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.