By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
A decision to reject plans to build 172 homes along with new shops and commercial units in Podsmead has been defended amid calls for Gloucester City Council’s leadership to resign.
The £45m Podsmead Estate regeneration project was described as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity”.
The Gloucester City Homes said the application at Masefield Avenue would lead to improved community amenities, and modern, accessible infrastructure to foster a thriving, sustainable neighbourhood, with an extra investment for offsite sports and play provision.
However, the planning committee refused planning permission amid concerns from councillors that it would lead to a loss of open space, creat an “absolute jammed-up car park ” and that the social homes were “prison like”.
Former Conservative County Councillor Andrew Miller asked questions about the issue at last night’s (July 17) council meeting.
He asked if Council Leader Jeremy Hilton (LD, Kingsholm and Wotton) was aware of the current lack of shops and facilities for people in the area.
He said: “Given the potentially misleading advice given to the committee on the postponement, given the loss of £45m of public money to invest for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society in an area which is crying out for investment and given the response of the of the leader, that there is no reason for an inquiry as to what would happen.
“Will this Liberal Democrat administration seriously consider their position, and I would recommend you resign tonight.”
Councillor Hilton said due process was followed and the planning committee arrived at its own decision.
“Well, let’s just get it straight,” he said. “This planning application was dealt with properly by the planning committee.
“I have no reason to think that any of the processes that happened before then were incorrect. It was done properly without any interference from the administration whatsoever in this planning application, we allowed the planning committee to judge the planning application, which was presented to us by Gloucester City Homes.
“Officers engaged with Gloucester City Homes on a number of occasions to make sure that the application was robust enough for it to be determined by the planning committee. We came to the July 1 planning committee. It was judged, and they made a decision.
“They made a decision without any interference from any member of the administration. They made a cross-party decision.
“Two Conservatives have voted against the planning application. Four Lib Dems voted against it. Interestingly, one conservative abstained, those who voted for just one Labour member and one Liberal Democrat member.
“It was a free democratic vote by the planning committee, and to come here and suggest otherwise is disingenuous.”
Dr Miller objected to being called disingenuous.
However, the mayor interjected and said it was not a discussion.