Action groups meet: Ruscombe Valley and Ruscombe Brook

Back on Wednesday 16th January we had a meeting of the Ruscombe Valley Action Group and the Ruscombe Brook Action Group at the Whiteshill and Ruscombe Village Hall. About 25 people attended with 9 apologies. The evening started with two presentations and then went to discussions/actions. Here's a summary based on the minutes I put together and looks at the possible threat to the Ruscombe Valley.....

1. Ruscombe Brook Action Group. Philip Booth opened with a brief history of RBAG dating back to 2005. He considered how the group formed in response to threats of development in the valley and a series of sewage incidents that led to the brook being polluted. Photos of sewage were available to see! Then looked at the many actions the group have taken including a number of clear ups of silt and rubbish, 4 conferences, talks to schools, walks along the length of the brook to consider biodiversity issues, exhibitions, consultation meetings re Hamwell Leaze and The Lake at The Lawns, support to other action groups to establish locally, MSc students on placement testing the brook and working to get a new £13,000 grill installed to reduce flooding at Puckshole. In addition there have been many consultation meetings with Severn Trent and others to improve the sewers. Various works have taken place over the years but it has only just been in the last months that the problem sewers have been relined in the Ruscombe valley and along the Randwick tributary.

For a look at the first two years see:
http://www.rbag.org.uk/2009/07/blog-coming-soon.html

2. Ruscombe Valley Action Group. Rebecca Charley outlined the history of RVAG; it is now almost 8 years since the land in the Ruscombe Valley was advertised for sale. Gladwish Land Management bought the Land and put it up for sale as 184 individual plots. The Ruscombe Valley Action Group was formed, with the objective of maintaining the fields as agricultural land. Much work was done to protect the fields, develop cross-party support for no development there and challenge the practice of landbanking.

Some of the history can be found at: http://ruscombegreen.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/landbanking

Philip then gave some more background to the threats to development on the fields over the years. Some of that can be found at the link above. We are now at the point where locally the immediate threat (in terms of the Local Plan) to development on Randwick fields has been removed. The Planning Advisory Panel at the District Council debated the latest update. See Core Strategy Consultation details at: http://www.stroud.gov.uk/democracy/meeting.asp?meet_id=1487&com_id=PAP

Those draft papers (164 pages) reported an update on the consultations re the threats locally:

Point 0.71 re the Stroud Valleys notes agreement that 300-800 new homes in the Stroud valleys was about the right level of development. Specifically it is noted:

By far, the most commonly raised reservations related to the Preferred Strategy’s suggestion that some ‘edge of settlement’ greenfield sites might be used to supplement the development of brownfield sites in the valley bottoms. The consultation document specifically identified land at Callowell Farm and Grange Fields as possible options (Concept Diagram 1.1iii): there was almost complete consensus (amongst those respondents who specifically mentioned these sites) that these proposals should be omitted from the Plan. However, a small number of respondents did concede that Grange Fields in particular was a relatively sustainable location, close to the town centre.

There was vigorous opposition to any possibility of developing other such sites (including Rodborough Fields, and several sites in the Slad Valley and the Ruscombe valley), none of which were specifically proposed in the consultation document.

Next steps as I understand: This document was to inform Members, the public and stakeholders about key findings from the Preferred Strategy consultation. It provides a summary of the responses and is not an exhaustive itemisation of all representations. The report will help now inform decisions on the policy choices and direction in preparing a “Pre-Submission” Local Plan document. The Pre-Submission document will then face consultations - the final Local Plan will be refined taking into account those representations and will then be submitted and subjected to examination by an independent Inspector. The Inspector will consider whether the Plan is ‘Sound’ and will indicate whether it may be formally adopted as the key document within Stroud’s Local Development Framework. It is hoped the allocations will be agreed by councillors in the Spring.

There has been huge opposition to any development in the Ruscombe Valley and indeed to Callowell and I am hopeful that councillors will take that into account when looking at the plan. However there is much negotiation and discussion as councillors have strong views about development sites. For example if the site at Eastington/West of Stonehouse or another proposed site did not go ahead that would put pressure on to look at all sites again.

Lastly Philip noted the worrying development in Cam. The inspector approved on 11th January a potentially 71 home development at what is called 'Land Opposite 6 Box Road, Cam'. This is worse than "bad news"! The inspector, wrongly in my view, dismissed the council's claims to have a five year housing supply - this is of grave concern as it means that if we don't have allocations in place very soon it wont be democratically elected representatives, but rather government inspectors making the decisions. Already it can be a battle to fight developments even where there is virtually unanimous opposition; the government's moves will only make this worse. It is also in my view, shows the mess the government has made of planning with the NPPF; even it's own inspectors are openly disagreeing on what the district's housing supply should be! It seems to be 20% higher or lower depending on which inspector you get.

Poss useful info -
Frequently asked questions: it is from last year but most info still correct in view of SDC: www.stroud.gov.uk/info/plan_strat/faqs.pdf
Planning Strategy: http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_strategy.asp#s=sectioncontent3&p=newconsult

We discussed actions and ways forward - and there will be another meeting 12th March in The Star - contact me for details.

Update on Ruscombe Valley Action Group

Threatened fields

The Ruscombe Valley Action Group (RVAG) was set up in response to the appalling land banking that took place several years ago now (click on label below to learn more).  The Parish responded immediately by monitoring the site, objecting to any planning applications and working with Stroud District Council to get an Article 4 notice put on the land to prevent any activity taking place without planning consent. 

As the Parish Council have said we need to maintain vigilance on these fields in our valley, particularly with planning constraints potentially being relaxed. If you see anything odd please do notify the parish clerk.

As reported in the WaRbler, when we first established the group a number of people and the Parish Council gave money to us to enable actions to be taken. In the intervening time three of the four signatories of the account that was set up have moved from the village, so it was thought prudent to transfer the remaining amount, just over £240, to a designated account held by the Parish Council.  This will safeguard its accessibility and the ability of the parish to still make use of the donations for the purpose they were originally given.

Ruscombe Valley Action Group can still be convened if anything untoward should occur. The Ruscombe Brook Action Group also continue to do regular walks to check on the land.

Farmhill Lane: 'Investment Opportunity' for sale in Stroud?

Well it looks like the 'Gladwish' plots are up for sale again - two plots advertised at £17,475 and £19,575 - see here.

Photos: plots from Property website giving impression that site could be a great housing development on that slope and below a photo taken from Randwick across to the fields.

Nothing illegal here as they are clearly advertised as agricultural land with no planning permission. That is a lot of dosh for a quarter of an acre - locally we are seeing about £6,000 per acre ie those plots should be about £1,500 each. But the advert claims: "However, the vendor is of the opinion that it will command a high price in the event of a successful planning application."

Well of course - pretty well any land will do that - I have already had two people contacting me over the last year asking what to do with their plots that they had bought as they can't fence them and planning permission to them seems very unlikely. One plot holder has tried to grow vegetables but has seen their crops vandalised. There is huge opposition to any development on the site. When residents discovered in 2004 that the field had been sold to a landbanking company over a 100 filled a hall without any public notice going out (see other comments re landbanking by clicking on label below).

Since then the Ruscombe Valley Action Group has met and still keeps an eye on the fields - personally I see it as very sad indeed as the only winner seems to be the landbanking company. If any planning permission is sought there will be huge opposition - indeed there was cross-party support for not developing this site at the last election. So at the moment the land remains in a condition where it is getting worse - before it was grazed - that is much better for the land - but now it is at least it is cut but nettle areas are extending and the best use of the land is not being made - mind so are the badgers extending - well that's good news to stop any development!

What a pity that what many people locally are calling 'greed' of a few is blighting those fields in this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Core Strategy Consultation: act before 22nd to protect Ruscombe Valley

I've blogged on this issue many times - see background, map of some sites and links here - nearly a 100 people came to a meeting in Whiteshill regarding the threat to the Ruscombe Valley and other local sites - this is a big local issue with lots of understandably strong feelings.

This blog is about some of the issues I will be raising in my responses to the Green party re our views on the consultation re the 'Alternative Strategies' - plus some of the comments made Ruscombe Valley Action Group members and the Parish Council. It covers some general points and some more specific responses. I have tried to set out both sides of some of the key arguments to help residents make their own responses but also make clear my own views at this point. I hope this will be helpful to others - it would be great if many folk made their own responses as well - please use your own words. I have to apologise for some of the rambles and notes but I have had to hurry to get this blog completed - hopefully it still gives a good flavour of some of the key issues.

The Strategic Housing Land Availability section is where you can find details about the sites assessed for housing: www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/localplan/housing_land.asp

Download the document or complete the online from here.

Core Strategy Consultation

AONB Considerations

Many are of the view that housing developments in the Cotswolds AONB should be rejected. There is a strong case for this - see below - there is also an argument that well built quality housing in certain locations in AONB can enhance an area. It is worth noting that half Stroud District is in AONB so by excluding it, the pressure on the remaining areas is greater. My own view is that very limited AONB developments maybe appropriate but need very careful consideration.

I am for example totally against the Ruscombe Valley development - as noted many times before - this is an area of very distinctive green valley between Whiteshill and Ruscombe - one resident described it as an 'unassuming jewel'. It is hard not to appear as a NIMBY in these discussions and not knowing all the hundreds of proposed sites in detail makes it very difficult to judge one against another.

Here is the view of Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Council:

We are aware that many of your development options comprise of major new housing within the Cotswolds AONB, especially in the Whiteshill, Ruscombe, Randwick and Painswick areas. You will no doubt be aware that the Cotswolds AONB is a nationally designated landscape area which is afforded the highest level of protection by both national and local planning policy. Any strategic development advanced within these areas within the Core Strategy is therefore contrary to planning policy especially that contained in PPS7, which relates to Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

The emerging RSS for the South West also recognises that the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the 14 designated AONBs within the region will be given priority over other considerations in the determination of development proposals. This designation therefore excludes the allocation of new housing within the Cotswolds AONB especially if alternative options are available. It is considered that any housing proposals in the AONB would destroy in perpetuity some of the most scenic and beautiful landscape in the country and cause great harm to the character of the remaining landscape character.

We are aware of a recent appeal decision on land at Glenfall Way, Cheltenham (ref: APP/B1605/A/08/2067428). In this appeal the developer proposed the construction of 44 dwellings on the edge of Cheltenham on land designated as AONB. Whilst Cheltenham could not demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the Inspector considered that exceptional circumstances were required in order to demonstrate that the development of AONB land would be acceptable. In this case the Inspector accepted that 44 dwellings did not constitute major development. However, he did recognise that: "...the designation is an important constraint to which great weight should be given in considering options." (para 17). Whilst he accepted that the appeal site was on the urban fringe of Cheltenham he commented that this did not devalue the landscape character and that in his judgement development of the site would cause significant harm to the landscape quality and character of the AONB.

In refusing the appeal he concluded that: "Nevertheless development plan policy also affords the highest level of protection to designated landscapes including AONBs. I have no doubt that the current proposal would result in significant harm to the AONB through the change in character and appearance that would be an inevitable consequence of residential development of the site, however carefully designed and landscaped." And "I conclude that the shortfall in housing land supply and the community benefits that would be provided in association with the scheme are of insufficient weight to over come the significant harm to the character and appearance of the AONB which would flow from development." (para 58)

There are currently no proposals in Stroud District to review the AONB boundaries and therefore any allocations proposed for these areas would conflict with development plan policies and cause significant harm to the AONB. The current spatial strategy for the area indicates that the concentration for growth in Stroud District should be in the south Gloucester area. There is therefore no planning justification for development options in the AONB. With this in mind, this Parish Council rejects any option which advances housing developments in the Cotswolds AONB.

Issues re sustainability

The feedback form gives the impression that sustainability is at the heart of decisions - however while I welcome the questions they are to some extent meaningless - how can we realistically measure the impact of each of these proposals - the computer programmes that do that are very complex and take into account a huge number of variables from transport links to local facilities. I regret that the Council did not put the resources in to see which options would produce the most sustainable outcomes.

Another failing is the lack of planning re demography....what do our towns and villages really need - more one and two bed homes so older people can stay in our villages, more co-housing projects etc etc. This is a topic I am sure I will return to....

5 Year Housing Land Supply

Clearly we need a Core Strategy for the area - a planned approach to new residential and employment development.

Here is Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish view: The Parish Council does...consider that there is some urgency in designing and allocating plausible and deliverable development options for the District as it is apparent that District Council cannot currently demonstrate a deliverable 5 year housing land supply. In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, paragraph 71 of PPS3 recommends that planning applications for housing, having regard to other criteria within the PPS, should be considered favourably.

Regrettably this leads to a developer led approach to housing development and also illustrates why the Council was unsuccessful in defending Fox's Field (land north of Ebley Road, Stroud) against residential development (Appeal ref: APP/C1625/A/09/2109409). In the selection of an appropriate residential development option it is therefore strongly recommended that such an option accords with both national and development plan policy and can be demonstrated as being deliverable in terms of social and physical constraints as well as land ownership considerations. This is considered to be the most expedient approach that will secure a robust Core Strategy for the future. These considerations are given great weight by this Parish Council when considering the options put forward by the local planning authority.

Which option?

The Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Council view is for a 2000 home settlement - one of their discussions was about the possibilities of Sharpness and developing an eco-town there. I have some support for this view but would welcome looking in more detail - Sharpness is not well served in many ways (otherthan canal and river) but this could lead to improvements there? But what about flooding? When I asked why it was not an option at a recent planning meeting I was told that developers did not put forward this as a proposal. I am still looking into this as Sharpness is not an option in these papers for 2,000 homes.

I wholly agree that a larger settlement will bring with it huge advantages over dispersal of 2,000 homes - the planning gain can be significant - for example you can get allotment sites, community buildings, schools, improved public transport, employment sites etc etc - whereas on 50 homes or smaller sites you basically just get a bit of affordable housing and not enough money usually for much else.

The other issue is the employment - according to the strategy we need 2 jobs for every new household as people commute out of the area for work at the moment. To me these two jobs are unrealistic but we need to aim for them and a 2,000 settlement has more chance of delivering employment sites. Indeed 2 jobs significantly exceeds the requirement of exemplary development set out in the requirements for a new Eco-town and is considered to be an unrealistic aspiration.

David Drew MP is an advocate of the dispersal to villages - he considers this is important to sustain village life - to keep post offices and shops going etc. I have discussed this before on this blog and wont go into all the details again - I do have some sympathy for this view but it depends on the villages - our local villages here, for example, are too near urban centres to gain from that - 50 more homes in the Ruscombe valley wont give us a post office or more buses. Some villages could possibly benefit but we will loose out on the planning gain from the larger settlement.

I therefore have concluded at this point that the large bulk of housing should go towards a larger settlement with some housing for dispersal - ie options A/B with some of D and G. Here are some notes accumulated from various sources which is the basis of my current thinking. Do please email me and leave comments - this is a hugely complex area and despite reading vast amounts of papers on this I am still learning about the various options and their implications.

Option A

The concentration of 2000 dwellings in one location has merit and provides a mass of development that could deliver significant community and infrastructure benefits - but I don't reckon you'll get all those houses on those sites. I would have to retain reservations on the location of such a large option to ensure that it did not infringe or cause harm to any important landscape, settlements or character areas within the District.

One view re the Governments initiative for Eco-Towns set out in PPS1: Eco- Towns, July 2009 comes up next looking at the Sharpness argument - I copy some of this in detail as it is not part of the discussion and I would wish to learn more - however having said that I have reservations about this approach - see here - having said that some of those reservations can be overcome...

We believe that the objectives of this PPS are an admirable way of achieving sustainable housing growth where the right location can be identified. Paragraph ET4 of this PPS states: "Eco-Towns are one of a range of options local planning authorities should consider when determining how to meet their current or emerging housing requirements set out in the RSS. Eco-towns should be allocated as a strategic development option within the Core Strategy, but may also be considered as part of an Area Action Plan or Allocations DPD (Development Plan Documents) where the Core Strategy has already been adopted."

The Core Strategy should look at an Eco-Town as a strategic option to accommodate the RSS housing requirement in Stroud District and to allow for future growth post 2026. The proposed Eco-Town should be designed to be a sustainable community that is resilient to and appropriate for the climate change now accepted as inevitable. It should be planned to minimise future vulnerability in changing climate, and with both mitigation and adaptation in mind. The proposed homes in the Eco-Town should be in accordance with paragraph ET9 of PPS1. In summary they should be: 1. Built to Code Level 4 and above; 2. Meet life time homes standards; 3. Have real time energy monitoring systems; 4. Have real time public transport information; 5. Access to high speed broadband; 6. Provide for an element of affordable housing; 7. Demonstrate high levels of efficiency in the fabric of the building; and 8. Achieve carbon reductions of at least 70% relative to the current Building Regulations. The proposal should also be a genuinely mixed community with approximately one employment opportunity per new dwelling. Transport options should prioritise public transport as well as walking and cycling and other sustainable means of travel.

An Eco-Town or a development option which concentrates all the proposed housing into one location cannot be accommodated in the north of the District as this would have a detrimental impact on the character, identity and setting of most of the towns and villages. It is also considered that the services and infrastructure in this area do not have the capacity to accommodate further substantial growth. Equally the east of the District is heavily constrained by the Cotswolds AONB which national planning policy identifies as being inappropriate for major new development options.

This option could ensure that further sympathetic growth could be added to this development in the future to ensure that Stroud District has an identified and appropriate growth centre where subsequent growth, post 2026 can be focused and planned accordingly. Although I do have to wonder and question the whole approach to development - it is just not possible to keep on growing - buy hey I've made that point about growth many times before.....

Taking all this into account they go onto suggest an Eco-Town centred on Sharpness - arguing there is a lot of brown field land, a possibility of rail connection, employment opportunities and room for further growth.

Development at Cam, Eastington or west of Stonehouse?

Larger sites offer advantages as noted. Development at Eastington and West of Stonehouse, however would increase congestion on the main artery link to the M5 and erode the valuable open space which currently separates our District from Gloucester. Clearly new motorway links could be part of any development along with the reopening of the rail line. However it is by no means a good choice. Cam is also not ideal. Indeed there are few 'good' choices in the whole strategy - it is more about seeing where they will do the least damage with the most benefits....

Option B

Option B comprises mainly of the segregation of the 2000 homes requirement into two different locations. The proposed locations for growth in these options are Cam, Eastington, Stonehouse, Brimscombe and Thrupp or Whitminster. Essentially this option now includes Whitminster and Brimscombe and Thrupp. As noted one or two of the first three sites could be suitable but I would rather see an amount of the houses go to dispersal.

This option spreads the amount of development to two separate locations and thereby depriving the District of the opportunity to get any planned community benefits, concentrated growth or regeneration. Whitminster has relatively few landscape constraints - the concentration of growth in this village would further decrease the open land between Stroud and Gloucester. This location is therefore considered not very appropriate.

Brimscombe and Thrupp are essentially linear settlements in the valley of the A419. Given the physical constraints which exist here it is inconceivable how a planned and logical development that would serve the future needs of the District could be achieved here. Stroud Town Council have also ruled out this possibility.

Option C

Option C is tantamount to the dispersal of development in an unsustainable manner. This option has identified 8 settlement options. However, on closer examination it is apparent that these 'settlement options' are small unsustainable villages where the addition of 250 dwellings would destroy the character of the settlements and would create inappropriate and fragmented development across the District. The addition of 250 dwellings to each of these settlements would not create a significant mass of development sufficient to provide physical and social infrastructure improvements and would therefore create unsustainable patterns of development contrary to the objectives of PPS1.

This option also advances 'major' development within the Cotswolds AONB which directly conflicts with national planning policy advice on rural areas contained in PPS7 (2004) - see discussion above. Paragraph 21 of PPS7 recognises the AONB as a nationally designated area where the highest status of protection is provided to the landscape. This protection rules out the development of significant areas of new housing that would erode the quality and character of the landscape. Paragraph 22 of PPS7 specifically states that major development should not take place in these designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. Given that other options exist to accommodate the new housing for the District, it is considered that exceptional circumstances do not exist for the development of new housing within the Cotswolds AONB.

Option D

Option D provides an opportunity to seek out appropriate brown field sites within the Stroud Valleys for development. However it is questionable whether this is deliverable on the sites noted - 1400 dwellings is alot. Certainly there is room for some of the dispersal at these sites.

Options E, F and G

Options E, F and G are dismissed as being inappropriate and unsustainable as the sole way forward. As one commentator put it: "These options are tantamount to "spreading the pain" without regard to the concepts of sustainability or without regard to the sensitive environment in which Stroud District is located." I am not sure this is entirely true as I consider there are possibilities at some of these sites for dispersal - and taking into account the dispersal arguments above there could be some benefits.

Good luck with your responses to this consultation!!

Make views known on Ruscombe Valley

Nearly a 100 people turned out at Whiteshill Village Hall last week - many had heard that 60 sites listed in the consultation are in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) including up to 588 houses in the Ruscombe valley, 240 filling the hillside between Ruscombe and Randwick.

Photo: People leaving the meeting - I forgot to take one earlier!

See my blog here for more background to this threat to our valley.

As many know we currently are being consulted on some options for housing and employment in the District - this blog post covers the view of Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Chair below and some of the queries that have been raised about the sites.

I also again give links to the consultation on the seven Alternative Strategies - it is vital as many as possible participate before the 22nd March deadline - the Parish Council hope to produce some info soon for people to help them participate - this blog will hopefully let you know but far better you respond in your own words!

The Core Strategy will form the basis of a new set of planning policies that guide development for housing, jobs and community facilities - so it is critical! I must again stress this consultation is being carried out because of Government policy - see more below - and there is no way that all the sites listed will be chosen - many are clearly unsuitable - but we need to make clear that Ruscombe valley is unsuitable.

By 2026 the district needs to find 2,000 new homes and encourage a new generation of jobs. To tackle this, seven Alternative Strategies have been created. These strategies set out different ways of providing for future development i.e. what could go where. The council wants your views on which of the alternative strategies work best. None of these strategies are set in stone and the final choice maybe a mix of several stratagies.

A mini guide that briefly outlines the seven strategy options has been produced. The 'Your district, Your future' guide is available at all town and parish council offices as well as public libraries. Copies can also be found at the district council offices and Stroud Subscription Rooms. Alternatively the mini guide, along with the full questionnaire and consultation documents, can be downloaded at www.stroud.gov.uk/core

Comments can be submitted online or by post.

On this blog I have covered much about all this before - see here the comments about the key local sites made in October - the photo here shows some of the sites.

The Strategic Housing Land Availability section is where you can find details about the sites assessed for housing:
www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/localplan/housing_land.asp

Letter to press by Dr John Rogers

Some folks may have seen the letter by Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Council chair Dr John Rogers writing in the SNJ. He has given permission to copy it here:

Madam

your article on SDC's Core Strategy consultation only covers part of the process. After a strategy option has been selected the actual sites for development will be chosen. These will come from a list called the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). This list was draw up by some consultants and appears to include every site that has been rejected for development in recent years. This includes 60 sites in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) including up to 588 houses in the Ruscombe valley, 240 filling the hillside between Ruscombe and Randwick. It states that up to 1,518 houses could be built on two sites at the start of the Painswick valley and 251 house at the start of the Slad valley. A full list of the sites and map of their locations can be found at www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/localplan/housing_land.asp.

It is true that there are no specific plans to build on these sites at present, that will come after the strategy has been approved. If like me you are appalled that sites in the AONB are even being considered for building on please contact your District Councillor to get them to put pressure on the Planning Department to exclude all sites in the AONB and those with a high visual impact from the SHLAA.

Yours Sincerely Dr John Rogers

Re concerns regarding the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment January 2010

This was carried out by consultants and it does seem to have many mistakes. It is important these are highlighted. Here are some of the points already made:

Site 87 "Land behind Farmhill Lane". Although it is used for dog walking the site is in fact registered as agricultural land and is used for hay production not recreational as noted in the report. This site was purchased in 2004 by a landbanking company who subdivided it into over 150 lots which were sold separately so it is not owned by a single owner as stated in the Assessment. The "Accessibility Information" is also wrong, why "Stroud - Sainsbury" should be considered as a centre is not clear particularly as there are a number of shops and businesses in Cainscross and Ebley which are nearer to the site (this mistake is repeated for sites 121 and 65).

Here is a comment from the planner relating to the last points:

- Regarding the accessibility assessment of the site it appears that unfortunately Cainscross Co-op was missed off the consultants list of supermarkets which explains why Sainsbury’s was listed as being the closest retail/service centre to the site. The Co-op has now been included and the revised proforma will list the Co-op as the nearest centre to the site.

- In response to the information you have provided the principal use of the site will be changed on the site assessment from recreation to agriculture. Apologies for the incorrect classification.

- The ownership details for the site have now been amended. The site is now listed as having more than one owner and the availability assessment has also been changed. I agree that the assessment should have picked up on the fact that the site is in multiple ownership and apologise for that error. However, this wouldn’t actually change the overall view of the site’s potential. It is achievable, possibly suitable and possibly available. In terms of availability, the site was submitted by an interested party and there was nothing in the submission to suggest that the other site owners would categorically not wish the site to come forward. So the 2014 onwards assessment holds.

SHLAA is not a policy making document

I think it is also worth noting that the District Council have consistently said that the SHLAA is not a policy making document but that it provides one part of the evidence base in the preparation of the LDF and the Core Strategy in particular. This is reiterated in the main report itself. In that context, the SHLAA findings are just that … they are NOT recommendations. The SHLAA has been prepared in accord with government guidance.

Greenfield sites have to be considered in the SHLAA even if they are in the AONB. It is the policy making process that will determine which (if any) of the sites considered in the SHLAA come forward as allocations for housing eventually. The consultants have identified that, based on its AONB designation, it is questionable as to whether the site is suitable. In the actions, they make clear that one of the actions is to determine whether the AONB policy constraint can be lifted – this is a policy matter.

Regarding inclusion of sites within the AONB, Paragraph 21 of the SHLAA Guidance states that “particular types of land or areas may be excluded from the Assessment. Where this is the case, the reasons for doing so will need to be justified and agreed by the members of the partnership. Except for more clear-cut designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, the scope of the Assessment should not be narrowed down by existing policies designed to constrain development, so that the local planning authority is in the best possible position when it comes to decide its strategy for delivering its housing objectives”.

Randwick, Whiteshill and Ruscombe News from your District Councillor

I've just started delivering my latest news letter - the contents of which are below - apols for delay - I usually try to get it out in January but due to a twisted ankle and the snow it has been delayed. Please also use the 'labels' or the search engine on this blog to find out more about my activities.

Dear Resident,

I feel very fortunate to live in and be part of these lively communities. We have a great village shop, schools, churches, clubs and pubs, plus many wonderful local events like street parties, the Randwick Wap, pancake races, art exhibitions, theatre and more. These all go a long way towards strengthening our communities - something that is close to my heart.

As residents will know, I have nearly completed four years as the local District Councillor. I would be proud to serve a further term and I hope you will consider voting for me this May.

This newsletter gives a taste of some of my recent actions and projects. As I hope it shows, I remain passionate about social and environmental justice and am committed to working with others to achieve the changes we need.

I would like to thank all those who have supported me and the local Green Party for funding this annual newsletter.

Cllr. Philip Booth, Stroud District Councillor for Randwick, Whiteshill and Ruscombe ward

Want to talk to Philip?

Philip would love to hear your views, answer your questions or try to help with local problems. Email Philip on philip.booth2@virgin.net or phone 01453755451 or write to: 2 The Laurels, Bread Street, Ruscombe, Stroud GL66EL.

Some recent successes

Philip has:

• Led a successful campaign to get a bus shelter at Stratford
• Set up the Stroud Valleys Water Forum that is taking a lead in developing an effective flood policy for the District
• Initiated a Countywide scheme for libraries to loan out energy monitors to help people cut their energy use
• Supported residents who have had problems with planning issues
• Helped get a new culvert and grill at Acres Place, Puckshole, to reduce flooding
• Worked with Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Council to establish allotments in the area Road
  

Some recent actions by your councillor:

Seeking more accountability at the Council

I have joined other Greens in calling for:

• Councillor expenses to be published fully
• Ending the extra cash paid to councillors who use larger cars
• More openness around decisions to close joint-use sports centres
• The Council to apologise to tenants for the damning report on our Council housing stock (with the exception of two other councillors, all refused to make an apology)

Working for better planning

• I continue to oppose development on the Ruscombe Valley fields and at other key local sites that are currently threatened
• I have been one of four councillors on an extensive inquiry into the planning process which has made key recommendations for improvements

Pressing for transport improvements

• I have helped to gain the '20 is Plenty' traffic calming signs. I oppose County Council measures to remove these.
• I continue to seek other local traffic calming measures (not humps and bumps)
• I continue to work for 20mph speed limits in residential areas to reduce casualties and encourage more walking and cycling
• I want to see a proper bus station in Stroud and improvements to cycle facilities

Protecting our wildlife and environment

• I have been involved in projects locally such as clearing the local brook, supporting the local Hedgehog Hospital and helping develop the Stroud-based Global Bee Project to protect solitary bees
• I have sought improvements to local grit bins and road gullies
• I helped ensure that Severn Trent has taken action on sewage systems locally. This has led to a significant reduction in sewage incidents

Open Homes Success

• I initiated and help organise the hugely popular Eco-renovation Open Homes weekend each September. This involves local homes with renewable energy and energy efficiency measures opening to the public and local renewable energy installers promoting their products

Tackling fuel poverty, energy security and climate change

• I chaired a scrutiny inquiry that has made recommendations for financing energy efficiency and renewable measures
• I am seeking opportunities for the Council to invest and make serious financial returns on investments in renewable energy

Working on your behalf

• Opposing a large incinerator at Javelin Park near Stonehouse or elsewhere in the County
• Actively working to ensure our waste management is more sustainable and cost effective
• Initiated a wood fuel project in local woods
• Raised key issues as Stroud’s representative on the Wessex Water Customer Liaison Panel
• Sought improvements to services at Stratford Park Leisure Centre including measures to improve cleanliness and energy efficiency
• Supported others to successfully oppose large cuts in funding to arts

See last years report here.

Nearly 100 people join meeting to protect Ruscombe Valley

Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Council along with the relaunched Ruscombe Valley Action Group organised a pubic meeting last night to explain the latest consultation. More on that coming in future blogs, however I was delighted to see so many people turn up.

Photos: view to top right of picture of some of the fields threatened and below some of the local sites included in the consultation process.

This meeting showed how strong the feelings are about the threat to developing the Ruscombe Valley and fields in Randwick. Sadly many other communities across the District are equally worried about developments in their backyards. Yet somewhere 2,000 homes need to go before 2026.

Housing is needed but there is more that could be done rather than yet more boxes covering our hills (see my recent blog here about the waiting lists in Stroud). Of course there is a need to plan homes and employment and we should be clear that this is not a Council policy making document.

However, the very mention of sites, that are clearly so totally unsuitable for development, is a recipe for anger and dismay. I would urge people to look closely at the consultation documents and submit their comments before the deadline on 22nd March.

There is a "road show" on Saturday March 13th at the Sub Rooms put on by SDC to show the public what the options are and it would be good if many of us could also go to this. Sadly this is the only public event so big thanks to the Parish and Action Group for organising this - if you are interested in the Action Group then do let me know - we are likely to meet again through this process!

The Parish Council are happy to circulate their thoughts on the consultation to anyone interested so please let me know name, address and email and I can get you added to list.

See my blog here back in October for initial responses re key local sites and here for more background. I will be posting more but have a special meeting Monday morning to look more specifically at all the options.

The more responses SDC have the better These documents are available on line - see here:
www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/lp/consultation.asp

Ruscombe Valley Action Group relaunch?

Many locals will remember we have had the Ruscombe Valley Action Group working to protect the valley - we have still been meeting but not as often. Now with the latest moves by the District Council in response to Government targets for evermore housing we are under threat again - see my blog here and here.

We will be holding a meeting tomorrow - Tuesday March 2nd - in Whiteshill Village Hall at 8pm. We are not aiming for it to be a long meeting so please do try to come.

Housing is needed (see my recent blog here) but I'm not convinced of the process set up or how it is being managed. Anyhow a consultation is under way and we will set out the consultation document and the options being put to us - aiming to ensure everyone understands the implications of each option and how to respond to the consultation.

There is also a "road show" on Saturday March 13th at the Sub Rooms put on by SDC to show the public what the options are and it would be good if many of us could also go to this.

The deadline for the consultation is March 22nd. The more responses SDC have the better These documents are available on line also - see here:
www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/lp/consultation.asp

Where will all the houses go?

Well to cut a very long story short on the basis of current figures about what is planned for Stroud District and what was in the Regional Spatial Strategy we have some 1,500 to 2,000 homes to build each year.

Photo: Ruscombe fields that were wanted for development.

Well Stroud District Council is following the legal stuff to develop it's Core Strategy about how those homes will be allocated. Yesterday evening was a Policy Seminar to hear about the next stages and the proposed 7 Alternative Strategies for dealing with development in the District up to 2026 and the proposed policies to guide that development.

The Council is drafting it's new planning framework for the District known as the Local Development Framework (LDF). This will eventually supersede the current Local Plan – but unlike the Local Plan, the Local Development Framework is made up of a portfolio of separate planning policy documents, which will address different policy topics in the future. Hope I haven't lost you yet....

At the centre of the LDF is the Core Strategy. This document will provide an overview of the District and set principles and policies to guide development up to 2026. The Core Strategy will form the basis of planning policy decisions for the District, and it will set the context for other more detailed planning policy documents in the future.

In March/April 2009 the Council consulted on the key Issues that the Core Strategy should consider. Since then the findings of that consultation have been combined with leading issues raised by national and regional planning guidance in order to prepare a number of background papers to support the next stage of production and consultation – the Alternative Strategies.

The Council will soon be consulting the public again on this next stage – seeking views on 7 alternative ways of seeing development distributed in the District and on proposed policies to guide development. The consultation period will run from 8 February to 22 March 2010 when we will again speak with Parish and Town Councils.

Well I've had the first glimpse of the proposed 7 strategies and immediately have concerns about their implications - not just for our area but the whole District. I have not seen the full details but know we need to get this right - some of the proposals mean more houses to be squeezed in to the villages and possibly significantly more homes - but this is not the time to panic - there is much more to the strategies including employment sites and more so I would urge folk to consider them when the consultation is launched.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

Meanwhile the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) has now been completed - see my blog here with details of potential impact locally.

The SHLAA seeks to identify and assess all potential sources of housing supply to meet the Districts needs to 2026. The final report is available to view online here.

There is also a page of site assessments - you can see the numbers on this map and download the appropriate report.

It is important to note that the SHLAA does not allocate housing sites. The decisions on which of these sites may be allocated will take place through the development of the Core Strategy. Any planning applications relating to any of these sites that pre-empt that process will still need to be considered through the Council’s development control system.

Whilst there is no specific requirement to consult on the results of the SHLAA, the selection of potential housing allocations is part of the Core Strategy preparation process and will be subject to public consultation. It is in my view an important consideration to consider these sites when making a response to the Core Strategy.

I would welcome feedback on any of this once the consultation gets going. Is it time to reform the Ruscombe Valley Action Group?

Threat to Ruscombe fields?

The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) - catchy title - is a report undertaken to provide information on opportunities that exist to meet housing needs in the District. The aim is to identify sites to assess their housing potential - see my previous discussion here.

Photo: map showing sites and Ruscombe valley showing part of site 87 on the right of photo

We are currently at the stage where 296 sites, including the four local sites are being assessed by an independent company (Roger Tym and Partners). A final report will help inform the production of Local Planning Policies which will identify suitable areas for future housing development.

As noted before I think it is extremely unlikely that most of the sites mentioned will be identified as being suitable for any form of development due to the number of constraints - the Ruscombe fields (87) and Randwick (65) are particularly unlikely - however in discussions at the last Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish meeting we agreed to make clear to the District Council key objections. Below you can see some quick notes that I have sent on the sites including Callowell and Kitesnest Lane....

I would like to note support for the comments made by Whiteshill and Ruscombe Parish Council re the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment - these are our immediate concerns regarding these sites and we would be happy to provide more information if needed.

Comments on sites that affect Whiteshill and Ruscombe are being assessed under the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

RTPI 65 Land at Mount Farm Randwick This site is a typical Cotswold hillside of limestone grassland within the AONB. It is a very prominent skyline location which if developed could be seen from miles around, and would significantly increase the urbanisation of the area. There are areas within these fields that contain a very rich diversity of species, such as bee orchids and skylarks, and help support a population of lesser horseshoe bats. It is part of a belt of agricultural land that separates the villages of Randwick and Ruscombe and the Parishes of Randwick and Whiteshill and Ruscombe. If development took place in this location the character of these settlements would alter fundamentally and additionally the division between parishes would be lost. The only access to the site it by narrow country lane that is already choked with traffic at peak times.

RTPI 87 Land behind Farmhill Rd Stroud Much of this site is actually in Whiteshill; it constitutes about a third of the Ruscombe valley and if developed would profoundly degrade the rural nature of the valley. There is no suitable road access to the site which would have to be reached by driving through existing residential crescents. There are serious deficiencies in the current infrastructure such as the storm drains and sewers in the Ruscombe valley. Considerable flooding already occurs in the lower reaches of the valley causing pollution and damage to affected properties. This would only be increased should more houses be put in this location. The land already has an article 4 notice placed upon it preventing further development, clearly indicating the importance of maintaining this area as agricultural land. There are extensive badger setts on this land and a number of trees with TPOs. The grassland also contains a number of wet flushes, providing a wide diversity of habitat.

RTPID 121 Land off Kitesnest Lane Whiteshill The description of this site is misleading. Kitesnest Lane is a very narrow tarmac track which has a mixture of houses on both sides. It contours round a steep hillside to a dead end. The proposed site overlooks these houses and would have to be accessed from the Whiteshill Edge road. Although this looks like a minor stretching of the village envelope, the gradient of the land and lack of space for footpaths means that this site could not be readily integrated with the existing settlement. Additional development has already been rejected by Gloucestershire Highways on the grounds of no safe area to access the road network.

RTID 148 Land south of Callowell Farm This Callowell site is part of the start of the Painswick valley and to have housing on a prominent site at its start will have a serious impact on one of the most beautiful entries into Stroud. The development of this site would have a serious impact upon the infrastructure and potential pollution events since it leads directly into water courses running at the lower end of the land area.

Why we all need to respond to latest consultation

A new generation of planning policies which will set out the locations for housing, jobs and community facilities is being put together by Stroud District Council. That means we need to consider issues like whether we want housing in Ruscombe fields as proposed by a landbanking company? See some of the previous campaign blogs against that here. Or the last bits of green between Randwick and Cashes Green filled up with houses? Or whether we want more energy self-reliance across this District with more wind turbines sensitively sited?

Photos: views of Whiteshill and Randwick

These questions and more we need to consider - it would be wonderful if all local folk could respond to the simple survey that considers some of the issues addressed by new planning policies as the basis of a Core Strategy. This strategy will provide the framework for how the district will evolve over the next 15 years - we need to get it right!

The information provided by the public will be used to help draw up the Core Strategy which will then be voted on by the District Council. Then provided a Government Planning Inspector is happy that the correct procedure has been followed it will be approved. Once approved all planned development must contribute towards achieving the goals of the Core Strategy.

Locations for building new homes need to be identified; facilities that cater for the young and the old have to be provided and communities need to be kept active - these are all areas that the Core Strategy will consider. Take for example the Government plans that for over the next 20 years approximately 9000 new homes in the district have to be built. These homes must meet the needs of whole community whilst also causing minimal disruption to the natural environment. Real thought needs to given to find the best locations and to the facilities that will have to be built to support new communities.

We also need to bear in mind that more young people then ever are leaving rural areas to seek work and affordable accommodation. Coupled with an ageing population the sustainability of our villages is declining. Is the solution to extend our villages with more jobs and homes or to improve the transport links to urban areas?

Multi-use games areas have been built like the one in Cashes Green to promote active play and overall health. These sites can also be used by adults. Should more outside public spaces be redeveloped as multi-use areas or should there be a focus on creating indoor areas for activities? Or what about more natural play areas that focus on boulders, trees, ditches, mounds etc rather than standardised play equipment - see my letter here and here.

In Stroud town many plans have been made and are in the process of going forward as part of their Public Realm Strategy. This is intended to make environmental improvements and make the town more attractive to residents, workers and visitors. What improvements to our villages are necessary? And what of public transport? How will the transport needs of an ageing population be met? With rising fuel prices and the pressure to reduce CO2 emissions what is the solution to cutting car usage?

SDC with Gloucestershire County Council has supported successful and innovative bus services, such as the Wotton Hopper in and around Wotton-under-Edge, and Village Link, a demand-responsive bus service operating in Dursley area. Should SDC continue to invest in these initiatives, expand them or are there other improvements to bus services better?

There is lots more. Here is my quote sent in for the Parish magazine, The WaRbler: Philip Booth, Whiteshill and Ruscombe's District councillor said: "It is great our Parish Council are publicising this 'Core Strategy'. It may sound boring but it plays a critical role in how we wish to see the area developed in the future. Do residents want to continue to oppose homes being developed in the Ruscombe Valley fields? How do we protect the environment for future generations? Do we want to see more investment in say energy efficiency schemes that cut our bills and CO2 emissions? It is important that residents participate in this genuine consultation to find the best ways forward for the District."

20 key areas that will shape the future of our distinct - its down to you

• Improving the image of the District.
• Providing job opportunities across the District.
• Achieving a better transport system to help reduce CO2 emissions.
• How can we improve the vitality and viability of our town centres.
• How can we develop the tourist potential of the District.
• Supporting and capitalising on the District's artistic and cultural assets.
• Meeting the District's identified future housing needs.
• Maintaining and improving the sustainability of our villages.
• Improving provision of facilities for young people.
• Meeting the needs of an increasingly elderly population.
• Meeting the District's need for sports facilities.
• Achieving social inclusion and active communities, where community initiatives are the norm.
• Conserving and enhancing Stroud District's countryside and biodiversity.
• Protecting and enhancing our historic environment.
• Contributing to the provision of renewable and low carbon energy generation in the District.
• Minimising waste generation and increasing recycling.
• Ensuring that the Cotswold Canals restoration plays a positive role in the District.
• Provide resilience to flood risk.
• Meeting the District's need for open and green spaces.
• Which are the most important issues for the Core Strategy to focus on.

The deadline for feedback is Friday 1st May. The questionnaire is available online at www.stroud.gov.uk/core or by post: Core Strategy, Stroud District Council, Ebley Mill, Stroud, GL5 4UB. For further information call 01453 754092.

Don't fall for land sale in Ruscombe Valley, Stroud?

It was interesting to see that land in the Ruscombe Valley (see fields left and further down valley below) is still being sold for outrageous prices - I suspect they are getting desperate as all political parties have said no to development here - it's AONB - and there is such a strong action group (click 'Label' below for more on the Ruscombe Valley Action Group) - indeed at the first meeting with no notice over 100 local residents turned out. I really can't see this land being developed - it can't even be fenced as an Article 4 was put on it so there is little that it could be used for...

See the advert here. They want offers in excess of £17,500 and describe it as: "This piece of land is designated as agricultural and therefore is being sold with no planning permission. However, the vendor is of the opinion that it will command a high price in the event of a successful planning application. The plot is 0.25 acres. It would be large enough for a detached dwelling with gardens with the relevant and successful planning permission." And is this another advert here?

Is anyone still falling for that? Of course it would be a high price if it had planning - in my view this is a scam - not on the same level as I have reported on this blog re other companies who are landbanking - but nevertheless a scam - indeed on a website called Property Scam you can still read about the Ruscombe valley - see here for lots of reasons why not to buy.

Good news on land banking

A landbanking company that took £69 million from 4,500 investors without meeting promises of development is to be shut by the High Court, the Financial Services Authority says.

Photo: Ruscombe fields now owned by up to 180 different owners

UKLI had sold plots of land to investors claiming that it could get planning permission for the land, which they could then sell on to developers for a huge profit. But none of the properties ever achieved planning approval. The FSA charged that UKLI operated an illegal collective investment scheme and denied its investors protection for their money. See report here - and here the Guardian's comment.

This is great news to see the clamp down on land banking companies. However the story is different for Ruscombe - here the company Gladwish have divided the three fields in Ruscombe into 180 or so plots and sold them - development will never go-ahead on those fields - well extreemly unlikely especially with our Ruscombe Valley Action Group. It seems though at the moment there is not any evidence that Gladwish have said these fields are for development ie no promises. It is clear what we still need is action to also end practices like Gladwish dividing up our fields in such a way....See background re campaign in Ruscombe here and by clicking on label below there is lots more plus CPRE's view here.

Scrutiny x2, snow, ward newsletter plus other bits

Apols - I haven't been keeping blog up-to-date with Council and other stuff this week - here is an attempt to do a quick roundup with some of the meetings I've been to this week plus other news bits...

Snow - some 40 cars were still left up near Edge - abandoned last night after the snow came down - I love it - well when I don't have to get anywhere - and managed to even have a go sledging - very exciting! Got the sledge from a neighbours skip when they emigrated - it is brilliant despite not loads of snow (see photo)! However it meant I was already exhaused when it came to...

Ward newsletter delivery - I started delivery in Westrip and bits of Randwick of a ward newsletter - it takes some 16 hours to deliver to the whole ward - I managed a couple of hours today - and wow was it gorgeous - beautiful winter wonderland - the other parts of the ward will have to wait a little but if you want a pdf version let me know and I can send one.

I wanted to write lots more but ended up rather throwing it together to meet printers deadline and also get it out with the Green party's newspaper - 'Green Around Stroud' - a couple of bits in there also about me but wanted to add more to explain in the section why I joined the Greens...anyhow perhaps more of that in another blog....

Floods - some 35mm of rain and trains stopped, roads flooded and reports of homes getting hit again - locally in the ward no reports of sewage in the brook after the heavy rains - shows the work Severn Trent have done is working at the moment - but Puckshole Lane was a river again - water over welly height - luckily no cars parked there....meanwhile some 700 homes in Bisley, Painswick, Amberley and more have been without power today due to weather.

....plus I've reported the large tree lying across the Pipebridge over Ruscombe brook and a fence - it needs moving before too long otherwise it could damage the pipe or fence seriously.

Grit bins - most seem to have been OK and in action locally - although one in Bread Street seems to have disappeared (see photo)? I am also looking to get improvements to these ugly plastic barrels that are so tempting to vandals to tip over.

Planning applications - this ward doesn't get so many contentious applications - other than of course the Ruscombe fields (click on landbanking label below) - I often have contact with various householders regarding applications - and not being on the Development Control Committee any longer I am able to get more involved - infact have been looking at three local applications recently - and I have to say I was very disappointed that residents objections were over-ruled last week regarding the proposed three-storey property off Upper Kitesnest Road - it is now set to go ahead.

Assault near Woodcutters Arms in Whiteshill - we are fortunate in this ward to have a low crime rate - there has recently been some damage to cars - this incident is out of the ordinary - it occurred 1.48am on New Year's Day - a 24year old was left with facial injuries - apparently there was a witness who is being urged to come forward although an arrest has already been made. Call Gloucestershire Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 quoting incident number 167 of January 1st or ask to speak to an officer at Stroud Police Station.

Stroud Green party meeting - in Star Anise cafe on Wednesday night (I like the refit they have just done) and about 25 of us went through the monthly agenda - covering elections coming up in May - many candidates now selected and voted on - thankfully my seat is not up for another two years - anyhow we also looked at events, policies and lots more - would love to cover stuff here but a look at the Glos Green party website is a good way to see the issues we are looking at - County waste is a big issue (I'm helping draft a response at moment) and the Governments approval of nukes (see last blog entry) - mind lots of stuff coming up like Cheltenham Boroughs likely support for Staverton Airports expansion - Lib Dems are supporting it despite a national policy of no airport expansions - it makes no sense to me - see my letter already noted on this blog here. The Regional Spatial Strategy is out and needs a response - it has got lots of nonsense in it - plus on a more positive note is Stroud's Sustainable Communities consultation - here is a real chance to influence policy - again I'll be writing more in coming weeks.

Scrutiny meetings - Tuesday night three hours plus spent at Ebley Mill in the evening for a Scrutiny meeting - then nearly four hours on Thursday night for another Scrutiny - you can watch them on the Council website webcast system and minutes will soon be in the web - but to give a flavour here are some issues raised...the first meeting looked mainly at the budget - I enclose as an example a question from Cllr Martin Whiteside - the answer was mostly reassuring but for the roll-out of the Stanleys waste trial - I've covered on blog previously this trial and the need to expand it across the District - at last that looks set to happen - however it would appear that costings are still not clear! This is worrying.

The second scrutiny meeting looked at it in more details and also made a couple of important recommendations - firstly that the District should note the success of the trial blah blah - basically saying if we can reach such good recycling targets in such a short time we do not need to go for a monster incinerator which it would appear the County want - scroll down here previous blogs for more on this - especially letter on 10th December 2007. Secondly we've called on a Scrutiny committee to invite supermarket bosses to look at how they can cut packaging - an issue I have been on about for ages - previously I have been told that the cOuncil is doing that but in answer to several of my questions it became apparent that they have only spoken to the small Coop in relation to the Stanleys trial.

Another issue we looked at was Stratford Park leisure centre - customer numbers are up and I have seen an improvement in recent months - still needs work - one of the frustrations is to get them to do more re energy efficiency - because they only have a three year contract there is no incentive - Dursley pool in contrast is Council owned and now has a pool cover - why not Stroud - the most I got from my questioning was an agreement of a report to consider green measures. Anyhow I am more than happy to talk more if anyone is particularly interested or has thoughts on these issues or others....enough now - have had several other meetings with officers but more of that in future blogs - time for something to eat now!!

Green party question from Cllr Martin Whiteside: Whether the funds allocated are sufficient to meet all the 2008/09 outcomes committed to in the SDC Environmental Strategy (including pro-rata targets if the outcome commitment is beyond 2008/09)?

Here is the answer given: Sufficient resources have been set aside to deliver the ‘immediate priority actions’ set out on pages 4, 7, 9, 12 and 13 of the Strategy. Any variations in delivery timescales will be set out in the Corporate Delivery Plan 9-month update being reported to Cabinet on January 31. In terms of the Council’s performance targets (main outcomes) there are 8 set out in the Strategy. It should also be noted that there are 8 ‘Community Aspiration’ targets which are not dealt with here as they are subject to long-term monitoring. The following summarises current progress in terms of the Council’s performance targets. Sufficient resources are currently available in each case and any potential risks in terms of a requirement for significant additional resources in the future are identified.

- (Page 5) By 2010 all households in the District will have a convenient and easy-to-use collection services, enabling them to recycle and compost at least 70% of their rubbish. The exact resource needs and timescales for implementation will be dependent on the outcomes from the evaluation of the Stanley’s Waste Trial (due to take place in the summer of 08) and discussions concerning the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy. The financial implications will need to be clarified during the winter 2008/08 budget cycle. It should be noted that an initial £525k was set aside in last years budget for this purpose.

- (Page 8) To reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the council’s direct operations (electricity, heating and transport) by a minimum of 3% per annum. The Council is currently developing a carbon footprint. The estimated net carbon dioxide emissions for 2006/07 are set out below and have been calculated using current DEFRA guidance. All figures are subject to confirmation.