Dear Editor,

We all recognise John Marjoram's passion and perseverance on planning issues but it may help if we explain some of the background about the Ship Inn site (letters 12 December 2018).

The proposals before the Development Control Committee were for nine affordable homes and as part of the scheme included proposals to widen the canal and provide space for three moorings on the towpath side of the canal.

Considerable care has been taken to develop a scheme which accorded with professional advice on the planning issues.

As the site lies within the industrial heritage conservation area the reason for carrying out this development had to meet a "public interest" test set out in planning guidance.

During debate the principle of housing on the site was supported by the committee – even by two of those who supported refusal.

This land is only in District Council ownership because it was a County Council contribution to the Canal project.

Instead of providing cash they provided 'in kind' contributions.

There is a legacy to this as the land was due to transferred to British Waterways had they undertaken the canal regeneration project and it is possible they may have pursued a much more aggressively commercial approach to that taken by the District Council.

During Stroud District Council ownership, the Ship Inn site has been considered for a variety of development options including use for supported living accommodation with some community use by a locally based charity and as a petrol filling station and cafe.

After these proposals all fell away by the end of 2015 the option of considering council housing emerged.

In the budget discussions in January 2016 a recommendation was made to full council to transfer the site to the "Housing Revenue Account at market value to add it to the new build programme for social housing."

A land swap of housing land also took place, which has been subsequently sold to help fund the canal project.

Full Council accepted this with no votes against (John Marjoram was one of the 40 people across the chamber who supported the motion) and funding for this project has also been supported at two subsequent budget meetings.

We will all need to reflect on the next steps - including seeing if it is practical to accommodate the aspiration for community use but we also need to ensure that council tenants do not bear the burden of meeting the cost of a subsidy to the canal project.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Mattie Ross, Cllr Chris Brine, Cllr Gary Powell

District Councillors for Stonehouse