Agenda item

To receive the report of the Head of Planning which seeks endorsement of Paragraph 4.3 as the Council’s formal response to the consultation.

The Interim Planning Policy Manager presented the report which provided an overview of the further post submission proposed changes and further potential main modifications to Stroud District Local Plan and requested the Sub-Committee to endorse paragraph 4.3 of the report as the Council’s formal response to this consultation.

He outlined the key issues of the changes which had been proposed by Stroud District Council detailed at paragraph 4.1 and the interim response which had been sent at paragraph 4.3.

He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 4.3.7 where the City Council would welcome the opportunity to work closely with Stroud on the master planning for Hunts Grove to ensure that the appropriate supporting infrastructure and linkages to the surrounding area were put in place to support the level of growth proposed in the area for the benefit of Gloucester City.

He advised that Stroud District Council had been advised that the response was subject to ratification by the Sub-Committee at this meeting.

Councillor Smith was concerned by the apparent lack of proposals for infrastructure improvements and asked if there had been any recent studies on road capacity.

The Vice-Chair noted that there would be an increase in the amount of traffic accessing the motorway and stated that the traffic was already backed up at peak periods. He believed that the majority of traffic from Hunts Grove would go to the motorway via Junction 12 or to Gloucester.

The Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that further work on traffic was anticipated as part of the City Plan preparation.

Councillor Smith suggested that Stroud should part-fund the study.

The Vice-Chair noted that there would be an increase in lorries if the incinerator was to go ahead. He questioned whether the Hunts Grove development would generate Community Infrastructure Levy and he believed that any monies generated by the Levy should be spent in the area.

Councillor Dee referred to pre-Joint Core Strategy meetings with Stroud. He noted that the roundabout at St Barnabas was already operating above capacity and it would take in the region of £20 - £40 million pounds to solve the problems.

The Vice-Chair asked why Stroud was not considering growth at Whitminster or Eastington which were convenient areas for motorway links and to access industrial sites at Stonehouse and Stroud.

The Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that Stroud were proposing significant growth elsewhere in their district and that officers would be resisting growth in the Whaddon area through the Joint Core Strategy examination in October. Councillor Dee noted that the Environment Agency was concerned about the drainage implications of development at Whaddon.

In answer to a question from Councillor McLellan, the Interim Planning Policy Manager confirmed that the JCS was facing upward pressure on both housing and employment land but it was too early to quantify at the present time although consultants were working on the issues.

Members supported the interim response that had been submitted by officers but requested that the wording of paragraph 4.3.6 be strengthened.

RESOLVED that paragraph 4.3 of the report be endorsed as the City Council’s formal response to the consultation by Stroud District Council subject to the wording of paragraph 4.3.6 being strengthened.