Rural nature of area enshrined in planning rules

The site is quite clearly within the Parish of Eastington and the Stroud District Local Plan places Eastington in the “rural” part of the district. The plan states that “Policies in the local plan will be used to protect areas outside settlement boundaries from inappropriate development proposals”

SRFC's partners claimed that as the development was close to the urban area it was (a) on the urban frinhge and (b) ripe for development.

The Inspector ruled that the land had a “distinctly rural character” and although close to the industrial development on the edge of Stonehouse, its status was NOT clear cut “urban fringe”.

He further pointed out that putting road access across the "Leaze park" would be to "the considerable detriment of the rural character of the meadow"

Alternatives not investigated
Stroud RFC said it had carried out a survey of suitable sites for its relocation. Infact SRFC had only looked at a limited number of sites to the west of Stroud centre.

SRFC had  also dismissed some sites as unsuitable when infact it had not investigated those sites fully.  It dismissed sites alongside the Ebley by pass because of contamination fears .. and others as they could on occasion flood.  Neither of these are valid planning reasons to ignore a site .. especially the latter.

SRFC had found a site of 27 acres and had filled only ONE THIRD of it with playing facilities for a junior football team that no longer wished to be associated with the project!   SRFC didn't need a 27 acre site but didn't look at smaller sites.

Ultimately Eastington Park Farm was a site that was available to SRFC's agents Hunter Page Planning and known to its director Paul Fong.  The owner wished to realise his assett and was happy to sell.  This however didn't make the site the correct one for the Club.

The Inspector commented on SRFC's survey of suitable sites for its plans in the five valleys.  He said  "I therefore consider there to be significant failings in the site search process which in my view undermine its conclusions".