THE FINAL LET-DOWN?

We were let down by South Glos planners, who refused to listen to the overwhelming critical opinion of Thornbury residents finding fault with the content of the draft Core Strategy.
And now, we have been let down by our own elected South Glos cabinet and councillors, none of whom were able or willing to listen to the voice of their electorate, and follow the clear mandate that local residents gave them. (Even despite a few Yate and Chipping Sodbury councillors having the courage to vote against the Core Strategy - none in Thornbury/Severnvale could manage to do this. And this was despite 716 out of 739 critical Representations asking planners and councillors to think again for Thornbury. )
Regarding the current state of the Core Strategy, Patrick Conroy has written: " Should you wish to make comments these should be received by Friday 18 February 2010 and be limited only to those matters that the Council is proposing to change."
In early January, we will be publishing some suggestions of possible comments you may wish to make. This is still a critical time because all submissions will be put before the Independent Government Inspector of Planning. We must have faith that there is still someone prepared to listen to the voice of localism - if not, is the much vaunted "Big Society" dead even before it is launched?
Also keep an eye out for an exhibition being promised by South Glos Council (possibly in conjunction with Barratts) regarding the development plans for the Park Farm Estate. Treat with caution! This is not the long-asked-for balanced examination of all the potential sites around Thornbury, but rather it has been twisted once again simply to justify the plans of the planners, instead of listening to the opinions of local residents. Be sure to make your voice heard.
And finally folks, 2011 is a local election year. Be also sure local councillors can be called to account for their failure to represent us!

FINAL CHANCE FOR CORE STRATEGY - SAY "NO" FOR THORNBURY

What will cabinet and councillors vote to do with the Revised Core Strategy this week? We are urging them NOT TO ACCEPT the strategy for Thornbury.

Core Strategy Submission for Thornbury: Vital information & questions for SGC Cabinet – 13th December, 2010.

You are being asked today to consider the revisions and recommendations that form South Gloucestershire’s Core Strategy. Our focus is on the Thornbury section, which received 739 representations during the consultation, 96.5% of these were against housing development at Park Farm.

Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage do not believe that the changes made to the Core Strategy address the issues facing the town, and the ‘preferred’ location for development at Park Farm is simply not justified by the evidence. There has been insufficient evidence gathering and a lack of consultation about the options – certainly no basis to make critical decisions that will change the town forever.

Vital information and questions we believe you should address at this stage before accepting the Core Strategy include:-

1. The so-called ‘defensible boundary’ of Morton Way (SA para. 4.41a/c and 4.42)

Where did the phrase ‘the community’s desire to protect land beyond Morton Way from development’ spring from? When was Thornbury asked this question? In the TTC residents’ housing questionnaire in 2008, a majority of the people who responded preferred Morton Way for development – in fact giving it more votes than for all other sites combined. If it is the Thornbury Town Councillors’ desire to allocate a ‘defensible boundary’ to protect land beyond Morton Way, this should have been made clear. The 700+ representations objecting to the proposals for Park Farm in the Core Strategy demonstrate the community’s strong desire to protect land at Park Farm. A petition of 100 Morton Way residents did not want development at Morton Way, but they did not want it at Park Farm either.

Who has decided that the Park Farm site ‘…is set by physical boundaries which will limit the extent of development, therefore a precedent would not be set for longer term expansion and there would be less likelihood that development here would encourage an unsustainable commuter suburb’? Where are these boundaries? If a road really is a limit to development, there is Oldbury Lane and Butt Lane to the north, but what on the west? Kington Lane? The River Severn? Surely this is a recipe for Oldbury and Thornbury to be combined into one commuter sprawl.

There is no justifiable evidence regarding ‘defensible boundaries’ to show that Morton Way sites are not sustainable, but Park farm is sustainable.

In addition to this, during the ‘issues and options’ phase of the Core Strategy, the ‘options’ for Thornbury were not properly investigated, resulting in a Sustainability Appraisal which wasn’t published until March 2010, after Park Farm had been selected. The other options for Thornbury have therefore been dismissed before being properly investigated. There has been no level playing field.

2. Park Farm is NOT the only option capable of enabling the Castle School to consolidate (SA para. 4.41c)

Your officers are saying that Option 6 is the only option capable of realistically enabling the Castle School to consolidate onto a single site at Park Road. Have you challenged them to justify this statement? Other options could allow for this to happen, so why are these statements being made? In any event, the Core Strategy should be about meeting Thornbury’s housing needs, not those of one school.

In addition, are you sure that the updated plans have the support of the Castle School’s Governing Body? We believe they do not. In fact, we are aware of governors who have been told nothing of the changes proposed and how it will impact the school (including a road going through their playing field to Park Road from the housing development).

The role of land at the sixth form site being used in the negotiations also needs investigating. (If Barratts are being offered land here in exchange, it may be in breach of Article 107(1) of the EC Treaty in relation to state aid. Open market values on the land should be sought through open competition (as with the recent situation between Bristol City Council and Bristol City Holdings Ltd).

3. No longer any valid justification for Park Farm Option 6 (para. 4.42)

In paragraph 4.42 the updated version crosses out many of the justifications made in the draft SA for supporting the Park Farm site – because they aren’t true! It isn’t closer to the town centre compared to Morton Way sites; it doesn’t have community support; it isn’t the only site not in a conservation area!

In addition, there is incomplete evidence for justifying housing development at all on the basis of falling primary school rolls and improving town centre vibrancy (also para. 4.42). The empty shop premises (which conveniently exclude Tesco as it is deemed to be ‘out of centre’) are way below national and Bristol averages (9.52% in Thornbury, 13% nationally, and 15% in Bristol), and primary school numbers are now rising significantly! One primary school in Thornbury (St Mary’s) has had to go to appeal this autumn to expand its places.

4. The destruction of an historic deer park adjoining Thornbury Castle, St Mary’s Church and the Medieval Fishponds (para. 4.42)

Are you actually aware of the historical significance of this site? (If not, STGH have a map available).

Are you aware of the five 300 year old hedgerows, the three listed monuments, the six listed buildings, the streams, the wet woodlands, the SNCI Parkmill covert? Are you aware that English Heritage (which advises the Government) has submitted objections to this site being developed – saying not enough baseline evidence has been collected on the historical and environmental character of the area to inform plans? They also support the scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds.

Building houses here – however carefully landscaped – will eliminate the kingfishers, egrets, curlews and lapwings, and destroy a significant area of historic parkland forever.

In addition to this, despite what is written in paragraph 4.42, the reasons for the last National Inspector finding Park Farm the least suitable site for development and Morton Way the more favourable option have not changed since 2006. If anything, there is more evidence for preserving the heritage of the Park Farm site. Surely this far outweighs a claim (in paragraph 4.41a) of two SNCI’s located near to Morton Way, which development could negatively impact upon if not managed appropriately?

5. What can you do at this stage?

When considering the part of the Core Strategy relating to Thornbury, please do not approve the plans for Thornbury. These vital decisions must be backed up by proper fact based evidence to support the correct conclusion, and with full consultation. There are a ridiculous number of changes being made to the Thornbury section (it has practically been rewritten). This will take time to consider properly - it can’t be rushed through.

If you just accept what is put in front of you today, there will be no further opportunity to review/consult, particularly as the Director for Planning is asking for delegated powers to carry out amendments before submission to the Planning Inspector. We request you not to grant this delegated authority, which would allow the planners to make further changes to the detail of the submission without any opportunity for public scrutiny or debate.

The PINS advisory visit (by Planning Inspector Simon Emerson) in 2009 suggested that the Core Strategy could identify broad options for development in Thornbury, rather than define a site allocation. Surely it would be preferable to reappraise the housing need and development options for Thornbury before making such a huge decision based on flimsy evidence. With Oldbury and Shortwood for example, there has been a deferment on the decision as set out in the Strategic Housing Availability Assessment.

You are probably aware that Cllr Clare Fardell, who represents NW Thornbury, questioned the choice of the Park Farm site at the JPSE Committee last Wednesday, expressing concern that the other site options seemed to have been dismissed. Please support this and investigate it further.

The National Planning Inspector will be scrutinising the development of the Core Strategy. We have gathered documents and evidence (many through Freedom of Information requests) that demonstrate the inadequacies of the process and the current conclusion to build at Park Farm. We are happy to discuss these further, but in the meantime we ask that you do not approve the Core Strategy section for Thornbury.

Produced by Steering Group of Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage 12^th Dec 2010

Responding to the "REVISED" Core Strategy.

Yesterday there was a meeting of the South Glos Joint Planning Committee. Their purpose for meeting was to review the REVISED proposals for the Core Strategy, being proposed by the SG Planning Department, in the light of public Representations.

Members of the public were permitted to attend this meeting. Below is the approximate text of the presentation made by STGH's Rob Hudson, trying to raise awareness with councillors of the huge shortcomings of this latest document.

Comments to Joint Meeting of Planning etc Committee – 8^th December, 2010.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. My primary interest is in the Thornbury section.

I haven’t had long to digest the changes made to the pre-submission draft. As you are only too well aware it is a bulky document.

However, we in Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage do not believe that the changes made address the issues facing the town, and the preferred location for development at Park Farm is not justified by the evidence. Moreover, there has been totally inadequate engagement with the community. There has been no discussion about the options, and no opportunity to sensibly debate the best way to meet the needs of the town.

Hopefully the proposed Localism Bill will give us a framework to influence the way in which council planners, officers and elected councillors ‘listen‘ to residents in the future.

In the meantime I’ll highlight briefly a few major concerns –

Thornbury Responses to Core Strategy:

More than 2/3rds of the respondents to the Core Strategy made representations about Thornbury, and of the 739 individual representations concerning Thornbury 713 opposed the strategy and only 26 supported it – 96.5% against!

The Castle School’s ‘longstanding aspirations’:

It says (SA 4.41c) ‘Option 6 is the only option capable of realistically enabling the Castle School to consolidate onto a single site at Park Road’. Have you challenged your planning officers to justify this statement? It is simply not true – any of the options could allow for this to happen. Why are these statements being made? In any event, the Core Strategy should be about meeting Thornbury’s housing needs, not those of one school.

The so-called ‘current defensible boundary’ of Morton Way (SA 4.41a):

Where did the phrase ‘the community’s desire to protect land beyond Morton Way from development (4.42)’ suddenly spring from? Who in the community was asked? In the TTC questionnaire in 2008 (the only research carried out with residents) a majority of the people

who responded preferred Morton Way for development – in fact giving it more votes than for all other sites combined. If it is the Thornbury Town Councillors’ desire to protect land beyond Morton Way, please say so. The community - 700+ (96.5%) of whom objected to the

proposals for Park Farm in the core strategy - desire to protect land at Park Farm. A petition of 100 Morton Way residents did not want development at Morton Way – significantly they did not want it at Park Farm instead.

Who has decided that the Park Farm site ‘…is set by physical boundaries which will limit the extent of development therefore a precedent would not be set for longer term expansion and there would be less likelihood that development here would encourage an unsustainable commuter suburb’(4.41c)? Where are these boundaries? I can accept Oldbury Lane and Butt Lane to the north, but what on the west? Kington Lane? The River Severn? Surely this is a recipe for Oldbury and Thornbury to be combined into one commuter sprawl.

The destruction of an historic deer park adjoining Thornbury Castle, St Mary’s Church and the medieval fishponds:

Are you actually aware of the site proposed and what its historical significance is? If not, I have a map here I’ll be delighted to share with you.

Are you aware of the 300 year old hedgerows, the streams, and the wet wood land? Building houses here – however carefully landscaped – will eliminate the kingfishers, egrets, curlews and lapwings, and destroy a significant area of historic green fields for ever.

The spurious arguments and inaccurate evidence for addressing the issues of falling primary school rolls and improving town centre vibrancy.

I don’t have time to give you details about these now, but the empty shop premises (which conveniently exclude Tesco as it is deemed to be ‘out of centre’) are way below national and Bristol averages, and primary school numbers are no longer falling! They are already moving in a positive direction. One primary school in Thornbury has had to go to appeal this autumn to expand its places. Lies, damned lies, and statistics!

The strategy regarding Thornbury is flawed, not evidence based, and totally ignores the views of residents.

When considering the part of the Core Strategy relating to Thornbury, I ask you to listen to the voice of the residents, and delete it from the plan. Do the job again properly, backed up by fact based evidence which supports the correct conclusion, and with full consultation .

Thank you.

Rob Hudson, Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage

What are these "Castle School ASPIRATIONS?"

Following the draft publication of the revised Core Strategy, and the near total re-write of the "Thornbury" section, a number of additional considerations are being brought into focus by planners, perhaps none more interesting than "Castle School Aspirations for consolidation onto a single site". This is an aspiration that even governors/teachers/parents/pupils ie the existing stakeholders seem to know nothing about, but it is now being wielded as one of the central justifications for pushing Park Farm as the preferred site for new housing developments in Thornbury. Read Chris Rickard's letter to councillors and council Leader John Calway, by clicking on this link for further fascinating insights into the secret world of planners. See also her letter to local councillor Clare Fardell.
You can also read my own letter to councillors sitting on the Joint Meeting of the Planning, Transport and Strategic Environment Select Committee and Development Control Committees.

WHAT THE COUNCIL HAVEN'T TOLD YOU ....

Having read and published all of the representations submitted concerning the Core Strategy, the South Glos planners have now amended and revised the Core Strategy, and submitted a Final Version to be approved by SG Councillors.
Bear in mind that of approximately 1200 submissions for the whole of South Gloucestershire, a good half of them are responding to Thornbury development plans. Thus 620 respondents made 739 representations, 713 objecting to the current Park Farm proposals, with a meagre 26 representations supportive (including would-be developers, Barratts.)
We've been eagerly waiting to find out what planners have made of this weight and volume of objections...... and now we know, but only because some sharp eyes happened upon the agenda and attached documents of the Planning And Develpment Control Committee which is meeting this coming Wednesday 8th December at 10am at Nibley Court, Yate. (you may attend this meeting if you wish, and even speak your opinions for 5 mins)
http://council.southglos.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=151&MId=4903&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Why does South Glos Council do this? Why the lack of transparency? Is it because they are ashamed of the shocking job the planners have done in revising the Core Strategy, and would rather keep it from public attention until it is too late?

The big news is that the "Thornbury" section of the CS has been completely rewritten. This is no surprise, because the original version was so flawed that it could not possibly have been allowed to stand. The shock is that planners have deliberately ignored the criticisms of their original conclusions. In a stand of breath-taking arrogance, they have decided that the responses of 610 anxious local residents are not worthy of their consideration. Because this has only ever been about meeting the objectives of the plannning department, not genuine consultation, the planners have introduced new criteria, that local people were never party to at the time of consultation, and of course it is recommending that the Park Farm development should proceed as they always intended.

You may wish to read the re-draft for yourself by clicking on this link and going to PDF pages 45-64
Most of this is devoted to generic reasons for supporting more housing in Thornbury- the old chestnuts of promoting town vibrancy, and falling primary school rolls feature strongly, but with new primacy given to Castle School aspirations to consolidate onto a single site (which it is claimed can only happen with a Park Farm development - not true, however). A new link road giving access onto Park Road has been slipped into proposals. And further Morton Way developments have been declared unsustainable on the basis of this road forming " a highly defensible boundary" to future development (despite pre-constructed underpass, and being the favoured site by a majority of local residents surveyed by Town Councillors in 2009.) Is this because we cannot trust planners to defend our Green Heritage for us? Not sure what Welbeck Strategic Land will make of such a subjective dismissal of all their recent efforts at Public Consultation?
These are worrying times, but it is still not too late to halt the South Glos planners.

We urge you to read the documents for yourself. Check our webiste over the next few days for links to important letters and documents related to current developments.
Please lobby your councillors who must vote on Mon 13th December whether to accept the Core Strategy as it stands. Urge them to throw out the section relating to Thornbury. The people of Thornbury have spoken - It's time for the rest of South Gloucestershire to sit up and affirm the real voice of localism that was delivered on 6th August via the Core Strategy Representations.

MEDIEVAL FISHPONDS WORK-PARTY

For those of you who enjoy and appreciate the beautiful Medieval Fishponds, currently NOT surrounded by 500 of Barratts finest new homes.........there will be a work-party on Saturday 4th December to carry out some gentle renovation and coppicing. You are warmly invited to join in the fun, meeting at 1.30pm at the Parkland Way parking area by the entrance to Manor Walk.CLICK HERE for a delightful virtual walk around the Fishponds, courtesy of Mwingereza.

Wellbeck Exhibition prompts Comment in Gazette

The exhibition staged by Welbeck Strategic Land at Cossham Hall last week has prompted a thoughtful lead Article in this week's Gazette. (See below.)
Have a look on our Media page to browse the back history of media interest in this saga of development planning and so-called "consultation" in Thornbury.
In particular, this week's Gazette Comment makes very interesting reading, and raises important questions for local councillors who would seek re-election by you the local residents.

Date for your diary: Mon 13th December 2pm - South Glos Cabinet will be meeting (in Thornbury Council Offices) to decide any changes to the Core Strategy in the light of the Public Representations.
Please consider coming along to this meeting - it is open to the public, and our South Glos councillors need to know that the current plans are not acceptable to local residents.

ABBREVIATED CRITIQUE OF SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

We have had very serious reservations about the use of the Sustainability Appraisal to justify the selection of Park Farm - our full critique of this document runs to 24 pages!
We have just produced a summary version of this critique, listing its most obvious inconsistencies, all inside 2 pages of A4. Click Here to read for yourself.

REVELATIONS FROM THE CORE STRATEGY CONSULTATION

The publishing of all submissions to the South Glos Core Strategy Consultation proves fascinating reading. LINK: www.southglos.gov.uk/corestrategyconsultation Quite possibly there are some gems hidden amongst this vast quantity of documentation, just waiting to be unearthed - please let us know if you personally come across any submission that you feel needs more of a profile.
A few early findings:

• thanks to all the hard work of local Thornbury/Oldbury residents, there are vastly more objections to the proposed inclusion of the Park Farm estate in the Core Strategy, than for any other development across South Gloucestershire.
• a concensus is emerging that it is not just residents in NW Thornbury who have been troubled by the inaccuracies, bias, unsustainability and injustice of the so-called "Sustainability Appraisal".
  
• an unexpected objector has emerged in the form of developers Welbeck Strategic Land. Their weighty submission to SGlos makes fascinating reading. It would appear that the strength of these objections has prompted them to set up a Public Exhibition at Cossham Hall next Thursday 18th November between 3-8pm which will "provide information on all six sites considered by South Gloucestershire Council." This week's Gazette has an article exploring further Welbeck Strategic Land's proposals.

For your information, South Glos have amended their timetable and intend to have their Full Cabinet vote on the Core Strategy on 13th December, with their decision taken to Full Council on 15th December. Whatever the outcomes of these votes, that is not the end of the story - in March/April 2011 the whole process must be independently and publicly examined and approved by the National Planning Inspector. Only at this point can the Core Strategy be adopted. We remain firmly convinced that the only route to approval of the Core Strategy must be by removing the proposals relating to Park Farm, and starting again with a new and fair, open, balanced, objective Sustainability Appraisal of all potential sites around Thornbury, that welcomes the voices and contributions of local residents and grass-roots communities.

Things to consider in the short term:

• Thornbury Town Councillors (Town Development committe 2-11-10) have expressed an interest in the Public Exhibition being held at Cossham Hall this coming Thursday 18th November (between 3-8pm). Why not join them and drop into the Exhibition for yourself. It would be good for a show of strength in voicing our concerns over the flawed South Glos Core Strategy, and our belief that it must not be allowed to stand in its current form.
• Read some of the Representations to the Core Strategy - We have no guarantee that Councillors will be reading them through, so write to them and let them know your findings. (see this blog on 22nd Sept for list of names and e-mail addresses)
  
• In May 2011 there will be elections to South Glos and Thornbury Town Councils. As a group of disillusioned electors we are determined to find and vote for councillors who will listen to the voices and concerns of local residents. We would urge you to strongly consider whether this is something that you might be able to do. Please let us know your thoughts.
  

THE DIGGERS ARRIVE

Local residents were somewhat shocked to see diggers at work in the lush green fields of Park Farm. One local resident sent me a panic-stricken e-mail asking if the builders had arrived!

Because of course OFFICIALLY South Glos are still considering all the representations made by you and me and all the other local residents (oh yes, and developers) who may have submitted views concerning the proposed 500+ housing development, earmarked for the fields behind Castle School, that back onto Thornbury Castle, the Medieval Fishponds, and much of Park Farm.
UNOFFICIALLY planners have already indicated to STGH that they are still proceeding with the current plans regardless of our representations. So much for "Consultation"!

Despite David Cameron's talk of The Big Society last week, where local people are urged to take on local responsibility, South Glos Planning Department seem to prefer the little society, where they can ride roughshod over the nuisance opinions of local people, prefering to listen to the financial arguments of the developers, and meeting their own self-imposed deadlines and targets.
Are we really too late to see some fair play in Thornbury? Currently these diggers are only here to carry out some archaealogical surveys. Next time, they could be here to dig the footings.

We urge you to write to your South Glos Cabinet Members (see names and addresses in previous post below 22-9-10) as soon as you possibly can.

Ask them if they have actually read the Sustainability Appraisal yet - and if they have, how they can possibly pursue the Park Farm development on the basis of such a flawed and inaccurate piece of non-appraisal!
Ask why local residents have NEVER been consulted on which one of the six identified sites (Sustainability Appraisal) would be the best option for housing development inThornbury?
Ask why the most recent Government Inspector to examine housing sites around Thornbury, having declared the Park Farm estate to be UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, is now being completely ignored.

Please don't put off writing. We must act together to make a difference NOW.

WHO TO BELIEVE???

Our Local Councillors (SGC and TTC) tell us that families are in decline and rolls are falling in local Primary Schools, and consequently we need to add vibrancy to our schools by building 500+ new houses on the edges of Thornbury, starting out with the beautiful and historic Park Farm Estate that edges onto Thornbury Castle.

National Newspapers tell a different story .....

(click mouse on newscutting to see it enlarged.)

Councillors have been very busy looking into the future in order to find justification for a housing project that has never received a mandate from the local residents of Thornbury - but the true fate of our Primary Schools may be very different if these projected national trends are to be believed. More housing for Thornbury could actually mean no spaces for local children in local schools as demand exceeds supply. (Remember - 500+ houses is the official line, but some reports have indicated 750, even 1,000 new houses to come)

And on the subject of schools, it's very difficult to get a straight answer as to how Councillors/Castle School is involved in the current wheeling and dealing with Barretts over building plans on those Park Farm fields behind the school that lead on to the Medieval Fishponds.
One thing we know for sure is that the Government, in the shape of Michael Gove, Education Secretary has absolutely pulled the plug on the "Building Schools for the Future" programme. Talk of a re-build for The Castle School, or a consolidation of the Sixth Form onto the main site at Park Road looks suddenly completely misplaced.
That may actually be a relief for local sixth-formers, many of whom cherish their sixth-form site, away from the main school, as one of its principle attractions. What would happen to "town vibrancy" too, if sixth-formers are located too far from the town centre to be able to "nip-in" for shopping and snacks?

So in the light of all this, any chance of our local councillors holding up their hands over the flawed justification of the Park Farm fields as a suitable site for housing development, and saying "Sorry, we got that one wrong....."??
We can but hope.
Please keep drawing your councillors' attentions to these injustices and inaccuracies that are being perpetrated by ELECTED representatives.
Local Elections in May 2011 might prove to be our only recourse.

CONSULTATION? WHAT CONSULTATION?

Dear STGH Supporter,

First of all, a big thank-you to everyone who took the opportunity to respond to South
Gloucestershire Council’s core strategy. You may well have picked up from the
media that the council had hundreds of responses indicating the depth of feeling that
exists concerning housing development in Thornbury.

Earlier this month, representatives of Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage went to the
council’s planning meeting with high hopes that all your responses would have made
councillors and official sit up and take notice. Disappointingly, it quickly became
clear that they very much want to ignore public opinion and press on with their plans.
Click HERE to read summary notes of meeting.

So what can we do now? Well, we believe that we have to keep on putting our views
forward and make it as difficult as possible for the council to ignore us. If we all write
to councillors and officials and remind them of just how many of us need to be heard,
we can show them that we won’t just go away.

Please write to the people below.....
Let’s have them each receiving hundreds of messages –

1 ) Asking them to become familiar with our critique of the Sustainability Appraisal (available to read on our website - which draws full attention to the SA's contradictions and inaccuracies), and not allow it to be used to justify the selection of Park Farm as the favoured option for development.

2) Asking them to be fully aware of, and not ignore the current Local Plan that says there is no need for any housing development in Thornbury.

3 ) Reminding them that the new coalition government’s policy is to engage with local communities - unlike SGC which has declared that there is to be no further engagement with the Community who live in Thornbury about how their town should be developed.

If the people who are supposed to represent us are made to listen to the views of many, they must surely begin to listen and act in our interests.

Please find a few minutes to write to them. The more we do together, the greater the power of our argument.

Many thanks.

People to write to -

Leader of South Glos Council:
Councillor John Calway - john.calway@southglos.gov.uk
Deputy Leader of South Glos Council:
Councillor Sheila Cook - sheila.cook@southglos.gov.uk,
South Glos Executive Cabinet Members:
Councillor Heather Goddard - heather.goddard@southglos.gov.uk,
Councillor Allan Higgs - allan.higgs@southglos.gov.uk,
Councillor Matthew Riddle - matthew.riddle@southglos.gov.uk,
Councillor Brian Allinson - brian.allinson@southglos.gov.uk,
Councillor John Godwin - john.godwin@southglos.gov.uk,

also worth copying in your MP:
Steve Webb - steve@stevewebb.org.uk

CONSULTATION NOW CLOSED

Hope you had a chance to make your own Representation to South Glos Core Strategy.
We have now submitted our own Representation on behalf of Save Thornbury's Green Heritage. It makes for fascinating reading - we have posted it onto this website - check out via the tab at the top of the page, then click on the link to any section that interests you.
Happy summer reading!

Service will resume on this blog in early September.

Final Deadline for Representations to CORE STRATEGY

The deadline of 6th AUGUST fast approaches. if you haven't made a Representation to South Glos yet, we would urge you to do this before they close their doors to any new submissions.
You can download our simplified Response form by clicking on the link at the side of this page, or clicking HERE.
If you are bit braver, you could try responding to South Glos on its own website, and submit an online representation. To do this, click HERE.
Hopefully this website should go a bit quieter over the summer as we wait to see what South Glos Council make of the (hopefully) many hundreds of Representations urging them to think again about their plans for NW Thornbury.
In the Autumn we will be publishing on this website some of our findings about the Core Strategy and the Sustainability Appraisal and the process of misinformation that has led to this seriouos threat to Thornbury's Green Heritage.
Thank you all for your wonderful support and e-mails and comments and encouragement, and also donations towards printing costs.
Happy Holidays
Let's hope that the Autumn will bring us all better news.

HOUSING DEVELOPER TRICKS

Has anyone read today's "housing" article in The Gazette - an interview with Barratt's Homes? Go to our media page and read the article for yourself.
Sly tactics from the Developers, presumably feeling the pressure from our campaign on their planned development of 500 + houses - they now seek to woo local residents with talk of a likely smaller development and lots of consultation along the way. If they had consulted with Save Thornbury's Green Heritage, they might have got the message that we don't want ANY houses in our Heritage Fields in NW Thornbury - at least, not without genuine consultation and a valid mandate from the people of Thornbury. If we had been properly consulted in the first place by Thornbury Town Council and South Glos Council, and if the potential sites had been properly and fairly appraised, we wouldn't be in this current mess.
In the article, there is a curious denial of any intentions for further housing, wheras plans for 1500 houses HAVE BEEN SEEN BY LOCAL RESIDENTS in conversation with Surveyors at work in the fields. The whole point of this "compromise" tactic of fewer houses / a smaller development is to get a foot in the door, so to speak. Once the build begins, it would be very likely that fresh applications would come in for additional developments to augment the development size and scale
We leave it to you to decide whether Mr. Duff has indeed quashed any rumours of a larger build!

Meanwhile, we're still in desperate need of leafletters and doorknockers. Lots of streets in Thornbury still to be leafletted. Can you spare an hour to do a couple of roads? The likely measure of our success may well turn out to be the sheer number of responses handed in. Each response is another voice heard. We've just gone to print for another 2000 response forms. Please consider if you can deliver...

E-mail us at ourgreenheritage@gmail.com

DOOR KNOCKERS AND LEAFLET-ERS NEEDED

We have a massive pile of leaflets and Representation forms to be distributed around Thornbury.
If you would like to volunteer your services to spread the word, your help would be gratefully received. Name the street you wish to leaflet, and we'll supply the forms! Let us know by e-mailing ourgreenheritage@gmail.com .

Were you, like us, disappointed with the Turnberries Exhibition today? The lack of answers was more apparent than the supposed information they had on offer!
Make sure you register your dismay and send it to Spatial Planning (Download a form from this website). There is no limit to the number of representations you can make / Send a letter / Do the South Glos online response ..

SHOCK FROM SURVEYORS: 1500 HOUSES!!!

Local residents have been dismayed to discover from surveyors out and about on the Park Farm Estate, that the area they are currently surveying for Barratts Homes, is far larger than the officially designated site, and involves plans for 1500 houses, not the 500-600 proposed by the South Glos Core Strategy. Is this over-optimistic developpers, or is there more to the South Glos plans than meets the eye? You be the judge - but make sure in any event that you make your representation to the Core Strategy - click on LINK on this page.

Why not head out to Turnberries this coming THURSDAY 8TH JULY, from 3.30-7.30pm and pose your questions to the South Glos Planning Team, who are exhibiting latest plans, and responding to local residents enquiries. The Save Thornbury's Green Heritage team will be on hand to advise you how to make your voice heard and complete a REPRESENTATION to the Core Strategy - must be done before 6th August!