add in the Green vote and his position is even more shakey. Maybe I am missing something here.
Perhaps because David Drew, like most sensible people, is opposed to large scale developments that are soulless and out of kilter with the rest of the district. He has clearly stated on many occasions that he favours a dispersal strategy where most/all villages take sustainable developments of 30-50 houses, like Broad Meadow in Leonard Stanley.

And I'm afraid Jaytee you consistently miss the point - West of Stonehouse would not have stopped all these speculative developments from Gladmans and the like - they are doing this all over the country, and the Stroud district is no exception, because they are taking place of the free-for-all left by the Government's NPPF. SDC has shown the way forward by small developments like the Woolaways developments in Minchinhampton and Leonard Stanley which will double the numbers of council houses that were there previously. The vast majority of Stroud communities are not NIMBYS, they just want sustainable, sensible developments, supported in a democratic way. Is that too much to ask? What price democracy?
[quote][p][bold]jaytee8937[/bold] wrote: I have thought more and can not understand Drews' position in permitting the gentrification of Stroud. How can it help his political position? I am old enough to remember Kershaw and the times when a monkey with a blue rosette would win Stroud. 1500 houses and the 30% social housing component in West of Stonehouse would surely reinforce his election hopes. Allowing most areas of Stroud to become unaffordable for working people and even more gentrified would surely weaken his base. Add in the Green vote and his position is even more shakey. Maybe I am missing something here.[/p][/quote]Perhaps because David Drew, like most sensible people, is opposed to large scale developments that are soulless and out of kilter with the rest of the district. He has clearly stated on many occasions that he favours a dispersal strategy where most/all villages take sustainable developments of 30-50 houses, like Broad Meadow in Leonard Stanley. And I'm afraid Jaytee you consistently miss the point - West of Stonehouse would not have stopped all these speculative developments from Gladmans and the like - they are doing this all over the country, and the Stroud district is no exception, because they are taking place of the free-for-all left by the Government's NPPF. SDC has shown the way forward by small developments like the Woolaways developments in Minchinhampton and Leonard Stanley which will double the numbers of council houses that were there previously. The vast majority of Stroud communities are not NIMBYS, they just want sustainable, sensible developments, supported in a democratic way. Is that too much to ask? What price democracy? GlawsStudent92
  • Score: -2

10:16pm Wed 12 Mar 14

jaytee8937 says...

Take a look at the plans for Eastington if you are advocating small dispersal. This tack on design is out of kilter and soulless. Stroud would benefit from lots of these!! Dispersal was thrown out during the extensive planning work that preceded the Core Strategy. Hence large numbers at N.E Cam, Hunts Grove and Sharpness. This plan is going to Inquiry in 14 days, maybe SDC should rewrite it to accommodate the opinions of Mr Drew and others. Marjoram nearly got it right when he proposed West of Stonehouse to save the rest of the district but he changed his mind.If Mr Drew is opposed to large scale soulless developments what has he got to say about the present allocations and the past allocations at Hunts Grove and Brockworth.
Take a look at the plans for Eastington if you are advocating small dispersal. This tack on design is out of kilter and soulless. Stroud would benefit from lots of these!! Dispersal was thrown out during the extensive planning work that preceded the Core Strategy. Hence large numbers at N.E Cam, Hunts Grove and Sharpness. This plan is going to Inquiry in 14 days, maybe SDC should rewrite it to accommodate the opinions of Mr Drew and others. Marjoram nearly got it right when he proposed West of Stonehouse to save the rest of the district but he changed his mind.If Mr Drew is opposed to large scale soulless developments what has he got to say about the present allocations and the past allocations at Hunts Grove and Brockworth. jaytee8937
  • Score: 4

10:10am Sat 15 Mar 14

stopbarratts@wadesfarm says...

The whole point of the Government suggesting the adoption of the neighbourhood plan is to tie up the local people in an exercise that diverts their energies from fighting the issues that the Government is trying to force upon them. Think about it. The whole idea of the neighbourhood plan is to be divisive. Each area will go head to head about who should take the houses, instead of joining together and acting as one community. If the Government really cared about the wishes of the local people, they could, by an emergency bill and within one week, put on hold all the appeals against the planning decisions that have been made by the locally elected people of this constituency and others and allow all the English Councils to have more time to put their Core planning strategies in place. Why won't the Government do this? Because, the overriding purpose of this Government is keep the economy moving by building houses and with the mess that the Government have deliberately made of the planning system, the builders are able to ride roughshod over the wishes of the local people. So, what will happen to the economy when the houses are built? Well, just look what happened to Southern Ireland - a massive crash with many people left in negative equity and/or bankrupt.
The whole point of the Government suggesting the adoption of the neighbourhood plan is to tie up the local people in an exercise that diverts their energies from fighting the issues that the Government is trying to force upon them. Think about it. The whole idea of the neighbourhood plan is to be divisive. Each area will go head to head about who should take the houses, instead of joining together and acting as one community. If the Government really cared about the wishes of the local people, they could, by an emergency bill and within one week, put on hold all the appeals against the planning decisions that have been made by the locally elected people of this constituency and others and allow all the English Councils to have more time to put their Core planning strategies in place. Why won't the Government do this? Because, the overriding purpose of this Government is keep the economy moving by building houses and with the mess that the Government have deliberately made of the planning system, the builders are able to ride roughshod over the wishes of the local people. So, what will happen to the economy when the houses are built? Well, just look what happened to Southern Ireland - a massive crash with many people left in negative equity and/or bankrupt. stopbarratts@wadesfarm
  • Score: -2

11:21am Sun 16 Mar 14

jaytee8937 says...

Have just checked my dates and Mr Drew who is 'opposed to large scale developments that are soulless and out of kilter with the rest of the District' was actually our MP when planning was passed for 1500 homes on Farmland at Hardwicke!!! Don't you just love the short term memory loss and pragmatism of politicians.
Have just checked my dates and Mr Drew who is 'opposed to large scale developments that are soulless and out of kilter with the rest of the District' was actually our MP when planning was passed for 1500 homes on Farmland at Hardwicke!!! Don't you just love the short term memory loss and pragmatism of politicians. jaytee8937
  • Score: 3

9:58am Fri 21 Mar 14

Grains says...

GlawsStudent92 wrote:
jaytee8937 wrote:
I have thought more and can not understand Drews' position in permitting the gentrification of Stroud. How can it help his political position? I am old enough to remember Kershaw and the times when a monkey with a blue rosette would win Stroud. 1500 houses and the 30% social housing component in West of Stonehouse would surely reinforce his election hopes. Allowing most areas of Stroud to become unaffordable for working people and even more gentrified would surely weaken his base. Add in the Green vote and his position is even more shakey. Maybe I am missing something here.
Perhaps because David Drew, like most sensible people, is opposed to large scale developments that are soulless and out of kilter with the rest of the district. He has clearly stated on many occasions that he favours a dispersal strategy where most/all villages take sustainable developments of 30-50 houses, like Broad Meadow in Leonard Stanley.

And I'm afraid Jaytee you consistently miss the point - West of Stonehouse would not have stopped all these speculative developments from Gladmans and the like - they are doing this all over the country, and the Stroud district is no exception, because they are taking place of the free-for-all left by the Government's NPPF. SDC has shown the way forward by small developments like the Woolaways developments in Minchinhampton and Leonard Stanley which will double the numbers of council houses that were there previously. The vast majority of Stroud communities are not NIMBYS, they just want sustainable, sensible developments, supported in a democratic way. Is that too much to ask? What price democracy?
Hahaha Drew against large scale developments...don't make me laugh. Check your local history before you start making comments like this of a politician who is after one thing from you, a vote.
[quote][p][bold]GlawsStudent92[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jaytee8937[/bold] wrote: I have thought more and can not understand Drews' position in permitting the gentrification of Stroud. How can it help his political position? I am old enough to remember Kershaw and the times when a monkey with a blue rosette would win Stroud. 1500 houses and the 30% social housing component in West of Stonehouse would surely reinforce his election hopes. Allowing most areas of Stroud to become unaffordable for working people and even more gentrified would surely weaken his base. Add in the Green vote and his position is even more shakey. Maybe I am missing something here.[/p][/quote]Perhaps because David Drew, like most sensible people, is opposed to large scale developments that are soulless and out of kilter with the rest of the district. He has clearly stated on many occasions that he favours a dispersal strategy where most/all villages take sustainable developments of 30-50 houses, like Broad Meadow in Leonard Stanley. And I'm afraid Jaytee you consistently miss the point - West of Stonehouse would not have stopped all these speculative developments from Gladmans and the like - they are doing this all over the country, and the Stroud district is no exception, because they are taking place of the free-for-all left by the Government's NPPF. SDC has shown the way forward by small developments like the Woolaways developments in Minchinhampton and Leonard Stanley which will double the numbers of council houses that were there previously. The vast majority of Stroud communities are not NIMBYS, they just want sustainable, sensible developments, supported in a democratic way. Is that too much to ask? What price democracy?[/p][/quote]Hahaha Drew against large scale developments...don't make me laugh. Check your local history before you start making comments like this of a politician who is after one thing from you, a vote. Grains
  • Score: 1

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