Latest Documents
If you visit the Examination Library you'll find a letter(19:01:2024), from SDC asking for a delay and a response(05:02:2024), from the Inspectors, giving SDC until the 5th of Dec 2024 to get sorted and then the Examination will continue.
If you go Facebook you'll find both Wisloe Action Group and CAM COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP (CCAG) PRESS STATEMENT(on Dursley Matters) have put out statements about The SDC MeetingCAM COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP (CCAG) PRESS STATEMENT
Stroud District Council Extraordinary Full Meeting "CCAG are not anti development, we just want development that is fair; needed and not being dumped on, proportionate; sustainable and in keeping with our village and town settings, of benefit to local people. This draft plan does not meet that test and certainly not for Cam."
Stroud District Council Political Leadership by recent public statements have turned the mess of the unsound draft local plan presented to Inspectors, into a political fight, the only barricade they had left outside their bunker in Ebley Mill to try and stop open and honest debate or a real examination of options, costs, risks and mitigations. So it was not surprising raw politics emerged.
This Extraordinary Full Council has momentarily prised them out of their bunker and we thank Councillors who made that happen on behalf of the many who remain very concerned for the future that the current draft plan paints for our community. The responses by the Executive have not allayed our concerns and project fear of no other choice remains the narrative. We heard that starting again would reach the same point. Frankly no, because a different plan and spatial strategy would be produced that was sound.
A statement was made that decisions are based on evidence and all Councils will have had an explanation of those decisions. Well. evidence was presented by Cam Parish Council yet there have been no meetings to explain why it was disregarded, in fact no collaborative engagement at all. Further, evidence presented by National Highways and Gloucestershire County Council was clearly disregarded, with no collaborative engagement, otherwise we would not now be in this mess.
The pause request and plan was never openly presented, questioned, debated or voted on. Worse still, statements made to the press have been misleading based on the evidence and letters from the Inspectors and with the most recent attempt last October to have a proper debate stifled.
SDC must stop denying the serious position we are in, demonstrate some humility and real leadership and produce a realistic and costed local development plan that does not spend hard earned Council Tax payers money chasing wishful thinking multi million pound infrastructure. They must use the right drivers of real housing need and genuinely and honestly collaborate and consult with statutory consultees, Parish and Town Councils and residents to produce a fair, proportionate and beneficial plan of benefit to our communities. End.
Wisloe Action Group (WAG)
We feel obliged to write this due to the shameful failures of the Council.
WAG want a robust, sound, viable and deliverable local plan that it right for our District and our Parish. Unfortunately Stroud District Council has taken an approach over the past 7 years that was not collaborative, choosing instead a pre-determined developer led plan rather than working with communities to which it should serve.
We have been ignored and treated as NIMBYS!
The Planning Inspectors paused the examination hearing to consider the additional evidence submitted during the sessions. It was not, as stated at the Extraordinary meeting or in the Councils FAQs, for a "summer break"! It was paused for a good reason.
The Inspectors initial letter from 4th August provided options for the Council on the way forward. It stated "we consider that withdrawal of the Stroud District Local Plan from this examination may well be the most appropriate way forward". This was due to fundamental soundness concerns.
Another six months has passed and nothing has changed.
The councils position has been supported by its Administrations for 7 years.
It is clear many of Stroud's elected members do not understand the plan making procedure, what is in the draft plan, and the severity of the situation the Council has managed to corner itself into. It only has itself, and those elected members who voted this through on small majorities in 2021 and continue to support it, to blame.
Instead, the Council actively chose to ignore numerous public consultations and follow a vanity project. It now blames the latest position on everyone else. The Council had an opportunity to do the right thing last night but failed to take it. The Examination process is underway, but the Council is not powerless to act as the CEO and Administration stated in the Extraordinary meeting. This is incredibly misleading to the public. It is time for the Administration to take a very close look in the mirror. They may not like what they see but they need to show leadership over the Council by taking the reins and withdraw the plan now.
We do not make this statement lightly. We only ever wanted the right plan in place and made that intent clear to the Leaders and Strategic Planning team for 5 years.
It is not a matter of we told you so, but the fact they would not listen. But apparently that's NIMBYS!
But where does that leave the residents of Stroud?
The Inspectors are considering the latest submission by the Council and we await the publication their letter on the way forward.
The Stroud District Council are aware there is still some confusion over the current status of the Examination and what is and isn’t in the control of the Council. To assist Elected Members and the public, the Council has produced a set of FAQs which was published 22 January 2024 here:
https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/2345021/faq-jan-24.pdf and not as previously stated https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/2345015/faq-jan-24.pdf, this link was correct at the time of the meeting, but someone said SDC weren't allowed to put it in the Examination area and so I can only guess that is why it has been moved. I didn't copy it when I read it last week or I could check to see if anything changed?
The SDC YouTube Channel.
The Council asked for and were given 6 months to address problems the inspectors found but apparently needed 7 months! See below.Found on the examination Page Dated 18:12:2023
Stroud District Local Plan Review Examination
Inspectors: Victoria Lucas LLB MCD MRTPI and
Yvonne Wright BSc (Hons) DipTP MSc DMS MRTPI
Programme Officer: Charlotte Glancy
Email: bankssolutionsuk@gmail.com
Tel: 01903 776601 Mobile: 07519 628064
____________________________________________________
Ms Kathy O’Leary
Chief Executive
Stroud District Council
Sent by email
18 December 2023Dear Ms O’Leary
Stroud District Local Plan Review Examination
1. Thank you for your letter dated 30 November 2023. We also acknowledge the letters received from South Gloucestershire Council (SGC), Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and National Highways (NH). We again wish to extend our thanks to all parties for their continuing constructive engagement and for responding to our request in our letter dated 23 October 2023.
2. We welcome Stroud District Council’s (SDC’s) offer to act as the equivalent scheme sponsor for a J14 scheme. We feel this is a positive step forwards and trust that this will aid all parties involved in working together to resolve the strategic issues that have been identified to date.
3. We are continuing to consider the responses and information received to date. There are however a few remaining issues where we require clarification from SDC.
Programme for future work
4. Firstly, we would like to request clarification on the anticipated start date for the proposed pause in the Examination. Has work already started or has it yet to commence? We would also like clarity on the length of the pause that is now being requested. We note that week 32 has been referred to in the Joint Action Plan (JAP) which will take it beyond the 6 month period already requested (approximately 7 months). A longer period of pause may not necessarily be problematic in principle if it were to reflect a more achievable timetable, although as set out below, it may have wider implications for the Plan if it results in the need for other evidence to be updated.
5. Additionally, should we agree to a pause so that further work can be undertaken, it is likely that significant new information will be submitted to the Examination in due course. Following our consideration of this additional evidence we would then require that further public consultation takes place to allow interested parties and residents to comment on the additional evidence. This period of consultation would presumably last for 6 weeks and would need to be built into the Examination timetable. It may also transpire that further Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment work may need to be undertaken and consulted upon. Again, this would need to be built into the Examination timetable. Once a period of consultation and further assessment has been undertaken, the Council would then need time to assess and collate the responses in order to provide a summary document to us.
6. We feel it is important to be open and realistic at this stage as to the work that will lie ahead should a pause in the Examination be granted. It will be important to keep the Examination on track with a detailed timetable that sets out the work that will be undertaken and the time necessary to complete it. If it would take 7 months to complete the additional transport work, based on our experience we would suggest a minimum of 3 months is added to this so as to undertake public consultation and any environmental assessment work. It may well be prudent to add further time to this to account for unexpected delays and to allow for internal Council processes, such as taking any documents to relevant Committees for sign off.
7. Taking all of the above into account, it follows that the further work may well realistically require a pause in the Examination of close to 12 months. We would request that the Council considers this carefully and advises us of their intentions. We appreciate the desire to complete the work quickly and to proceed with the Examination but it is essential that all factors are taken into account and included in a future programme of work. In the event that the programme of work (including consultation processes) be completed sooner than 12 months, then of course there would be flexibility in resuming the Examination earlier. Another issue to bear in mind is that during a lengthy pause to an Examination, other pieces of key evidence may well require a refresh to ensure that they are up to date. If evidence is updated this could have implications for the Plan.
Joint Action Plan (JAP)
8. Turning to the JAP itself, we welcome the progress that has been made with this work and are encouraged by the joint working that has taken place in producing it. The stages appear detailed and the timescale whilst remaining ambitious appears to be achievable. We would however like to emphasise that it is the outputs from this additional work that will be key. It would be useful to develop schemes that can be worked up for the junction improvements as this will allow more accurate costings to be identified.
9. As noted by GCC in their response, this will allow for funding sources to be identified and applied for in the future. However, at the conclusion of this work no external committed funding will have been identified for these schemes. The schemes will therefore remain unfunded. In the context of significantly costly SRN improvements, it is the lack of secured funding and plans for implementation that calls their deliverability into question and that remains one of our fundamental concerns about the soundness of the Plan.
Identifying ‘non-IDP’ sites
10.We welcome the work that has been done on identifying sites that could potentially come forward without severe traffic impacts on J12 and J14. It would be useful if the Council could confirm to us if the intention is to continue to develop this list of sites as a possible fall back position should the SRN mitigation measures prove to be undeliverable during the Plan period.
11.Work to identify a level of development that could be accommodated before the need for the mitigation measures is triggered will also be useful. It will assist us greatly in understanding the amount and location of development that could be safely accommodated in the District without severe traffic impacts to the SRN occurring. We note that National Highways has offered to undertake work to identify the trigger point at which capacity on the SRN would be exceeded and we welcome this.
12.We do however have a number of queries regarding the document Appendix 2 AC6 “Note on Housing supply which could be delivered before impacts on M5 J12 and J14 would require mitigation”, dated 12 May 2023 (the Appendix) and the modelling that has been used to generate this list of sites.
i) Please confirm that the ‘non-IDP’ sites listed are those identified
in the Technical Note that do not individually represent more than 5% or more of the Local Plan development traffic forecast to use either J12 or J14.ii) We would like confirmation of whether any modelling has been undertaken of the cumulative impact of these non-IDP sites on the SRN? If not, please explain why this is not considered necessary.
iii) We understand that the traffic modelling to support the Appendix has been taken from the 2040 modelling used to support the Local Plan evidence and that it has not been re-run to assess the development set out in the Appendix. As such we understand that the 2040 modelling included junction improvements at both J12 and J14 (improved grade separated roundabouts). Please can the Council confirm if that is the case? If so, then the modelling would need to be re-run on the basis of a ‘do nothing scenario’ and any strategic junction improvements would need to be removed from the model. Without this work then there will be no modelling evidence to demonstrate what the impacts on the SRN would be if the non-IDP sites were to come forward in advance of any junction improvements being delivered. Otherwise the model is assuming that there will be extra capacity on the SRN that will not have been delivered. This is a serious flaw in the evidence that has been used to compile the list of ‘non-IDP’ sites.
iv) The employment element referred to in the Technical Note is undefined. We require further information on this, specifically the amount of employment land that would be involved. Additionally, in the event that only housing development that is identified in the Technical Note is permitted, how would the employment land affected be managed? This may also be an issue that additional SA work may need to consider in terms of any economic and social effects.
13. In the event that a list of sites can be identified that could be delivered without exceeding the capacity of the SRN and sufficient evidence is provided to justify this, it follows that there will be sites that cannot come forward due to severe SRN impacts and a lack of deliverable mitigation. We note that the Council and other respondents to our most recent letter have referred to a potential Main Modification (MM) to the Local Plan that could alter or add a policy to manage this development and in effect prevent it from coming forwards until adequate mitigation can be delivered.
14.Clearly whether or not such an MM will be justified or whether any wording that is put to us will adequately address the issue will be a matter for ourselves to consider. However, it is worth noting that there is a range of options open to Inspectors including the deletion of allocated sites from a Local Plan in the event that they are not deliverable. It may well be in this case that there is a number of allocated sites that are deemed undeliverable and therefore their deletion from the Plan would be justified.
15.A number of issues regarding the modelling in support of the list of ‘non-IDP’ sites has been highlighted to us. We would like to request the Council respond to us on these detailed matters as listed below:
i) Following the provision of additional traffic flow for the PM Peak regarding impacts on J12, we understand that this shows a higher impact (13-14%) than the AM Peak (4-6%) for the ‘nonIDP’ sites. On that basis, GCC have raised a concern that this could be considered as significant. These concerns should be fully explored and addressed as part of any further modelling work undertaken to ensure that an accurate picture is presented regarding the impacts of the ‘non-IDP’ sites on the network in the event of a ‘do nothing’ scenario. We note that GCC have also expressed a preference for a particular traffic model to be used. In undertaking any further work, we would request that the Council adopts a partnership approach and where possible agrees technical modelling details with the relevant partners (specifically GCC and NH).
ii) As part of further modelling work, it has been requested that more detailed work be undertaken on the different arms of J14 as it is understood that there may be different capacity issues at different times. This would be useful information to include that will add to the evidence base.
iii) Clarification on whether non-motorway traffic on the B4059 has been included as it has been suggested that this may impact on the operation of J14.
16. In summary, whilst we acknowledge and welcome the significant progress that has been made to date, there remains areas on which we require further clarification. This relates to the timing and duration of the pause being requested in the Examination and that all stages, including public consultation and environmental assessment, are taken account of. Regarding the JAP, we wish to emphasise that even once this work has been completed it will be unlikely that significant external funding will have been secured. As such the deliverability of the SRN mitigation schemes will remain a fundamental Plan soundness question.
17. Finally, it is apparent that there is a number of outstanding issues regarding the technical modelling work used to support the identified list of ‘non-IDP’ sites. Some of these issues are queries that we ourselves have raised. Other issues and concerns have been raised by NH, GCC and SGDC in their responses to our most recent letter. Is it the intention of the Council to undertake additional modelling work to address these issues? In their response to our letter, NH have confirmed that they will be undertaking work to identify when the mitigation work will be necessary. But it has not been confirmed to us if additional work beyond this will be undertaken and by whom.
18.We would like to emphasise that if both NH and the local Highway Authority (GCC) are raising the same concerns regarding shortcomings in the modelling evidence base then these are views that should be taken seriously. Failure to do so may ultimately undermine the conclusions based on such evidence.
19.We would be most grateful to receive a response from the Council by 19 January 2024. However, if further time is needed, please let the Programme Officer know when a response will be submitted.
20.We would like to inform all other interested parties that we are not, at this stage, inviting or accepting any other comments on this matter.
Such responses will be immediately returned to the sender by the Programme Officer.Yours sincerely
Victoria Lucas and Yvonne Wright
Inspectors appointed to examine the Stroud District Local Plan Review
If you watched the last Inspection Examination for Wisloe(still available on the SDC website) ECT/GCC produced their new and latest document Click to see the latest Document Wisloe Development Viability & Deliverability Statement, 16th June 2023.
They released it the night before the meeting so no one there could really question it. It's Confusing to say the least, the HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE or how they refer to it "Gas Main Diversion"(sound easier and safer) moves first but the bund and bridge will go in after but that means all the construction vehicles will have drive over the new live HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE for 3 years? Which I don't believe is allowed?
They said in the Examination they have been in constant talks with the Gas Company to keep their quotes up to date and yet they've chosen a route much more complex than any they got quotes on and they say it is the same as the original except instead of plus or minus 40% it's now plus or minus 30%.
The Bund only covers 50% of the length of exposed M5 so it does very little.
The M5 pedestrian bridge is a waste of £8M it does nothing more that the A4135 Bridge already does and there is already paths down to ground level both sides of the M5. This new bridge does not get anyone to the Cam/Dursley station. The only thing I can see going for it is it lands on the bit of land ECT owns! So how do you get to the station, easy they will make the Halmore Mill Bridge, just passed the Station a single lane with traffic lights so pedestrians and cyclists can cross in safety. It may cause delays on Box Road but everyone is now used to that. Which could be accessed from the existing bridge with only a pathway from one bridge to the other required which wouldn't cost £8m!I can find no mention of the Halmore Mill Bridge modifications in their time line.
Strange all the employment areas are subject to demand/funding requirements, so no guarantees they'll be built.
When we looked at the drawings it became clear number 5 Wisloe Road was no longer existing and it would appear from looking at old drawings again, from the start ECT/GCC has decided to DEMOLISH number 5 Wisloe Rd, which is impressive as it is half of a semi with number 6. ECT have said they were interested in the possible acquisition of number 6. Then they could DEMOLISH the pair.
Up until recently we only had low res copied of their Images mainly from the Pdfs they have published so with the thickness of the lines around things it was difficult to say definitely that they'd planned to get rid of 5. But in a strange turn of events ECT/GCC asked us to take down this point from Facebook and as proof they sent a hi-def image of their plan
Click here to see ECT/GCC's Latest Hi Resolution Image
You will notice Number 5 Wisloe Road has been air brushed out, and a Number 6 has lost trees Hedges and part of the garage, drive and garden along the north west side.
Click here to see Real Aerial View
Reading the Design Plan Again
It has been noticed that the new route shown in the Design Plan for the HP Gas Pipeline (described by ECT as a gas main) does not follow the path of the quotes. And yet in the Examination ECT had been saying they are confident the rerouting of the gas main would come in as quoted. When asked W&W Utilities who produced the quote knew nothing about any new route, only the ones they'd quoted for, Oops.If you look in Part 3 of the Master Plan(https://wisloe.co.uk/documents/additionalreports.pdf) and look at the acoustic survey you will find the BUND has little affect and that's because the bund covers only 60% or so of the M5 in the Wisloe side and 30% or so on the Lighten Brook side. So it looks like they are doing something but in reality it is another waste of money.
The New M5 bridge really is a waste of £8m, the only thing it achieves is ECT off loading a piece of land they don't really want. There is already a path from the A4135 M5 bridge down to the north and south sides of the M5 it just needs joining up with the main road by Halmore Mill Bridge. Funny nothing has been said about the fact that their £8m bridge still requires Halmore Mill Bridge to be reduced to a single lane with traffic lights either end so a footpath and cycle lane can be added. No one has ever mentioned that as far as I can remember but it appear in the Master Plan part 3.(Not included in the Examination Library)
I noticed that in the Examination Library the document created by SDC with a simplified version of the Reps missed out any mention of the Stroud District Council's policy ES9 about not building on land used for equestrian pursuits. Although we know they do really care, 3 people asked about it in the original document but in the simplified one it is not there? I have reported this to the Inspectors and they have asked SDC to explain. Makes you wonder what else they've missed out?
You have to wonder why the Master Plan Documents are not included the Examination Library?
UPDATE on the last question too ECT/GCC
Not being happy with their nonsense answer I asked them to answer the question asked and in plain English. 3 weeks after asking we have no answer, read into that what you will I think it means they have no plan to integrate us into the new Community.
Wow after Weeks of waiting Wisloe.co.uk answer
The relationship between existing and new residents: It is important to us that Wisloe has its own identity that's distinct from, but connected to, neighbouring villages. People tell us they want to protect neighbouring villages' identities and we want to ensure those who already live locally benefit from the new community at Wisloe. When previous consultation activity identified concerns about the impact on neighbouring villages, we changed the way the site is planned in response to this. This is why the team reshaped this area to provide more natural space and stop 'coalescence' with surrounding villages.
I think they missed the point here, what about the people living here who are not part of these new communities and have been split from their existing neighbours? You are talking about land and areas not people and communities!
Request for more detail: As explained in earlier emails, Wisloe is at an early stage of the planning process. It is not possible to share 3D models or detailed plans at this point. I am happy, however, to arrange for a hard copy of the plan to be sent to you if you wish to provide your address. On your point about access to information, you will be aware all local households were contacted about this project several times by post. People can get in touch with us by email (wisloe@distinctivecomms.co.uk) and by phone (0330 107 0535). Please know also that we remain happy to meet to discuss your questions in person.
Stroud District Council's policy ES9: This policy relates to equestrian development, which is facilities and spaces for keeping horses for leisure and recreational purposes. We are not trying to get around this policy and we recognise that this is one of several factors that need taking into account. We appreciate also that there is already space for horses in the area. We will continue to consult and engage local farmer and horse-owners on any plans as they continue to evolve.
Wisloe Farm is an Equestrian centre as well as farm and has been praise by GCC as the way forward with diversification, and they will just change it to housing?
ECT/GCC release their New Wisloe Design Code
Having looked through it, it's biggest problem seems to be a total disregard for the existing residents. After all these years of so say talking to residents they have decided putting them in parks, isolating them from the new builds and separating them from their neighbours is the way to go. No wonder the "lady in Red" at the first meeting said about building walls around our properties. On 20th of Feb and asked for a copy of the document to be sent to the 17 households directly effected and even offered to deliver them myself. Still awaiting a response. 15th of March still no reply so I've emailed Michael Birnie(Property Director ECT) still no reply.
Having read the Document the first thing that struck me was the "HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE" which runs through the site. I believe this is the "Gas Main" they say will be moved " the diversion of the Gas Main (which runs northeast to southwest through the centre of the site)" as oppose to the actual gas main which we resident get our gas from.
If you read the document, remember it states clearly at the very start:
The words ‘will’, ‘shall’ and ‘must’ are used to define mandatory guidance.
The words ‘could’, ‘should’, ‘may’ and ‘can’ provide discretionary guidance where alternative design approaches can be considered.
So perhaps the HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE/gas main might stay they haven't used any of their keywords.
Will is used 598 times, as in "Prior to Planning Submission for any phase of development the developer will engage with the community and stakeholders to enable proposals to be reviewed before they are finalised. I'm sure we will be heard.
Shall only seems to be used 12 times in relations to cycles, parking and bins.
Must is used 149 times
Security By Design sounds good it means all the new build will be built with this in mind leaving existing home as easy targets.
ECT/GCC say SECURED BY DESIGN
The layout at Wisloe is based on a perimeter block structure which maximises natural surveillance of the streets and public realm. The delineation between public and private areas is very well defined. All public boundaries to private rear gardens will
be enclosed with walls, and features such as internal parking courts and public access to the rear of properties limited.Certainly existing homes in Wisloe Rd are neighbours of GCC farm and therefore must have stockproof fence with barbed wire atop. And yet these are now in leisure and as such must be safe so I guess our Hawthorn hedges and barbed wire will have to go?
Who will be the neighbours of existing resident, a faceless Stewardship Body made up of:
The Ernest Cook Trust / Gloucestershire County Council By appointment.
Commercial Business representatives By election of businesses on site.
Chair of Primary School of Governors By appointment.
Social Housing Providers By appointment.
Voluntary/Community/faith interest representatives By appointment.
Residents By election of residents on site.
Co-opt By Board members.Residents of 17 home are not going to get much say against resident of 1500 houses in 3 districts all outside of those enclaves.
Looking at their 7.5.3 Block Typologies, page 85, there appears to be 5 or 6 distinct areas and the existing houses fit into none of these?
Looking at these blocks alot of it feels like going back to Yate, front doors that never get used because you can't park near them. Has anyone spoken to the postman and all those parcel delivery people we all now use because we don't have to go out to shop? With only 17 Homes you be amazed how many white van deliver every day here what will it be like with 1517 awaiting deliveries?
One thing ECT/GCC promised(?) was less traffic down Dursley road which now appears to be the main bus route and the main route in if you're coming from the north. And yet is says "Walking and cycling will always be the most attractive and convenient way to travel to local facilities, and the use of private cars will be restricted with limited through direct routes for vehicles and no through vehicular connectivity to Cambridge." I think they need to publish better plans.
It is good to see we'll be getting "Cast Iron Nameplates with white lettering on black
background should be used for street names." That's what alot of people have been worried about. But still no mention existing residents?
Still haven't heard an answer
In https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1939042/stroud-local-plan-viability-assessment-2022-refresh-report.pdf why, on page 111, did Savills for The Ernest Cook Trust and Gloucestershire County Council (as landowner) in relation to Wisloe ask about Hotels, are they putting some here?
Hotels
5.32 For the hotel sector, a rental of £5,000/room/year for newbuild hotels is assumed to apply across the area. Assuming a yield of 5%, this equates to a value of about £4,050/m2 (£376/sqft). It is important to note that this study is only concerned with newbuild hotels115.
5.33 An agent116 for a Strategic Site noted that hotels are typically valued on a 'profits' or turnover basis. This is agreed in relation to existing hotels, but in the case of hotels yet to be built, the proposed approach is appropriate.
115 60 rooms x £5,000 = £300,000. 5% yield = £6,000,00. 60 rooms @19m2 + 30% circulation space = £4,049/m2
116 Savills for The Ernest Cook Trust and Gloucestershire County Council (as landowner) in relation to Wisloe.
Appraisal Assumptions
5.34 The value assumptions have been updated as follows:
Table 5.2 Non-Residential Values £/m2 2022
Rent £/m2 Yield Rent free
period
Assumption Offices - Large £175 6.75% 1.0 £2,429 £2,450 Offices - Small £175 8.00% 1.0 £2,025 £2,025 Industrial - Large £80 4.50% 1.0 £1,701 £1,700 Industrial - Small £75 7.00% 1.0 £1,001 £1,000 Retail - Central £350 5.50% 1.0 £6,032 £6,000 Retail (elsewhere) £200 9.00% 1.0 £2,039 £2,000 Supermarket £280 5.25% 1.0 £5,067 £5,000 Retail Warehouse £200 6.00% 2.0 £2,967 £3,000 Hotel (per room) £5,000 5.00% 0.0 £4,049 £4,050
Cost so far 08:02:2023
I just got a reply from Gloucestershire County Council in respect of the Wisloe Development, up to 26/01/2023 Wait for it £225,463.43 so I guess that' just under half a million(£451,000) between the partners, which sounds a lot but I think other developments had more spent on them at the beginning of the process so it does seem a bit half hearted. When asked for their response to the Public Consultation to their Draft plan(Master Plan) they said The masterplans were provided in support of the regulation 19 call for sites in the Stroud District Councils local plan, and remain as a matter of fact. However, subsequent public engagement has occurred, and a review of the responses is being incorporated into an updated design code, with a release/publication date within the next two months. Not as optimistic as Wisloe.co.uk who on the 30th of Jan said "Likely to be a in a few weeks rather than days"
The Updated MasterPlan should be Released Soon 30:01:2023
I asked Wisloe(ECT/GCC) why after all their consultations no update on their Plan had not been announced and they said "We will publish an update on this work shortly." I replied "When" and they've said "Likely to be a in a few weeks rather than days" So watch this space I will update if/when they finally come up with their revised plan.
Re the 2022 SLP-01a and SLP-01b
Having read some more of the responses, it appears they have not included all our remarks in the SDC version, I for one asked about the SDC's own rules "Delivery Policy ES9 Equestrian development" which stops developers doing anything with land used for equestrian purposes", after all Wisloe Stables is an equestrian centre. So check if your points made it into the new documents, SDC were only suppose to make it easier to read not edit out bits they don't want.
Planning put on hold
I didn't know this until I read this months Parish Newsletter so I went on the SDC Website and found a letter from the Inspectors:
28 January 2022
Sent by emailDear Stroud District Council
Inspectors' Initial Request to the CouncilAs you will be aware, we have been appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct the examination of the Stroud District Local Plan Review. We are currently at the preparation stage where we are initially reading through the Plan and relevant submitted evidence and the representations.
To assist us so that we can progress the Examination, we require a summary of the duly made representations in tabular form setting out the representations against legal compliance issues, Plan sections and policies and any other documents.
The following information is required:
. Policy/paragraph of Plan/legal compliance issue or other document being commented on;
. Representor name/organisation name and representor ID number (where representations are similar these may be grouped together so that only one summary is provided, but all representor ID numbers need to be listed);
. Summary of the representation/group of representations on the specific Plan policy/paragraph/legal compliance issue or other document;
. Council response to the summary of the representation/group of representations; and
. Any suggested Council modifications for consideration.We would like the Council to inform us when they consider they would be able to provide this summary of representations. We will not be able to progress the Examination until we have received this.
If the Council has any queries on the contents of this letter, please contact us through the Programme Officer.
Yours sincerely
VL and YW
Inspectors appointed to examine the Stroud District Local Plan Review
No mention of the out of date ALC that still says grade 3b instead of the correct grade 2?
If you now goto the Examination Library (Read it here) it has a number of new Documents dated 2022, SLP-01a, SLP-01b
most of them seem to be;
Issue; Wisloe is unsustainable or deliverable and should be removed. SDC "Yes it is" orIssue; The Development Strategy does not accord with national planning policy. SDC "Yes it does" or
Issue; There is not enough evidence to suggest the site has market demand as they are all too close together. SDC "There is no evidence of a lack of market demand in these areas." or
Issue; new community proposed at PS37 Wisloe was not supported by residents. SDC no answer or
Issue; PS37. Wisloe is an unsuitable site for development due to Agricultural Land Classification, Noise, Pollution, Ecology, Coalescence, HSE, Highways, Sustainable Transport, Sustainability Assessment, Footpaths/PROW, Flooding, minerals, Archaeology, Landscape and AONB. SDC "Comments not relevant to this policy." or
Issue; Very concerned by the flood risk from Wisloe (PS37). SDC "All sites have been assessed in the SFRA Levels 1 & 2 (EB54) as suitable for allocation with on-site specifics to be agreed at the planning application stage." or
Issue; Many contradictions with PS37 Wisloe site. SDC "The Council considers Strategic Site Allocation PS37 suitable for development. Topic Paper: Assessment and selection of sites October 2021 (EB9) sets out the assessment process and highlights the key factors the Council has weighed in the balance, in terms of site selection. On-site specifics; including safeguarding and enhancing local landscape character, to be addressed at the masterplan/ planning application stage. or
Issue;Support the growth strategy for concentration of growth in a few large sites including new settlements at Sharpness and Wisloe subject to adequate physical and community infrastructure being provided in step with development including improved public transport. SDC "Comment noted" or
And so on and on
SDC do admit the site has been resurveyed and now accurately graded. So why is that not in the Library?
Please read these Documents this is only the tip of the Iceberg there are many good arguments against Building at Wisloe and very few stake holders for it (Sport England) or good arguments for it.
FOI request to Gloucestershire County Council 28:05:22
Still waiting!
FOI request to Gloucestershire County Council
With the upcoming event last month I asked GCC how much they'd spent so far on the Wisloe green Proposal and how much each of the monthly drop-ins would cost us.On the 18:02:2022 I received this:
Request summary:
1) Including the cost of march 18th drop-in event how much has the council spent on the Wisloe Green proposal?
2) How much will each of the monthly drop-in session cost?Due to the ongoing uncertainty of the full impact of COVID-19 there are likely to be disruptions to our services. At the moment, we are focussing on high priority work and the remainder will be subject to delays. We appreciate your patience during these unprecedented times.
We aim to respond to your request no later than midnight on 18 March 2022 (the statutory timescale of 20 working days, starting on the working day following receipt of your request). We may need to contact you if the request needs to be clarified; this is to ensure we provide you with the information you require.
So the answer should have been here for today but I got this on 16:03:2022
I am writing to apologise for the delay in responding to your request. I am continuing to work on your request and will respond as soon as possible.
The Request Management team are currently receiving high volumes of complex requests. Covid19 has added pressure to this situation, creating delays in us being able to access information in support of Freedom of Information, Subject Access and other Data Protection Act right requests.
As a result, we have a significant backlog of requests and are unable to meet our statutory deadline in some cases. We are increasing our capacity to manage this backlog, though it will be some months before it is cleared. We appreciate your patience and understanding during this time.
Face to Face 18th March 2022
You won't see me there.On Sept 24th 2019, on behalf of ECT/GCC, Studio LK ran a drop-in at the Legion, I believe Lita Khazaka(the now notorious lady in red) spoke to many of us and upset most, never having visited Cambridge or Wisloe and saying whether we liked it or not 1500 houses would be here so get used to it.
I was going to go to last month's to see how far their plans had progressed but after they cancelled and put everything online, I wondered why bother, it's still the same as it was in 2019 and they are still asking the same questions with no room for a "is this the wrong place". Their questionnaire implies you want the development at Cambridge and that they have the go ahead, THEY DON'T!. Their plan is so good they haven't even got a developer onboard after all these years. Plus even by going to their website they count every click as a positive endorsement and I'm sure by turning up they will say everyone is for it.
If you read their plan you will see they will build a lot of house before any amenities go in and then after all the houses are finished if they have money and they feel there is a need they may build employment centres and a school! So although they keeps sayin about the jobs and school it is up to them and not really part of the plan.
If you see their questions it's joke, they are asking which of the thing they promised originally you would prefer implying you can't have them all and if you have the landscape mound to screen the motorway noise you might not get direct safe new walking and cycle routes. And if that's is what happens they can blame us for picking whatever they say we picked.
As WAG said this is a box ticking exercise if I go they will take no notice of any I say and they can tell the inspectors that they spoke with us and we all support their plan.
Protest at Slimbridge AFC, Wisloe Rd on Friday 18th of Feb took place
There were quite a few turned up to brave the wind and rain, luckily there was a break. A Reporter was there and got lots of photos so keep your eyes open it should be in the Gazette.
Postponed Wisloe Social have informed me that:
Wisloe consultation event - Postponed until Friday 18 March due to severe weather warning
As you may be aware, the Met Office has issued a rare Red Weather Warning for extremely strong winds affecting parts of Gloucestershire. Gloucestershire's Local Resilience Forum has also declared a major incident due to the risks posed by Storm Eunice.
Given the above, for everyone's safety we have reluctantly decided to postpone tomorrow's Wisloe consultation event, in order to avoid putting those attending at any unnecessary risk.
Part 7 - If you go to the Face to Face at Slimbridge AFC, Wisloe Rd on Friday 18th of Feb 2pm-7pm
You might ask if this is such a good proposal why hasn't any Developers got on board?Why did 87% of the survey responders vote against it.
Why is the Gloucestershire County Council wasting our money on this monthly meeting before the Inspector makes a decision if Wisloe is included?
If you are against this proposal make sure they make a note of it and don't just put you down as turned up so must be in favour.
Wisloe Social have informed me that:
The information that is going to be displayed tomorrow is from the latest masterplan that was published in August 2021.
There will be representatives from The Ernest Cook Trust, Gloucestershire County Council and the project team attending tomorrow.
Part 6 - If you go to the Face to Face at Slimbridge AFC, Wisloe Rd on Friday 18th of Feb 2pm-7pm
You might ask who you are talking to and who they work for? At the last drop-in they held no one was Identified and as far as I know none were actually from the Ernest Cook Trust or Gloucestershire County Council. Many didn't know the area or even how to say Cambridge or that there was a river Cam! I'm sure they will be better prepare than last time. And perhaps this time they won't use photos of parishioners without their permission.They will tell you, whether you like it or not, this development will happen. This is not true.
They will tell you what you want to hear.
There will be a new footbridge over the M5, if that doesn't satisfy you they can get a grant to move the station to the other side of the A4135!
Too much traffic at the round about, they'll put in 5 new roads to reduce the flow on any one road. These become rat runs they will block them off.
They have answers for everything it's only when compare answers after that you find out "they have no answers".
Part 5 - If you go to the Face to Face at Slimbridge AFC, Wisloe Rd on Friday 18th of Feb 2pm-7pm
You might ask about the SDC's Delivery Policy ES9 Equestrian development. It says "Any proposal for the conversion or change of use of existing equestrian establishments to a non-equestrian use will be discouraged, unless there is a strong case setting out why an exception should be made."Why should an exception be made? Other than the huge windfall in Council Tax for GCC and Service Charges ECT will be taking in.
Part 4 - If you go to the Face to Face at Slimbridge AFC, Wisloe Rd on Friday 18th of Feb 2pm-7pm
You might ask about the "green and blue infrastructure principles" they are going to use,
Read it here.It is a great principle for cleaning up Urban areas. So why mention it here unless it's going to be so bad they have to liken it to a cleaned up urban area instead of the countryside it was. In their own surveys ECT/GCC said:
Water Quality and Efficient Land use came out as Significantly Negative!
Air Quality was said to be Significantly Negative and minor Positive effects?
Chances of flooding was said to be Minor for Wisloe probably as it will be flooding somewhere else instead.(Cambridge and Slimbridge are down stream of the waterways and already flood without this.
They have shown images of their ponds that will in theory soak up the rain water, according to them. These will have to be much bigger and will be dry in the summer if they are to stand any chance of working.
Remember with the exception of a few surveys this whole plan is based on "Desktop Studies" not someone actually coming here to see the lay of the land. Their Designer at the Legion open day admitted she'd never seen Wisloe but might have passed it in the taxi from the station.
Part 3 - If you go to the Face to Face at Slimbridge AFC, Wisloe Rd on Friday 18th of Feb 2pm-7pm
You might ask about traffic problems, in 2020 11394 vehicles used the Cambridge A38 per day, 6808 on the A4135 and only 273 drove though Wisloe. Numbers have reduced due to covid over the last 2 years but put 1500 - 3000+ people driving to work, school, shopping and it's a large percentage increase if you use the 1500 number and say they use they A38 once a day that's a 13% increase and if they come back home that's an increase of 26% per day. How many cars in your household? They have an answer if you have nowhere to park you won't or can't have a car.According to Ernest Cook Trust/ Gloucestershire County Councils own Report
https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1485646/sa-report-for-stroud-district-local-plan-review_-pre-submission-may-2021.pdf"While the policy includes a requirement reference to car parking provision, the emphasis is on keeping the level provided as low as possible and developers must justify the level of parking provided and demonstrate that it will not have a detrimental impact on the road network.
The policy states that parking provision should be used as a policy lever to discourage car trips. However, there is a possibility that residents will have inadequate access to services and facilities during the early stages of development, which may result in a need to travel further afield using private car trips, resulting in decreased air quality in the short term.
Furthermore, providing employment at these locations could result in some in commuting by private car given the high level of accessibility to the strategic road network. While the good level of access to the strategic road network from these locations may result in increased potential for journeys to be made by car and associated levels of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, these locations are likely to be attractive to potential investors.
Part 2 - If you go to the Face to Face at Slimbridge AFC, Wisloe Rd on Friday 18th of Feb 2pm-7pm
You might like to ask ECT and GCC why their initial Land Survey stated the land was grade 3b and yet all others say "Grade 2" top quality agricultural land and will they be seeking a refund as we the Council Tax payers paid 50% for it and was this fraud or incompetence? Perhaps there should be some sort of public report of what happened as it was paid for with public money.ECT and GCC are not "Joint Owners" of the land they do own 92% so by their own admission so that means 8% is owned by others, in many cases others that, unlike them, live here and don't want over 1500 houses put on the surounding Grade 2 Land.
IF the first 150 house are built, why would they be put in at least a year before the Noise bunds? Will 150 new home owner be happy to live so close to the High Pressure Gas Pipeline whilst they reroute it? Those 150 homes will need cars as the Bridge isn't planned for another 2 years. And they won't even be planning a possible school for 5 years.
Why will people move here and work here when the employment part is only subject to demand and more importantly FUNDING, as is the school.
Part 1 - Face to Face at Slimbridge AFC, Wisloe Rd on Friday 18th of Feb 2pm-7pm
ECT and GCC have said they have invited us all along to see their displays and talk about the future of Wisloe.I think the first thing to say here is unless the Inspector agrees their plan then they have Nothing to Talk About!
If they were interested in our opinions then why didn't they use the results from the past 2 SDC Surveys of which the last showed Stroud was 86% against the Wisloe Development. And of people who were for it 89% were people who Voted to keep Sharpness out so probably Sharpness residents who thought it was a good idea to throw us under the bus instead. It shows the way SDC is putting Neighbourhood against Neighbourhood in an effort to avoid us banding to together.
Have you seen the "RE: Stroud District Council Local Plan Submission" Email
I did and followed the link to find out what had been submitted www.stroud.gov.uk/environment/planning-and-building-control/planning-strategy/stroud-district-local-plan-review/local-plan-examination.Then
Then EB96a PS37 Agricultural Land Classification
Which takes us to
Then EB96 Documents relating to PS37 new settlement at Wisloe, its final destination is the incorrect at best or fraudulent at worst, it's the original ALC which said the Land was Grade 3b, which even ECT and GCC admit is not right! Why is this the goto ALC? Two more Agri. Land Surveys have been done since and both found the land is GRADE 2 !
Yet again to find anything relating to one site seems to lead you all over the place as if to stop people looking!
Just found this
I only just found this, Just down the road and on the opposite side to the propose entrance to part of the Wisloe Village a proposed redevelopment of the garden centre was rejected on the grounds "As the site is to be accessed and egressed onto a fast flowing and busy highway where documented traffic speeds indicate that 85 percentile speeds are in excess of the prescribed limits, a non-compliant site in terms of highway design and the intensification of the site as a result of this proposal would undoubtedly increase the potential for significant highway incident." So what about Wisloe? See full report in the Gazette
Our responses have been put on the SDC site
I put a link on Facebook but no one seems interested? September 2021 Stroud District Local Plan: Regulation 19 RepresentationsThese are the redacted responses from the public, not sure what redated means in this case as they are all done by name? I guess this time our phone numbers, email addresses and postal addresses are not included.
Redacted database Just like the last one this is big and difficult to navigate as it's not just for one plan but all the stroud ones. On the plus side only 29 people were in favour of the Wisloe site being included and 183 against so of interested parties who responded 86% were against, if that means anything to SDC. Strangely some of those in favour, No 573 then go on to say "I do not support the building of large numbers of houses at Wisloe". And No 702 says "I'm not sure support is the right word for what I feel". Of the 29 in support of including Wisloe, 13 had no reason why to include it! Most thought it was good because it's close to the railway and Cam Doctors. One because apparently because Sports England supports it!
It also seems most of people (26 out of 29) who support Wisloe's inclusion also objected to Sharpness, thanks the people of Sharpness! I only found 2 (out of 183) that objected to Wisloe and supported Sharpness. It shows the way this is set out to put neighbourhood against neighbourhood and with some people it worked.
Michael Birnie, Property Director at The Ernest Cook Trust, said:
"The nation faces a challenge to build the homes we need whilst tackling the climate and ecological emergencies we face. As a responsible landowner The Ernest Cook Trust has an important role to play in tackling these issues by demonstrating how new homes can be designed and built in a way that contributes to protecting the planet.If he is so concerned about the planet why build on agricultural land rather than brownfield sites? And if not for future food production, with the introduction of E10 fuels more land will be require for fuel production. Can you grow such crops on brownfield sites?
He also said "The project is committed to working with communities as these plans progress and we look forward to hearing what people think. By benefiting from the local community's input, we're shaping a place everyone can be proud of."
If he is so committed to working with communities why ignore what local communities have told them they think of this plan? Well another week has past GCC still hasn't got replied to say why they hadn't replied by the date (11th Aug) they first said (the statutory timescale of 20 working days, starting on the working day following receipt of your request).
ECT said; Just a quick note to let you know I am still waiting on a couple of bits and pieces. I'll let you know as soon as we're ready to publish everything.
Another week passes and they still have no idea what they are doing or when!
What became of Spring Wisloe Masterplan 2b
On the 14th of July I asked Gloucestershire County Council a number of things including when was the Spring Masterplan being released and why the website still said it had been available since Spring and was being consulted on this was their response:We aim to respond to your request no later than midnight on 11 August 2021 (the statutory timescale of 20 working days, starting on the working day following receipt of your request). We may need to contact you if the request needs to be clarified; this is to ensure we provide you with the information you require.
You may have noticed that was supposed to be answered by a week ago today. Yet again neither of the groups behind the Wisloe Development can keep to a date so what did they say today, when I asked what happened:
We are working on your request and will send the response as soon as possible.
We live in hope.
What became of Spring Wisloe Masterplan 2
August I received an email from ECT/GCC Development people, 12th August, saying re: The Spring MasterplanJust a quick note to let you know I am still waiting on a couple of bits and pieces. I'll let you know as soon as we're ready to publish everything.
2 Months ago it was going to be published very shortly, then shortly. And just over one Month ago it was again shortly. What hope is there that if they get their permission, to go ahead, they can deliver if they are already so far behind at this early stage?
And yes they still will not correct their website where it states "Consultation on a Masterplan Spring 2021" Ticked and "Further ongoing consultation as the Masterplan is refined Spring 2021" Ticked?
Keep watching
Gloucestershire County Council's Spend so far on Wisloe Green
Well I guess we pay for that in our Council Tax. As of March 11th they say "Although we haven't reconciled this years figures yet, we thought it helpful and in the interests of transparency, to provide an estimated figure rather than decline to answer this part of the FOI. Initial review suggests that expenditure to the end of the financial year 20/21 is likely to be approximately £73,500. For the avoidance of doubt this includes the declared figure of £47,632.15 from 23/10/2019"How much did they spend on the Leaflets we got in February, £2,680
Obviously this is only half the total spend as the Ernest Cook Trust has to pay in their 50% and who knows what else they've spent?
I have asked when GCC and ECT will put the map right but neither have got back to me on that!
Responses on Stroud District plan is now Closed
Hopefully everyone got their responses in, in time. Now that's over there are no reasons for ECT/GCC to keep their Spring Masterplan a secret anymore so I guess it will be published very soon. It's now a month since they said "The masterplan will be published shortly. This is later than we had hoped but it's taken longer than expected to prepare the masterplan" (See Below). If you check their website you will find they say they have done this and are in consultation on it and have been since Spring, would it be easy to remove the tick that says they done this Yes, will they No. Watch this space.
What became of Spring Wisloe Masterplan
Gloucestershire County Council Say they will let me know by August!!!Ernest Cook Trust say, after being asked a number of times since Spring this year,
on 24:06:21, We will be publishing a masterplan very shortly. We had hoped to share something sooner but we're looking forward to sharing our work with everyone.
then on 25:06:21, The masterplan will be published shortly. This is later than we had hoped but it's taken longer than expected to prepare the masterplan.
And on 09:07:21, In relation to the website and the masterplan, we will be sharing the masterplan shortly and will update the website to reflect this.I guess it will be published after the 21st of July so it doesn't scare Slimbridge Parish Residents into mass filling of objections when they see the real plan for their Parish.
What will become of our Community if the Wisloe Dev goes ahead?
It will no longer exist. Where once 16 homes and a few businesses surrounded a Farm/Stables were, they will be engulf by 750+ houses. A Parish with 1200 adults will potentially be 4200 plus. The Parish Council will change from a typical rural Council to one voted on by a new town and thus their needs will be put above original residents and anyone not in the "Wisloe Development". As for the Community there will not be one new one but two or three or more. The A4135 splits the site and it is not an easy road to cross at the best of times. Added to that The Cambridge side of the Development is to be split into two the housing Estates and the expensive homes. How will this integrate with existing residents, a green belt will around them where new resident can play or picnic! The Community wants more afford able housing, a few spread around for locals not 1500 but SDC does not take any notice of their own poll. What do ECT/GCC have planned? We'll know after the review is done, although if you go to their website it states "the Consultation on a Masterplan" and "Further ongoing consultation as the Masterplan is refined", has happened. It is and has not, in a letter they said it was delayed, but they won't change their Website that says it was delivered Consulted on.Make sure you complete your Response form before the deadline.
Stroud District Plan review UPDATE !
The Stroud District Plan review is here, Stroud District Plan review. Don't rush off a reply there are right and wrong ways of doing this and I believe WAG will be coming out with a guide to help do this correctly.Stroud Council now inform us "in recognition of the challenges associated with carrying out public consultation during the ongoing pandemic, the Council has decided to extend the current Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation period by two weeks. The consultation period was due to end on 7 July but will now end at midnight on 21 July 2021."
To download the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 19: Publication of Local Plan, Statement of Representations Procedure and Availability, (Word docx)Click Here.
To fill in the online response form Click Here.
To Download a word Docx response form Click Here
To see the Local Plan Review, Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan, Regulation 19 Consultation May 2021 Click Here.
To see the Local Plan Review, Draft Plan for Consultation November 2019 Consultation Report, April 2021 Final Click Here.
Gloucestershire County Council and Wisloe
Gloucestershire County Council seems to have no interest in Wisloe as long as someone buys it when asked "How many homes do you plan to build at Wisloe Green if it goes ahead?" the reply was "Gloucestershire County Council will not be building any homes at the above site but is likely to sell its land interests for others to develop."
Listen to what the Councillor for Hardwick has to say
1hr 47mins into Stroud District Council Meeting of 29th April 2021 And listen to Cllr Nick Hurst(Minchinhampton) has to say on the same subject 1hr 57mins in.If you find that meeting interesting you might also be interested in the Stroud District Environment Committee - 20 April 2021
2021 - The Feb 23rd, Wisloe Leaflets Proves to be a bunch of lies
This is the invisaged size of what ECT/GCC and apparently Labour/Co-op Candidate David Drew wants here. We all saw the Wisloe Leaflet again plugging their 1500 houses and yet as seen in this document (David Drew saw it 9th Nov 2018) This is the true size 2500-5000 homes.
That's 10 times the size of Slimbridge Parish as is!! By 2026 Wisloe Green will already out number the rest of the Parish. By 2029 Wisloe will be 2 times the population of the rest of the Parish. By 2030 Wisloe will be 3 times the population of the rest of the Parish.
https://assets...Garden_Vilage__Wisloe_Green.pdf (if you look this map is dated 07/11/2018) it states they are actually planning 2500-5000 houses! On top of that it appears they want to join Cambridge up with Gossington and Slimbridge by building on both sides of the A38 between the back of the school and Tyndale Lane! Always a good start when they can't even spell Village ! It also looks like Cam/Dursley station and it's surroundings will be engulfed in the Wisloe Green Developement.
Remember on MAY 6th On April 20th Labour, Lib Dems and the Green Party Councillors all voted to keep this in and they would have had this info, Cllr Denney Lab, Cllr Lydon Lab, Cllr Townley Lab and Cllr Pickering Green were not seeking re-election after this. Skeena Rathor, Independent, seems to have been there but didn't vote.
What Gloucestershire County Council's Spend so far
Well I guess we actually pay for it in our Council Tax.As of March 11th they say "Although we haven't reconciled this years figures yet, we thought it helpful and in the interests of transparency, to provide an estimated figure rather than decline to answer this part of the FOI. Initial review suggests that expenditure to the end of the financial year 20/21 is likely to be approximately £73,500. For the avoidance of doubt this includes the declared figure of £47,632.15 from 23/10/2019"
How much did they spend on the Leaflets of lies we got in February, £2,680
Obviously this is only half the total spend as the Ernest Cook Trust has to pay in their 50% and who knows what else they've spent?
On the 3rd of March I asked when GCC and ECT will put the map right but neither have got back to me on that!
2021 Feb 23rd - Wisloe Leaflets Proves to be a bunch of lies
Dated 2018
Last month we saw the Wisloe Leaflet again plugging their 1500 houses and yet as seen in this document dated 4th Sept 2020 https://assets...Garden_Vilage__Wisloe_Green.pdf it states they are actually planning 2500-5000 houses! On top of that it appears they want to join up with Gossington and Slimbridge by building on the opposite side of the A38 between the back of the school and Tyndale Lane!
Their Timeline seems to be
2025 400 houses
2026-30 160 houses per year added
2030 1400 houses
2035 2200 houses
2050 5000 houses
Their numbers make no sense if you read pages 20 to 21The "Wisloe Garden Village Site Location Map" shows it includes areas both sides of the M5 and both sides of the A38 towards Gossington and have Issue dates of 07/11/2018 strange they don't mention any of this in their publications to residents.
Still no mention of the High Pressure Gas Pipeline running through the site.
2021 Jan 23rd - Wisloe Leaflets arrives
Got up today to find a 3 page pull out together with a survey, from the Ernest Cook Trust and Gloucester County Council, in the Post. I added a copy of their concept plan here and marked on the 17 homes that already exist on "THEIR LAND", you can see it online yourself at https://www.wisloe.co.uk/index.php?contentid=13. Yet again they imply they own all the land and ignore the community that they are decimating.
They said they've listened to previous surveys they'd done and yet what have they got 2 rat runs, one of which appears to go through someones home, and a lot of artists impressions that won't look anything like their plans.
The survey appears to be a tick box exercise, so at present I for one won't be sending anything back, maybe they should read the results of the SDC survey where most people, not only locals, were against it, if only for the amount of traffic it will unleash at the already over used A4135/A38 intersection.
Just a cursory look and they seem to have taken land from some people but that might be artistic licence, next to the A38, A4135 and M5 are the Green Spaces and Playing Fields! It says Significantly reducing traffic on Dursley road, but what is, it will either be a rat run or they will have to block it off! It also seems Wisloe is only part of the plan and they've agreed the other side of the A4135 can't be part of the Wisloe Village and now named it Lighten Brook so it can't qualify as Green or Garden Community. They've even split the Wisloe side into 2 with the council estate Wisloe Green and the exclusive flood area, River Cam Edge. Not sure I want to pay extra to live in a flood area next to the M5, but then I'm not a highly paid planner so what do I know. Again no mention how children cross from one side of the A38 or A4135 to get to their schools without the use of a car or risking life and limb across busy roads. It does make sense to put the businesses in the centre of the development as long a the people work there live near by or else traffic mayhem.
This is typical of the image(lies) they peddle, you can sit out by the river looking down to the Church. The River Cam is not where they call River Cam Edge. Also there isn't a stretch of the Cam as far as I'm aware that is that wide or that out in the open(unless they cut all the trees down and it doesn't flow towards the Chruch! And if nothing was in the way the church would not look anywhere that big! See it online yourself at https://www.wisloe.co.uk/index.php?contentid=23 at least on this after all there denighing it could flood they say about Ligten brook "A green space linking wetlands", hopefully it won't flood onto the A38 like it did Christmas. It would appear being between the Railway, A38, M5 and industrial units it has "homes designed for older people".
I know they will never show it but there appears to be no wind in any of their images clearly they still haven't been here.
June 23rd 2020
I was just sent a link to the HSE advise from 18th march 2020Decision : HSL-200312163803-55 ADVISE AGAINST
HSE's Advice: Advise Against. The assessment indicates that the risk of harm to people at the proposed development site is such that HSE's advice is that there are sufficient reasons on safety grounds, for advising against the granting of planning permission in this case.Read the whole Document here.
June 2020
We are still waiting for the Ernest Cook Trust/GGC Surveyor to come back and show Wales and West Utilities where they say they dug their survey holes to reclassify the land to Grade 3b. They are between a rock and a hard place, if they did dig they will be in trouble for not informing W&WU or checking where they were digging and putting lives at risk. As should the Ernest Cook Trust and GGC who both knew what was here. And if they didn't they have falsified the land survey?
The final Local Plan Responses are on the SDC Site - 23:06:2020
I was on the SDC Draft plan electronic reps page this morning and thought I saw some pdfs that I hadn't spotted originally. It is interesting the Ernest Cook Trust one doesn't say they did a field survey instead they did "A field surey was undertaken", what does it mean?Here's a few more that have an impact on Wisloe:
https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1165756/00355-gladman-developments-ltd.pdf
https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1165842/00413-stantec_gloucestershire-county-council_ernest-cook-trust.pdf
https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1165953/00415a-rps_tritax-symmetry.pdf
https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1166011/00430-boyer-planning_redrow.pdf
https://www.stroud.gov.uk/media/1165817/00347b-rps_redrow-homes-ltd.pdfThese are just the ones I spotted, there are probably more. I have complained to SDC as the new ones are not the next numbers following the originals but have been put in the gaps they left which is great if we keep a copy of all the numbers the previously published but I for one didn't.
Interestingly a number have stated of their "significant concerns as to the appropriateness and deliverability of the proposed new settlement at Wisloe."
The final Local Plan Responses are on the SDC Site - 05:04:2020
Final Draft Plan consultation responses 00001 - 00497 and number 00870Final Draft Plan consultation responses 00498 - 00565
Final Draft Plan consultation responses 00566 - 00874 ????
Again there are hundreds of responses the last being 875 although 566-874 are missing? Below is the numbered responses I've found that mention Wisloe or Slimbridge. Once again the Council managed to miss some Redactions.
00019*
00021
00021b
00025
00029a
00029b
00029c
00042
00047
00047b
00047c
00049
00050
00053
00054
00057
00062
00064a
00064b
00069
00070
00076
00080
00081
00082
00087
00089
00093
00099
00102
00105
00107
00108
00109
00110*
00115
00116
00119
00120
00120b
00125
00128
00129
00130a
00130b
00131*
00133
00134
00135
00136
00137
00138
00140
00141
00142
00143
00144
00147
00148
00149
00152
00153
00155
00156
00157
00161
00162
00163
00164
00168
00169
00170
00171
00172
00178
00180
00181
00183
00186
00188
00190
00191 although it doesn't say Wisloe or PS37 I think Sandwiched between the M5, A38, A4135, & the Railway Line implies Wisloe
00194
00197
00198
00200
00201a
00201b
00202
00204
00209a
00209b
00216
00218
00220
00221
00227
00231 *
00241 *
00249
00254
00256
00259
00265
00277
00290
00291
00298
00305
00309
00313
00315
00317
00318
00319a
00319b
00319c
00324
00326
00329
00343
00364
00367
00371
00371b
00372
00373
00374
00375
00384
00389
00391
00393
00409
00411
00418
Beware I was warned of a Virus when trying 0000436
00439
00441
00442
00444
00446
00447
00452
00454
00462That's the first 497 covered and 127/497, one quarter are against The Wisloe plan, remember in amongst these 497 are Developers, Builders and land owners trying to make their fortunes so 25% could be nearer 40-50% of actual objections sent in. I will update this as and when I have time to read more.
Paper Responses
00502
00508
00509
00510
00513
00514
00529
00531
00532
00533
00534
00535
00539
00540
00541
00542
00544
00546
00547
00549
00559
00560
00561
00563For the paper responses 24 out 66 were against Wisloe that's 36%
It's still worth looking through the others they have some interesting things to say like
The persimmon housing are failing to sell due to poor quality, they are not designed appropriately for families small or large. They are not inkeeping with the properties in Berkeley and the surrounding areas this I feel very strongly about. (The house build project in Thornbury is of far better quality and beautifully spaced and fit for purpose families and single people).
A lot of people hae said they want the inclusion of bridle paths or horse friendly solutions to be introduced.
The Ernest Cook Trust or is it?
If you contact ECT about the Wisloe Garden Village Plan you will be passed on to the Wisloe Team at wisloe@social.co.uk.
So who are Social? A PR Company based in Manchester although they have a Bristol Office, Tel. Number 0117 9269 945, for this campaign and this is what they say about themselves;WHAT WE DO
We spark change, create purpose and deliver strategy. Whether it's a one-off project, extensive campaign or ongoing support, we make the difference. We add value through a one team approach, bringing years of experience, insight and a culture of collaboration. We're focused on helping clients cut through the noise to make the right impact and deliver outcomes.STRATEGY
Strategy is what separates the trailblazers from those being left behind. There are times, though, when it can be hard to see the big picture. This is when you need our support to create a clear vision. We will do the heavy lifting to help reignite your brand, navigate changing markets and deal with bumps in the road.CAMPAIGNS
We live and breathe campaigns. It's what gets you noticed and takes your brand to the next level. We have the skills, experience and creativity to help develop smart messaging and find the right channels to make you stand out and connect with your audience.COMMUNICATIONS
We are born storytellers. In a crowded marketplace and disjointed world, we'll help you make the connections to win hearts and minds, and make sure your voice gets heard. We are experienced in all media and have the creativity and insight to develop a rich narrative that will make you stand out from the rest.SOCIAL MEDIA
Social media changes fast and frequently - but businesses must keep up. When content, branding, targeting and strategy unite, social becomes an engine for truly rapid growth. Our expert team can define your strategy, implement and maintain it through tactics such as audience profiling, paid advertising, social listening and content creation.BRANDING
Your brand is your reputation. We'll make sure yours can thrive in a fast-paced future and help you define an identity that's compelling and authentic. Our tried and tested process will tease out the distinctive characteristics of your identity, we'll advise on positioning and make sure your messaging resonates with your target audience.DIGITAL
In a world of short-lived content and information overload, cut through is critical for digital communications. We will give you a smart and relevant digital presence that's underpinned by robust analysis to make sure you reach your audience at the right time, through the right channels and with content that matters to them.VIDEO & PHOTOGRAPHY
Nothing captures the imagination quite like a memorable piece of film or stunning photograph. We offer punchy edits for social media, high impact campaign videos and feature length documentaries. From storyboard to final film, user-generated content to motion graphics, animation and photography, we'll bring your story to life.So I guess we can expect to get bombarded with very expensive, high quality advertising on social media to tell us what a wonderful thing Wisloe Garden Village is going to be.
The first of the Local Plan Responses are on the SDC Site - 21:02:2020
Draft Plan consultation responsesEnvironment Agency, Public Health and National Grid have nothing to say about Wisloe or PS37
Wales and West Utilities drawings says Extreme caution. Major Accident Hazard Pipeline in Vicinity. **RISK OF DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY** Prior to excavation starting you must contact the plant protection team on 02920 278912, on the Wisloe site map.
This is strange, these had to be in by 22nd of Jan and yet the map is dated 11/02/2020?Severn Trent say(if you zoom in on their Table) High Risk for Potential impact of surface water sewerage infrastructure!
This is a greenfield site. Surface water should be managed on site through SuDS. There are no existing surface water sewers in the vicinity, part of the site will be able to drain to the river Cam, other parts will not. Some surface flows may have to be connected into the foul sewer system if infiltration is not feasible.
And
There are no sewers in the vicinity of this site. The 'Low Risk' assigned to this site assumes connection to a new pumping station which will pump the flows directly to the sewage treatment works and therefore there will be no impact on the existing network.gfirst-lep says "we also note that the proposed site has few definable boundaries, save for the M5 and the A38, and there is a danger that the overall garden village principles will be lost with the development simply becoming an urban extension to Cam that will engulf both Cambridge and Slimbridge. At the present time, it is considered that the Vision document produced for the development does little to demonstrate that the settlement will deliver garden community principles."
Seen on facebook
Wisloe Garden Village Plan, why it is WRONG
May 2020 - local elections
Stroud District will be having elections in May to pick the Councillors that will later vote on which parts of the local plan to go ahead with so they hold future of Wisloe in their hands. Maybe it's time to contact any candidates to find out where they stand on Wisloe and tailor your vote accordingly. Our 3 sitting Councillors have come out against the Wisloe proposal, but there is nothing stopping you asking Councillors from other wards to vote against it too. Click here to see full list
Delivery Policy ES9 from STROUD DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN REVIEW | DRAFT PLAN 2019
Delivery Policy ES9 Equestrian developmentThe keeping of horses for leisure and recreational purposes or as part of commercially based equestrian activity shall be considered acceptable where development that, through its environmental impact, either enhances or does not diminish environmental quality of those rural areas in which it is to take place. The level of activity generated by a proposal will be taken into account.
Such development shall be integrally connected with wider land management and be development requiring a countryside location. In particular, a longer term landholding management and maintenance plan will be expected to accompany any equestrian development proposal.
Any proposal for the conversion or change of use of existing equestrian establishments to a non-equestrian use will be discouraged, unless there is a strong case setting out why an exception should be made.
What is Wisloe Farm at the Momment? Stables and Equestrian Development!
Ernest Cook Trust PLAN for Wisloe
As previously reported we found this Ernest Cook Trust Draft plan for Wisloe so I guess now the SDC Surveys are in perhaps it's time to look at what Ernest Cook Trust are proposing.
Well the first thing as with other plans we've seen, obviously this was a desk job. Someone has used
google mapsBing Aerial View(google got it right, bing maps were half right) and decided it's totally flat so the A4135 must be flat and so the M5 can be raised to go over the the A4135 and railway will be going under the M5 but over the A4135 so either the railway has to dip or the Motorway has to rise up enough to clear the Railway which has just gone over the A4135. Wow it's good job all that is true or else how would the new turning off on the A4135 into the southwest part work? It would have to go straight down an embankment, luckily A A4135 must be flat so that is fine. "Perhaps if Ernest Cook Trust are serious about Wisloe, it's time they paid someone to visit Wisloe instead of doing all these Desktop surveys!". It was drawn by KH and checked by NJ, of Stantec, so maybe someone needs to talk to them. If you can't get the basic lay of the land correct then what's the point. Oh I did find something correct on their Plan, Scale NTS, "Not To Scale". Yeah I've tried over laying it on other maps but it's not to scale! I have emailed Stantec for a better copy if there is one.Click here to see full Document
Medium distance views: There are no views towards the Site from the Church of St John the Evangelist at Slimbridge. That's because they forgot 2 things:
1. You can see for miles on one of the tower tour which are popular because of the views.
2. It's a flat field, once buildings are there, they will be visible.
