15th November 2005 and updated 16th November 2005

Green Councillors oppose the extension of the Stroud Urban Area to applause from the gallery

 
The reasons for this were:

* to preserve the historic nature of the individual settlements and communities in the Five Valleys;
* to preserve the Green Fields which are such important spaces for wildlife and people between these settlements;
* To enable affordable housing to be included in the smaller developments in these communities;
* To ensure any future development in these communities is appropriate to their scale and largely rural character rather than that of an amorphous 'Stroud Urban Area'.

In the debate Cabinet Member for Planning Barbara Tait admitted that their would  be no benefit to residents from the redefinition of the Uraban Area and it was  only only being supported by the administration 'to get the plan adopted'.  

Despite winning the argument that the extension of the Stoud Urban Area had no  benefit and carried significant risks it was forced through by the combined  might of Conservative, Labour and LibDem Councillors.

Martin Whiteside had previously worked hard with officers to tighten some of the small print in the plan protecting the green spaces between our communities to  reduce the impact of possible adoption.

"At the meeting, which was packed with members of the public, Cllr Martin Whiteside (Green, Thrupp ward) put forward a motion to have the last minute changes to the urban area removed. He also defended the SNJ, which was criticised by officers for inciting an 'emotional' reaction to the plan by focusing on the urban issue. His passionate speech, and that of his seconder Cllr John Marjoram (Green, Trinity ward) were met with deafening applause from the public gallery."

Later in the SNJ Alli Pyrah wrote "Viewpoint" in which she gave her personnal viewss:

I KNOW this viewpoint is not going to be popular with certain individuals at Stroud District Council, but I would be doing my readers a huge disservice if I allowed Thursday's decision on the local plan to pass without comment.

To disregard 364 objections to the incorporation of Nailsworth, Stonehouse, Thrupp, Brimscombe and Woodchester in the Stroud urban area makes a mockery of the public consultation process.

I understand the importance of getting a plan in place before the July 2006 deadline, if the council is to retain control of its own planning policies. But the fact it has taken councillors eight years to get their act together is not the fault of their constituents, who now find their views swept aside because there is not time to incorporate them.

Furthermore, it is absolutely scandalous that officers at SDC, which makes so much noise about transparency, blame the number of objections on the SNJ's efforts to keep its readers informed.

Why go through the farce of a public consultation if you don't want the issues to be publicly debated and are going to ignore dissenters anyway?

Councillors Martin Whiteside, John Marjoram and Linda Townley should be commended for their heroic attempts to fulfil their obligations to the people they represent in the face of pressure from both officers and peers.

The reception Cllr Whiteside's passionate speech received from the public benches was a moving demonstration of why it is better to do the right thing and lose than to do the wrong thing and win.