CONTROVERSY over plans to re-house the Post Office at Wotton-under-Edge has led Stroud District Council to take the unusual step of issuing a statement making it clear where it stands on the issue.

The statement follows the report in the Gazette last week of an ultimatum issued by a developer to the district planners.

Nick Davis, developer of the planned post office site at 16 Long Street, had told a meeting of Wotton Town Council's planning committee that unless he was given permission to develop the whole site, including putting up two new houses at the back of the building, he would not consider permitting the Post Office to operate from the shop premises.

This week SDC responded with a statement stressing that the conversion of the shop was a totally separate application from the development at the back.

"The existing shop, which has been vacant for some time, will remain largely unaltered," SDC development control manager Ian Gobey said in the statement.

"Stroud District Council has made it clear that it welcomes the relocation of the Post Office counter to this location.

"The owner has launched a campaign to gain permission for the redevelopment of the whole site and is claiming that if permission is not granted, the town will lose its Post Office.

"As a Post Office falls within the same planning use class (A1) as a shop, permission is not required to use the ground floor of the building in this way.

The applicant has been made aware of this and has been told that the very minor alterations necessary will receive the backing of Planning Officers.

"Stroud District Council wishes to make clear that the problems with the applications relate to the proposals for the rear of the site and do not relate to the shop or its conversion to a Post Office.

"A decision will be made shortly, based on national Planning and Listed Building Guidance and locally adopted policies," Mr Gobey said, adding: "Whilst the Council actively supports the opening of the Post Office in this building, it cannot allow the site owner to confuse the two entirely separate issues in order to sway its decision on the development at the rear.