24th October 2006

People living in both Brimscombe and nearby Thrupp are worried by a looming High Court challenge to the Stroud Local Plan. Property developer Jeremy Robinson has mounted the case to fight for the site at Hill Farm to ultimately be re-zoned for housing in the Local Plan.

The Green Party's parliamentary spokesman for Stroud, Martin Whiteside (pictured left), who is also the local District and Parish councillor said: "Opposition to a possible 50 homes being built on the site remains very strong. There was a local group formed against the proposals and a public meeting with nearly 100 attending (i). All were against as was the parish council."

Martin Whiteside added: "This is a beautiful green field, with orchids and deer, that forms part of the historic divide between our different valley communities of Brimscombe and Thrupp. It is totally outrageous that a developer feels he can destroy all this. The traffic generated by so many houses on the the site would be disasterous for the surrounding lanes and probably result in even more parents driving, rather than walking their children to the school along the lanes.  It is about time that the planning system actually listens to what local people want!  I am sure all the Thrupp and Brimscombe community will join me in opposing this outrageous scheme"

The challenge, over some three acres of land, is due to be heard in London this autumn. Hill Farm was one of five greenfield sites rejected by Stroud District Council as it worked to find room in its Local Plan for thousands of new homes up to be provided by 2011. The others were east of Berkeley, and at Grange Fields, Kilminster Farm and Wades Farm, all in Stroud. The council worked to a Local Plan policy of using brownfield - previously developed - sites instead.

But then a Government inspector recommended the five sites, potentially providing 500 homes altogether, should be built upon after all. However Stroud has since been able to find more unexpected "windfall" housing sites which has meant that it no longer needed the controversial five plots. It therefore excluded them once again.

This story appeared front page in The Citizen.

Notes:

(i) The Brimscombe Community Action Group produced the excellent report enclosed below:

Stroud District Local Plan: Supporting the Proposed Modifications -
Exclusion of OS134 – Land at Hill Farm, Bourne Lane, Brimscombe


1.        Summary
2.        Brownfield vs. Greenfield Development
3.        Road Safety and Traffic Issues
4.        Schools Capacity
5.        Wildlife: Fauna and Flora
6.        Separation of Communities
7.        Geological Issues
8.        Socio-Economic Issues
9.        Conclusion


1.          Summary

Following the release of the proposed revisions to the Local Plan, we are delighted and impressed by the District Council’s decision to exclude the Hill Farm Site, identified as OS134 from the plan.

The planning department has clearly made a careful and detailed assessment of the various sites, based on a sensible and rational rating system, and the result of this assessment has clearly shown the unsuitability of the Hill Farm site.

Our community’s objections to the inclusion of OS134 in the local plan are based around a desire to see development and regeneration of the community using existing brownfield sites, of which there are several, instead of the destruction of a greenfield site which has an important local amenity value.

As a result, we prepared a full report earlier this year, which was fully circulated to all council members. This summary report serves to act as a precis of that full report, to serve as a reminder of the reasons for our objections, and therefore of the reasons why we support the revised Local Plan.

The decision to exclude OS134 has many supporters. At a public meeting held to discuss the issue, over 150 villagers attended and expressed their commitment. Press coverage was also good, with sympathetic coverage from both local newspapers.

David Drew MP has also provided invaluable encouragement and support for our cause, as has Martin Whiteside, Thrupp District Councillor.

The Parish Council and Gloucestershire County Council Highways department have also expressed their deep reservations about the original proposal to include OS134 in the Local Plan, and we praise and support the Council’s decision to reject it.

There are many arguments as to why OS134 should not be included. They can be summarised under the following headings:

·      Existence of superior alternative (Brownfield) sites.

·      Negative impact on road safety

·      Capacity of local schools

·      Destruction of greenfield site at edge of AONB

·      Destruction of green buffer zone between communities

·      Concerns over worsening existing subsidence problems

·      Socio-economic issues

2.         Brownfield Alternatives

When the Inspector made his original report, in which he recommended the inclusion of site OS134 in the Local Plan, he was not aware of the initiative by British Waterways and the canal regeneration partnership to develop Brimscombe Port, barely 100m south of OS134.

Whilst the Canal regeneration and the Local Plan are regarded by SDC as two separate issues, PPG3’s call for an holistic approach to development planning means that they must be considered together.

The canal regeneration project is an excellent proposal, which has been described as ‘putting the heart back into Brimscombe’. It presents an opportunity for good mixed development including not only high quality housing, but also provision for a mix of community space, other housing, retail and employment, and which includes a significant proportion of affordable housing, housing for older people, and affordable employment space.

This initiative has broad popular support within the community. Not only does it render the development of site OS134 unnecessary, but it is doubtful whether there is capacity in the schools and local road system to develop both schemes (they are scheduled for roughly the same timeframe). Therefore should OS134 be developed it could even threaten the viability of the entire Port regeneration scheme, leading to withdrawal of community support.

The redevelopment of the canal, and Brimscombe Port in particular, is a substantive material factor that was not considered by the inspector when he recommended the inclusion of OS134.

3. Road Safety and Traffic Issues

GCC Highways stated that the site was “unsustainable” in October 2002. Since then there appears to be no data on transport issues around OS134.

In order to make this scheme work, a permanent set of traffic lights would have to be installed at the Brimscombe Corner junction. This approach would have a number of serious disadvantages:

·      Brimscombe Lane is substandard due to gradient, narrowness, visibility and poor junction geometry

·      The access road would be too narrow, falling outside general guidance on carriageway widths

·      Excessive length of walking routes on the steep gradient

·      No safety audit has yet been done (as at 2002)

·      Heavy use of London Road by through traffic

·      Splay visibility dependent on regular mowing, which cannot be guaranteed

·      Increase in accident rate

Experience in recent years with holdups on the London Road caused by water and gas main work has demonstrated that if such lights were installed, Bourne Lane and Thrupp Lane would be turned into a more or less permanent “rat-run”.

Surveys show 1200 cars per hour use the main A419 at peak times. This figure can only get worse as traffic densities continue to rise, and will become significantly worse when HGVs are banned from Minchinhampton Common. This will mean any heavy goods traffic coming from Cirencester, Swindon and the M4 heading for the M5 via Stroud, will have to come along the A419.

This situation will be further exacerbated if industrial development at Aston Down is granted permission. Any freight from Aston Down will be moved to the M5 via the A419.

4. Local Schools Capacity

With only two local schools, at Brimscombe and Thrupp, concerns have been expressed about the ability to absorb significant extra numbers of children attending these schools.

More measured and carefully–planned developments would be able to handle these issues. It was even acknowledged by the Inspector in his report that a major drawback of the proposed scheme at Hill Farm is that it is beyond an acceptable walking distance to Brimscombe School. This is something by which the Brimscombe Port development would not be hampered.

Concurrent development of both OS134 and Brimscombe Port would create additional pressure on the local schools which was not considered by the inspector.

5. Greenfield Destruction

It was noted in an attempt to justify the inclusion of the OS134 site in the Local Plan that it ‘abuts the urban area on its northern west, south east and south west boundaries and relates thereto’.

This statement is only factually accurate if one accepts that the whole surrounding area is part of the ‘Stroud Urban Area’. A moment’s glance at the site is reveals that it is clearly a natural extension of the surrounding rural environment, and should remain so.

6.          Buffer Zones

It is a long-established principle of good community planning that it is important to maintain a sense of separation between communities.

Hill Farm has long represented this separation, sitting as it does between Thrupp and The Bourne.

The Parish council have always done their utmost to preserve these mini ‘green belts’, recognising their importance to the social fabric of the community.

7.          Geology and Structure

The entire site is largely composed of clay, and has a history of instability. One local resident adjacent to the site had to have extensive remedial work to prevent subsidence in the garden, another neighbour’s house is currently slipping down the bank.

The field carries an enormous amount of run-off water from the hill above, and there is a regular problem with emergent springs. One spring has been bubbling up intermittently even through the tarmac of Brimscombe Lane, leading to the regular flooding of Coombe Cottage, and ceasing only during the very driest of years.

A major development on the Hill Farm site would be bound to generate unexpected and unintended impacts on the hydrogeology of the area, with concomitant risks to the neighbouring houses and their foundations.

8.          Socio-Economic Issues

We must recognise that as the patterns of living and working are changing, so must our plans.

In an extremely short period, we have seen a significant shift in many aspects of the environment – not least in that many more people are working from home. Also, we are seeing a shift even in rural areas to residents commuting relatively long distances to work. Residents of Brimscombe already travel regularly to Bath, Bristol, Swindon, and even London to work. The old requirements of a job within walking distance of home no longer apply.

What does this mean in relation to the proposal? The existing allocation of development areas as ‘mixed’ – meaning they are intended to encompass both housing and employment areas, no longer has to have quite the same distribution between house and workplace. Indeed, it could be argued that zoning larger areas for housing in itself creates more employment space, simply because of the fact that more people are working from home.

So applying this principle to Brimscombe highlights even more clearly the superior viability of Brimscombe Port over OS134. If we can accommodate all the housing and employment we need within the existing development areas, there surely can be no justification for adding in undesignated greenfield land into the equation.

Protecting sites for employment has been seen as a means to reduce outcommuting. However experience has shown that this is rarely the case. In a low unemployment area like ours, the new jobs created often do not replace outcommuting, but actually attract new people into the District, putting further pressure on the housing market. A really high quality mixed development on Brimscombe Port, with a residential component ensuring that it does not die in the evening and weekends, would however provide a different type of employment provision, which is in demand locally.

9.         Conclusion

We are not seeking to prevent development in Brimscombe. We recognise the need for dispersal of required housing development, and see the chance to regenerate our community with new blood, new opportunities, and new heart.

But we can do this already simply by using what is available to us. Utilising the existing brownfield sites will allow our community to play its part in providing much-needed extra housing, and by encouraging the development of the Brimscombe Port site we will further benefit by having a welcome redevelopment of the current derelict industrial site.

The proposed modifications to the Local Plan clearly show that Stoud District Council is very aware of and sympathetic to the issues, and has made a sound and reasonable response to them.

We applaud the proposed plan, and praise the District Council for having the vision and commitment to produce a well-reasoned and carefully considered proposal.


Footnote:

No-one involved in the creation of this report has any financial or commercial connection with British Waterways or the regeneration partnership.