Councils join forces to fight proposal of 1,350 new homes in Stonehouse

Councils join forces to fight proposal of 1,350 new homes in Stonehouse

Councils join forces to fight proposal of 1,350 new homes in Stonehouse

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

THREE Parish Councils have joined forces to fight a proposal of 1,350 homes on land West of Stonehouse.

Members of the public are being urged to submit their views about the application.

Eastington Parish Council, Standish Parish Council and Stonehouse Town Council are joining forces to resist the planning application proposed by Robert Hitchins Ltd on land West of Stonehouse Nastend Lane.

The Councils are concerned that the new satellite housing development will have a detrimental effect on neighbouring settlements.

Impact of further employment development proposed in the emerging Local Plan can only be anticipated and the parishes have no evidence of this being fully supported by their communities.

The addition of a new community in the immediate vicinity of the employment land is contrary to the adopted and emerging Local Plan.

All three parishes are working with planning consultants to head off the housing development.

Members of the public are urged to submit their views, for or against, through Stroud District Council’s planning portal by the Monday, July 21.

Gill Jennings, STC clerk said: “It is vital that each individual considers the impact of increased traffic and proposed access points and effects on the landscape and character of the area.”

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:07pm Thu 17 Jul 14

viviennet says...

these large developments only benefit the builders, the locals do not want it, but still they persist. There is plenty of opportunity to use brownfield/infill sights to provide more housing. No one is denying that we need more houses, but not in such a large conglomeration. Planners need to take heed of what the locals want, not be sucked in by the prospect of more council tax for the future. Quality not quantity, that's what we want here, that is what makes this area beautiful. Long may it continue.
these large developments only benefit the builders, the locals do not want it, but still they persist. There is plenty of opportunity to use brownfield/infill sights to provide more housing. No one is denying that we need more houses, but not in such a large conglomeration. Planners need to take heed of what the locals want, not be sucked in by the prospect of more council tax for the future. Quality not quantity, that's what we want here, that is what makes this area beautiful. Long may it continue. viviennet
  • Score: -8

12:31am Fri 18 Jul 14

Grains says...

Of all the objections there seems to be either (a) concerns with traffic, and (b) loss of green fields. Nobody has presented an argument for why this should not go ahead based on planning and legal grounds. You need growth and building to support a town, you need jobs, you need housing, and this is spelt out in planning LAW to meet the needs of ALL PEOPLE. The house you live in was once a green field, shame on you for supporting this butchering of the English way of life and the beautiful countryside. NIMBY's kill growth and progression, and are the first to cry out when a local town doesn't have the financial stability to accommodate any type of services. I welcome a controlled and steady development such as this in my area (yes I am a local), with careful control of build speed, Section 106 contributions, correct allocation of parkland, commercial and residential, this type of development is the best thing for an area, and will ensure continued steady growth for the next 20+ years. I would pick this over the alternative of houses being built wherever the developer wants (just look at the Swallowcroft development which was approved)
Of all the objections there seems to be either (a) concerns with traffic, and (b) loss of green fields. Nobody has presented an argument for why this should not go ahead based on planning and legal grounds. You need growth and building to support a town, you need jobs, you need housing, and this is spelt out in planning LAW to meet the needs of ALL PEOPLE. The house you live in was once a green field, shame on you for supporting this butchering of the English way of life and the beautiful countryside. NIMBY's kill growth and progression, and are the first to cry out when a local town doesn't have the financial stability to accommodate any type of services. I welcome a controlled and steady development such as this in my area (yes I am a local), with careful control of build speed, Section 106 contributions, correct allocation of parkland, commercial and residential, this type of development is the best thing for an area, and will ensure continued steady growth for the next 20+ years. I would pick this over the alternative of houses being built wherever the developer wants (just look at the Swallowcroft development which was approved) Grains
  • Score: 7

9:20am Sat 26 Jul 14

jaytee8937 says...

Well said Grains. Just so you know another 30 applied for at Swallowcroft. Council minded to allow due to loosing last appeal. Little planning benefit for the area and not the preferred site in the N.D.P. Mankley field gone but Summer St saved thanks to the memory of Laurie Lee.
Well said Grains. Just so you know another 30 applied for at Swallowcroft. Council minded to allow due to loosing last appeal. Little planning benefit for the area and not the preferred site in the N.D.P. Mankley field gone but Summer St saved thanks to the memory of Laurie Lee. 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