Letter to The Gazette:

Dear Editor,

I wonder if you will allow me a further bite of the cherry on the David Drew planning fiasco for he mustn’t be allowed to get away with his  assumptions and erratic opinions.  However firstly I want to congratulate your journalist on her intelligent and challenging questions she posed to the District Council Officers and Councillors , at a recent meeting for the media on Hunts Grove. This was followed up by your full and measured editorial on the issue two weeks ago.

In David Drew’s letter of last week, he opens up by saying he is willing to debate with the District Council. From the tone of his letter it would appear this idea has only just occurred to him. As Councillor Dennis Andrewartha so aptly said recently, David has had almost ten years to raise concerns and debate the issue at every conceivable level and has failed to do so. Such was his level of commitment to opposing the Hunts Grove scheme originally that he couldn’t even find time to appear or submit his objections in writing to the Government Public Inquiry. The inspector took evidence, from interested parties, for a whole year in Stroud- not far from where he lives?

In his deliberations to your paper he fails to mention also that the directives from his own Government are to site larger developments near to existing regional conurbations, in this case Gloucester. In transport terms, these type of projects are much more sustainable and because of the housing numbers a greater proportion of affordable houses are obtained than in smaller settlements. He makes great play of the concept of dispersal, but what he doesn’t realise is that the Hunts Grove is only 16% of the total housing allocation for the Stroud District up until 2011.-(afterwhich further housing demand will be placed on this District)  The other 84% has been allocated and dispersed around the Stroud District already!

Mr Drew damns the District Council for poor planning decisions. The two he cites however are inaccurate, Quedegley was won on appeal and Bussage was determined in the mid fifties by the County and not the District Council.

I just hope at the Public inquiry , which commences in late January that we will  frequently see our illustrious M.P., together with his buddy Parmjit Dhanda giving evidence and then being cross examined on what I feel are very shaky grounds. At the moment the reason for it being called in is because it “may” contravene National policy. As I write there seems no indication from the Government what part of National Policy this maybe?  

Of course beyond the planning arena what voters should be asking David, is why was he prepared to sacrifice most of the District’s wishes to gain a few hundred extra votes in Hardwick in an election that never was! 

John Marjoram. Stroud District Councillor  

Letter to The Citizen:

Dear Editor,

This letter is mainly in response to your contributor, Councillor Molly Mahon-Creasy from Quedgeley but also is directed to your other correspondent in the Hunts Grove debate. For just reading the letters on this subject I realise that only a small part of the picture is being looked at.

Stroud District Council were required to find land, by Central Government, for 9,400 dwellings through the adopted Gloucestershire Structure Plan to the year 2011. At a meeting of the full District Council of 10th Nov 2005(NB. the date) a unanimous vote was taken, by Conservatives, Lib-Dems. Independents, Greens and the 9 Labour Councillors. So it is slightly disingenuous of you Molly to say that we have sided with the Conservatives although David Drew would always like you to think that as the Greens are eroding his Labour power base in the Stroud Constituency. 

The Local Plan came into being after a five year consultation period, although a lot of discussion happened before then, with all communities in the District. One hundred and fifty sites were brought forward mainly by developers. What followed was a year long Public Inquiry after which the Government Inspector made a number of recommendations which the District complied with. The Hunts Grove allocation is 16% while the Stroud Urban Area is taking 38% of the housing. The other 46% of allocations came from other principle settlements, like Dursley,  large villages and very small communities. So in actual fact the case for dispersal has already been satisfied.

Firstly the questions that need tobe posed, is why has it taken David Drew and Parmjit Dhanda so long after the decision was made to call it in? (Although most planning observers are convinced that it was triggered by imminent General Election that never happened!)   Secondly if they were both so concerned why didn’t they give evidence at the Public Inquiry. Thirdly David Drew is going around the area saying he will talk to the District Council, somehow forgetting that he has had virtually 10 years todo this and his observations would have been taken on board.

The Greens voted for the Hunts Grove proposal on three counts, one it seemed to have the potential of a sustainable transport scheme both in the eventual promise of a light railway into Gloucester and a strong bus service provision. Two, it allowed the District Council to put pressure on the Developer to maximise, because of its size, the number of affordable houses allocated, and number three, the energy saving and ecological housing components, design and layout seemed sound.

John Marjoram. Stroud District Councillor