Same Old Same Old.

Earlier this year Mr Crysell, the government appointed Independent Inspector, summoned South Glos Planning Department to a meeting at the Armstrong Hall Thornbury. The purpose of this meeting was to give South Glos representatives an opportunity to answer his concerns over the long term housing plan they had submitted to him. The outcome of the meeting was a failure to convince Mr Crysell that the plan had sufficient merit to be accepted by him, and was subsequently declared unsound and not fit for purpose.

Alternatives offered to South Glos Council as a way forward were, to scrap the plan completely or to attempt revisions which would provide sufficient improvement to warrant the plan acceptable. South Glos opted for the latter, suggesting six months as the time required for examination of all issues. This revised version would first go before the Council for approval and acceptance, then and only then would the rest of us get to see it during a period of consultation.

Something strikes me as not quite right here. Call me a bluff old traditionalist if you will, but I have always been led to believe that consultation meant an opportunity for the wider public to put forward their views on a proposal or plan. These opinions would be taken forward and into account when the plan came up for discussion by the appropriate authority, and necessary changes would be made at that point. It seems for the majority of my (not telling you) years I have been misled, and the real meaning of consultation is ‘we will devise a plan that you may or may not like, you can make comments if you can find out about it, but it won’t make any difference because we will have already given it the green light’.


We have now arrived at the end of the six month revision period, plus a week or so, and the amended plan is shortly to go before our elected representatives for approval. We have managed to get a preview of what lies in store for Thornbury and the bottom line is no change.

Park Farm is still preferred for development despite the many representations made since the controversial Barratt application. Planners claim to have reconsidered all other potential sites and say that no fundamental changes have occurred which change the findings of their previous appraisals. However, the question still remains, what fundamental changes took place between 2006 when the previous planning inspector said that Park Farm was the worst possible place to build houses in Thornbury, and now, when South Glos planners are claiming it is the best?

The ‘new’ flood risk assessment shows that development anywhere in Thornbury poses a degree of risk, but of all potential sites Park Farm is the only one with a flood risk right through the middle. Some other options have the risk adjacent to them, which you would assume makes life easier for planning site layout, housing density and open areas etc.
The flooding area at Park Farm is where Barratt’s are proposing sports pitches for Castle School. We can only assume that water polo will be top of the sports timetable for a substantial part of the school year.

The propensity to flooding in the fields surrounding Park Farm will mean that any development will necessarily be pushed further from the town, creating longer journeys on foot and by car, at the same time as increasing housing density to preserve the builders profits. Increased density equals smaller homes and poorer quality environment around them.

Apart from the ‘redeeming’ qualities listed above, any development at Park Farm will do untold and irreversible damage to the important historical and ecological value which currently exists. In the Thornbury conservation review 2004, the area around Park Farm was considered to be extremely valuable for its contribution to the historic setting of the town and should be preserved. After many centuries in the making, what has changed so dramatically in six years to warrant its destruction in a matter of months if developers are allowed to proceed, and for what.

Whichever way you view the selection of Park Farm, either originally, or the now ongoing insistence that it is the most sustainable option available, you cannot but wonder, exactly what is driving this barmy ill conceived scheme.

NEWSLETTER from the INDEPENDENT COUNCILLORS

If you live in NorthWest Thornbury, over this and next week you will have received/ will be receiving through your letter box the first newsletter of the Independent Thornbury Town Councillors, who represent the whole of North West Thornbury Ward. Because many of the issues that they talk about will be of general interest to all Thornbury Residents, we are posting a LINK, so that you can read the news of their first six months in office for yourselves.

Why So Far ?

The motor car has been with us for some considerable time. It was in the 1880’s that Karl Benz built the first horseless carriage. Initially in extremely small numbers, until at the beginning of the twentieth century the American Oldsmobile Company adopted production lines (incidentally a technique pioneered by Brunel’s father) which were greatly expanded by Henry Ford at the beginning of the First World War.

For the majority of the time since, motor cars were considered to be beneficial to society, providing economic opportunities for work and wealth creation, as well as travel and leisure opportunities. However, in recent decades the alternative aspects of car travel have become more widely recognized as their ownership and use rose to alarming proportions. Pollution and congestion are now top of the agenda for many Governments, Local Authorities, and Environmental Groups, with all attempting in various ways to reduce our dependence. But despite their best efforts, and regardless of the alternative forms of transport available, whether public, pedal or pony of the Shanks variety, and with the best will in the world, a weeks shopping for the average family still can’t be carried home without the car. Unless, by some quirk, Tesco and their peers instigate a radical change to their current policy on trolleys leaving the premises.

For any number of planned and unplanned situations the car is usually the most convenient and often the only solution. How do you deliver and collect the kids to and from Brownies, Cubs etc on winter evenings. No time to cook, need a takeaway! Nip out in the car. Night out arranged, starts chucking it down, walk a mile or so in your best frock? Not likely. For these, and countless other reasons, like it or not, in the foreseeable future the car is here to stay.

How can we mitigate the damage being caused? The answer is probably not entirely. Whoever it was that said ‘modern technology owes ecology an apology’ could hardly have made a more accurate statement. But we are where we are and efforts to reduce emissions by future generations must continue unabated. Advances in science and engineering will contribute towards an overall reduction in damaging emissions, but without doubt the biggest gains can be achieved by reducing the distances we need to travel for whatever purpose.

Unfortunately here in Thornbury our Councillors and Planners appear to have ostrich like ability when it comes to understanding the message being embraced by the rest of the world, with the proposed development at Park farm doing the exact opposite of what is required by increasing motoring distances.

Earlier this year a majority on our Town Council voted to support the Barratt application on condition that a transport link must be created through Castle School playing field for buses, cyclists and pedestrians only. Whilst applauding themselves for this masterstroke of ingenuity, which they claim will minimize the additional traffic onto a restricted, inadequate and dangerous route into town, and somehow add sustainability into the mix, our Councillors, obviously intoxicated by self congratulation, had failed to notice that for all those planned and unplanned but necessary car journeys into Thornbury and beyond, residents would have to go the long way around.

From a sustainability perspective the lack of logic employed to conjure up the idea of development at Park Farm followed by this excuse of a link road to validate the scheme, absolutely beggars belief.

To highlight the lack of any semblance of visionary thinking by Planners and Councillors alike all we need to do is compare motoring distances from Park Farm to the town centre, against those from any of the other five sites allegedly considered during the ‘options’ phase of selection. For this purpose I have selected Morton Way North, being the furthest from the town centre of those five possible locations.

Motorists from either site would likely reach the town along Gloucester Rd, joining at either the junction with Butt Lane or Morton Way. Both junctions are within a few yards of each other, close enough to be considered equidistant from the High Street. It is the distance travelled from either site to reach the Gloucester Rd junction that creates the disproportionate mileage that will be clocked up by residents who will inevitably on occasion need to use a motor car.

Using the centre of each site as a starting point, Park Farm to High Street and return is 3.44 miles while Morton Way 2.58 miles. It would not be unreasonable to allow for busy people and families to make the journey twice each week and for fifty weeks each year to allow a short holiday break. This would mean the annual total from Park Farm to reach the High Street by car is 344 miles per household whereas Morton Way would be 258 miles per household.

The Park Farm proposal is for 500 homes and Morton Way 350. If for the benefit of this exercise you consider a conservative number of thirty five per cent of households from each location would achieve the journeys calculated above, that would be 175 from Park Farm travelling 344 miles, a total of 60,200 miles, and 122 households from Morton Way driving 258 miles which would be 31,476 miles. That means an additional twenty eight thousand seven hundred and twenty four unnecessary car miles each year ad infinitum, created simply by the wrong choice of site.
So much for planners and councillors idea of sustainable development and contributing to saving the planet.

In reality the situation is probably much worse. The assumed figure of thirty five per cent and two journeys per week is probably the least that could be hoped for. It is also likely a majority of residents will shop in Tesco, driving along Morton and Midland Way to avoid the High St, the difference then becomes a further 1.7 miles for each return journey. Just imagine what the figures would look like if the same comparative exercise was carried out using any of the other site options, all of which would require shorter car journeys.

There are any number of combinations the statistically minded could pursue but they will always reach the inevitable conclusion, to reduce car miles in today’s society the only realistic option is well thought through plans for future development and site selection that is made on merit rather than what might be on offer.

Henry Ford said, in days when the motor car was in its youth and held in greater esteem than it is today,

‘The only real mistake is one from which we learn nothing, and failure is simply an opportunity to begin again – this time more intelligently’.


South Glos Council if you are not listening, you really should be.

Why have they preferred to wait!!

On Friday May 6th of this year Barratt Developments submitted a planning application to South Gloucestershire Council for approximately 500 houses on land at Park Farm. Par for the course is that developers can expect applications of this size to be decided within thirteen weeks. If the local authority does not come to a conclusion within this period the applicant is entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State to make the decision either for or against.

It is now approximately twenty eight weeks since the May 6th. Why, might you ask has no decision been made by South Gloucestershire Council or why, is there no appeal from Barratts. In the absence of a formal explanation being provided by either party we can only hazard a guess.

At the time of the application the planning policy for Thornbury was that no development would be allowed outside the existing urban boundary, which in simple terms meant Park Farm could not be built on. In addition to this restriction a planning inspector in 2006 concluded that Park Farm would be the worst possible option for development in Thornbury.

Why then in May of this year was the application not rejected?

We are spoon fed the vague excuse, by those who allegedly represent us, that the current planning policy is losing its potency and will be replaced by the much stronger Core Strategy when approved by the planning inspector. You might say ‘what’s that got to do with it, the rules that applied in May should have meant instant rejection’.

Could it be that our representatives who chose to include Park Farm in the Core Strategy were making an off the beam assumption that the planning inspector would have completed his examination by the middle of this year with everything being tickety boo. They could then soldier on without breaking step, regardless of the deep unpopularity of this proposal.

How wrong could they be, just about as wrong as selecting Park Farm in the first place, as evidenced by the myriad of objections from all parts of Thornbury.

Could it be that since May various National and Government bodies have opened such a ‘Pandora’s Box’ of intractable and as yet unresolved issues, which might not eventually be capable of mitigation, interested parties need to rethink the whole proposal?

Whatever the real reason for the current status of Barratts application wouldn’t it have been so much better if the people of Thornbury were treated as intelligent adults and kept informed about progress on such a significant issue for the town, as recently suggested by Independent councillors. A suggestion unfortunately defeated by the majority on the town council.

Having failed to use that opportunity to enlighten us there is still time for them to take a page from the Independent’s book and use one of the many communication avenues available to them – they can even add a comment to this website. That at least would demonstrate they are willing to engage with their constituents, now and possibly in the future, as opposed to continuing with the intransigent attitude of the past.


NB An update on the flooding issue from the Association of British Insurers.

On 18th October, Nick Starling the Director General of Insurance and Health, in a response to the Draft National Planning Policy said;

‘The drive towards giving local communities more say about what is built and where must include safeguards to ensure that developments are not built in flood risk areas, so we can avoid the nightmare scenario of unsaleable, uninsurable and uninhabitable properties'.

South Glos Council we hope you are listening.

GUNPOWDER, TREASON & BUILDING PLOT .....

Remember, Remember, The 5th of November,
Gunpowder, Treason and Building Plot!

Bonfire Night this weekend, the anniversary of discovery in the early hours of November 5th 1605 a plot to blow up the House of Lords in an attempt to assassinate King James 1st and the Protestant English aristocracy. If successful the plan included restoring a Catholic monarch to the throne, namely James’ daughter Elizabeth.

Although Guy Fawkes is usually credited with being the main conspirator, the truth is that he is only one of eight led by Robert Catesby. The source of Fawkes infamy is probably the fact that he was the one on that fateful morning caught guarding the gunpowder in the palace cellars ready to light the fuse when the moment came.

Suspicions had been aroused when Lord Monteagle, a moderate Catholic sympathiser, received an anonymous letter warning him ‘Retire yourself into the country for they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament and yet they shall not see who hurts them’. Unbeknown to the plotters this letter was shown to the Privy Council, palace guards were alerted, and during a search Fawkes was arrested.

Throughout the following days and weeks he was tortured until he finally broke prior to be executed in January 1606.

Unlike King James the residents of Park Farm did not see a letter, anonymous or otherwise, notifying them of the plan to allow Barratts to build 500 houses on nearby fields. This only came to light as a result of a local resident out walking her dog in May 2010 coming into contact with representatives of the firm conducting a survey.

Since that time ‘Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage’ has been following a tortuous process trying to establish when the decision to select Park Farm as the preferred site for housing in Thornbury was taken, why it was chosen, and by whom. Much like the plot of 1605 it appears to have been kept fairly well concealed until it was almost too late.

Methods used have been less severe than those employed in the 1600’s and freedom of information requests have gone some way towards unravelling the story, although a great deal remains shrouded in mystery.

In examining the when question, the latest revelations point to the choice being made during the period late October to end of November 2009.

It was about this time that the Town Centre Strategy and Core Strategy consultation took place. The results could have been expected to give an indication of why Park Farm was selected, but no luck there. They are to say the least inconclusive, and as with all statistics they could be interpreted in the way required by those leading the agenda.

As for who made the decision, it seems that a group composed of two SGC councillors (neither represent Park Farm), an Estate Agent and three council officers were formed and designated as the Thornbury Steering Group. Despite this grand title, the make up of the ‘steering group’ could hardly be described as appropriate to deal with matters of such significance to the people and town of Thornbury.

Having no formal decision making authority, no terms of reference, holding only informal verbal exchanges without notes being taken, and apparently did not keep a record of their deliberations, this obscure, unconstitutional band seem to have been particularly instrumental in influencing the decision.

At a meeting of the South Glos Policy Advisory Group on 30th November 2009 there was a presentation by a member of the group about the six site options for Thornbury. Part of that presentation dealt with ‘options for new housing in Thornbury which had been assessed by the Steering Group’,

Notes from that meeting reveal that of the six potential sites for Thornbury, ‘Options 1, 2 and 3 would not be looked at as they are in the Green Belt’. ‘Neither would Options 4 and 5 as these are within the town centre’ So ‘Option 6 is the preferred option’.

It may be fact that options 4 and 5 are in the town centre, but it is not true that options 1, 2 and 3 are in the Green Belt, they are not.
What is most surprising is that this information was presented by a South Glos Officer member of the Thornbury Steering Group who just happens to be a planning officer for the very same council.

It would appear then that option 6 (Park Farm) was chosen as the most suitable on an unrecorded date, based on unreliable statistical analysis, by an unrepresentative body with members selected at random, and whose recommendation founded on misleading information subsequently went through other committees to the South Glos Cabinet for ratification.

In a nutshell the whole process appears not only to be flawed but also surrounded in a cloak of secrecy the like of which the gunpowder plotters would have been proud and may even have helped them to succeed with their dastardly scheme.

Fortunately much like the events of 1605 the guards have been alerted and have arrived on the scene. This time in the form of Mr Paul Crysell the government appointed Planning Inspector who has required South Glos Council to address his concerns regarding the long term plan and to submit an improved version which we are told he should receive in January 2012.
Before that can happen the public must be consulted on the proposals. It is expected this process will begin in early December a matter of weeks away.
However this time we will be alert to developments and ready to explode any myth or misrepresentation that might occur.

We will be asking the question and it won’t be ‘penny for the guy’. Those that make decisions on our behalf should be ready to answer:

Do the benefits outweigh the harm?

The harm to Thornbury is obvious...
Precisely what are the benefits?

As winter approaches we encounter Halloween or All Hallows Eve, originally a Celtic celebration to mark the beginning of the cold and barren part of the year. Bats have long been associated with the festival but the connection is far less ominous than some would suspect. In Halloweens origins people would gather around camp fires to ward off evil spirits. Attracted to the warmth and bright lights of these fires were many small flying insects, natural food for hungry bats. People saw them flickering in and out of the firelight and eventually they became a feature of the festival.

Much more sinister is the Bat survey carried out by Barratts at Park Farm.

Bats are a protected species which means that developers when submitting planning applications are required to carry out ecological surveys to ensure that they or their habitat are not endangered in any way. The survey report they had prepared included statements such as :-

• no bats were seen to emerge from potential roost sites'
• 'a small number of Pipistrelle bats were recorded'
• 'surveys recorded a small number of bat species using the site'

The story that follows is a true account of personal experience at Park Farm:-

Bats Reunited” – A True Story by Jennie Bennett”.

It was an early summer evening and I saw something fall in front of our window and thought straight away that it might be a bat, because for nights Luke (my youngest son) and I had been watching them come out every night from the main bedroom window, looking up to the tiles you can see them come out one by one. I ran outside into the front garden and it was a little bat who'd crawled along the ground and up the house bricks and tucked herself under the window sill. I didn't know what to do at first but felt it better if I left her there in case she was rescued that evening by her family. I went straight out early the following morning but she was still there, only shrivelled up and lifeless. I put her in a shoebox and on some cotton wool and called the Bat Group to ask their advice. To be honest I thought she was dead. They told me to keep her somewhere cold and return her to them in an envelope they'd provide, so they could identify the bat species. I left her in the box for a few hours and then thought I'd better check on her to make sure she was definitely dead and put her in a sealed bag in the fridge. However, on saying our last goodbyes, I was amazed to see a very faint pulse, very excitedly I called the Bat Group back for further advice.Basically being out all night she was hypothermic and dehydrated. I used a hot water bottle placed under the box to warm her through for several hours. I had to melt some honey with hot water, cool it and feed it to her from the corner of a piece of kitchen roll. And unbelievably she licked it from the piece of kitchen roll, she was so small and I felt in awe of this little thing. I left her in the box until the young volunteer couple came over to us from Charfield to help us set her free and check her over. When they arrived, we sat and they handled her and she crawled all over them, they identified her as a young girl, and fed her some mealworms, which she loved. They explained that when they are all getting ready to leave the roost, they can get excited and felt she may have been knocked out accidentally. Before they come out, you can hear them up there, it's like they're chattering. At 9.30pm, which was the time the bats were leaving their roost each night, we went outside with her. The young man held her up and told me there were recordings being read from her cries to them and their communications to her and over 1000 bat calls recorded that night. The bats left our tiles one by one, and we were counting, over 80 bats left our house that night, never had we counted so many. They flew around us and back up, knowing that we had her. Then she went, she flew all the way up in front of the houses and then back to our house, landing on one of the tile fronts and then crawled back up into the roost - Fantastic!!! Still thinking about it now makes me feel emotional.

How different in tone to the reports submitted by Barratts with their planninig application. It seems by comparison that the presence of this protected species has been deliberately downplayed to suit a purpose.

Interestingly the same survey in a description of the site described ‘a small shallow stream’ flowing westward across the site. Can this be the same stream featured last week which the Environmental Agency is so concerned about under the heading ‘Flooding’. Can this be the same stream which acts as a surface water drain for Thornbury and flows via Oldbury and causes the residents there considerable disquiet. If so it must be that Barratts don’t have surveys done after it has been raining.

Where are we now?

Although things seem to have been relatively quiet recently while we wait for South Gloucestershire Council to reveal changes to the long term plan (Core Strategy) since the planning inspector announced in the summer that he was not satisfied with their first attempt, STGH has been busy.

Amongst other things efforts have been made to discover who actually made the decision to propose building on this most historically valuable part of our town. Freedom of information requests exposed that a less than robust process took place, as indicated in the statement made by Christine Rickard to Thornbury Town Council (see below). Interestingly the enquiries also showed that the councils own Heritage and Landscape Officers believed the selection process to be flawed and the choice of Park Farm to be wrong.

STGH has also written to the planning inspector with the findings revealed by the information requests.

The planning application by Barratts has generated a substantial number of objections not only by individuals and organisations but also government departments such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage which is tasked by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in preserving important historic buildings, features and landscape.

The Environment Agency has particular concerns with development at Park Farm.

Did you know for example that the proposed housing development area includes the flood plain where flooding occurs on a regular basis?
The stream which flows through this area acts as the drain for Thornbury which then flows on to Oldbury, where properties are already prone to flooding. Any housing at Park Farm will undoubtedly put more strain on the drainage and increase the problems downstream putting properties at greater risk.
Problems upstream could also occur when blockages and increased use further downstream affect the natural drainage flow.

Flooding issues such as these have the potential to seriously affect residents insurance premiums.

Did you know that the Medieval Fishponds (now recognised and listed as an important Ancient Monument and therefore legally protected) are fed by natural springs - that’s why they are there.
English Heritage has expressed concern that loss of water from these springs will lead to irretrievable damage to the ponds.

Did you know that the water supplies for several properties in the area are partially supplied by natural springs?
It is inconceivable that development of the size in Barratts plan will not affect the water course, the supplies to the fishponds and the local properties.

What can you do about it?

South Gloucestershire Council have yet to reveal their hand with proposed changes to the long term plan but whatever they are they must be consulted on prior to being sent to the planning inspector for a second time.
They have suggested to him that they will be ready in early December followed by a six week consultation period which means that comments by anyone will need to be in by something like the third week in January.
We will be keeping a keen eye on progress and will provide updates as soon as they become available.

In the meantime we are hoping to provide further snippets on the issues surrounding Park Farm on a regular basis on this blogsite. Should anyone feel they would like to submit an appropriate item we will be pleased to receive and review the content at ourgreenheritage@gmail.com

At the Town Development Committee meeting of 27th September 2011 a statement (reproduced in full below) on behalf of STGH was prepared and delivered by Christine Rickard detailing recent developments at the site selected by the Town Council as their preferred option.

To coincide with the disquiet felt locally about Park Farm, a number of nationally recognised bodies have now voiced concern at the potential damage this proposed development would cause to this most historic and important part of Thornbury. Let us hope that the individuals responsible for this outragous decision will now finally be prepared to listen to common sense. But what concerns me most is that 'there's none so deaf as those who do not want to hear'.

Statement on behalf of STGH :-

I would like to follow my last statement to you with a few more pieces of evidence about the Park Farm area, just in case you are in any doubt about its historic value.

The Council for British Archaeology has registered a firm objection against Barratts proposals stating:

“given the impact the development will have upon a scheduled ancient monument and the issues of setting of a number of historic buildings, a listed park and the Thornbury Conservation Area the Council for British Archaeology’s view is that the proposals will cause substantial harm to the significance of these historic assets. The CBA wishes to register a firm objection to the proposed development and advises consideration is given for the new housing development to be located in a less sensitive area”.

They also point out that the heritage assessment prepared by Barratts claiming “key settings would not be affected” is not a view held by other heritage groups or the CBA.

These other groups include: English Heritage, The Garden History Society, Avon Gardens Society as well as Thornbury and District Heritage Trust.

The Planning Inspector has decided that the Core Strategy as it stands is not Sound. The areas he has identified in his letter to South Gloucestershire Council are, he says, the minimum requirements. His implication being that other areas he has not yet looked at should be sound and if further work is required then the opportunity for revision and justification is NOW.

Looking at how the choice of Park Farm came to be made it is quite clear that the decision making process was not robust. The influence of the Thornbury Steering Group on the decision is remarkable when it is apparent this is a group for which no notes or minutes of any discussions or meetings were ever kept. The members of that committee will need to look to their own conscience’s to decide whether they should have declared interests or even have been on the Steering Group in the first place.

Add to this the strong advice from South Gloucestershire’s own heritage and landscape officers that the process was flawed and the choice of Park Farm due to its important heritage assets was the wrong one. As well as misinformation being presented to the Policy Advisory Group on the 30th November 2009 about which options were in the green belt (they were told options 1,2 and 3 were in the Green Belt), this is not true.

We do not believe the Inspector will regard this process as sound.

All of this, together with the scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds gives Thornbury Town Council the opportunity to reappraise their original decision.

It is the duty of local authorities of which, as Town Councillor’s you are a part, together with English Heritage and other specialist bodies such as those listed above, to protect our scheduled monuments and our historic assets. You may not have been aware of the significance of the heritage of the Park Farm area until this recent scheduling, you cannot continue to argue ignorance and it is time for Thornbury Town Council to start the process to protect this area from development.

The Town Council needs to confirm to its residents that it will no longer support any development or area of housing opportunity at Park Farm.

Christine Rickard.

WHAT THE PLANNING INSPECTOR SAID ...

We had all been eagerly awaiting an announcement from the Planning Inspector, following the Exploratory Meeting with SGC on 29th June.
He had written to SGC to inform them of his conclusions from that meeting. That letter has now been put into the public domain by SGC, and can be browsed at your leisure by clicking on THIS LINK.
You will need to read the whole letter to get a full measure of the impact of his critique of SGC and their Core Strategy. In summary terms however, he has offered SGC two options:

1. If they can be absolutely confident of getting the work done in time he will suspend the EIP (Examination Process) for 6 months whilst the Core Strategy (CS) is re-worked in certain key areas, re-published and re-consulted on.
2. SGC could start the whole CS process over, beginning from scratch but taking into consideration significant changes in legislation that have ensued with a change of National Government

Thornbury does not get any specific mentions (It's a very general, broad sweep document.) Issues he raises that must impact directly on Thornbury would probably include:

• his criticism of SGC's failure to undertake a full assessment of its Green Belt. This necessarily affects Thornbury, which has no Green Belt or buffer of its own, but finds itself historically on the fringe of Bristol's own Green Belt. When development sites were first considered for Thornbury, instead of taking a strategic look at the Town and its setting and needs, planners operated a " limited and piecemeal approach ...... bring(ing) into question the validity of its approach to assessing development potential."
• his criticism of procedural/legal process. "I share some of the concerns expressed in relation to the procedural process and to avoid a risk of challenge the Council should, ideally, re-publish and re-consult on the CS in its current form."
• revisions to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) "Undertake any necessary revisions to the SA as a result of further work which is carried out to support the CS". STGH has always been deeply critical of the SA in relation to Thornbury. In the light of the recent scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds by English Heritage as an ancient monument - it is exceedingly doubtful that Park Farm would ever have received an endorsement, had this scheduling been in place 2-3 yrs ago. This new situation must have serious implications for the SA, together with new findings relating to flooding and Castle School that were never available at the start of the process.

It is no surprise that SGC have opted for the first of the two alternatives presented by Paul Chrysell. To read their full response to the Inspector, CLICK HERE.
They have announced their intention to undertake all necessary work, and "re-publish the Core Strategy in December 2011 for 6 weeks consultation incorporating post submission changes. This would also be supported by the necessary technical evidence and SA."
A busy time ahead for SGC planners!

Meanwhile, all the implications from these announcements have not fully sunk in. We will deliberate forthwith, and seek advice from people more knowedgeable than us in the planning world as to what it might mean for us in terms of an action plan and further campaigning.
In the short term, the following actions may be worthwhile:

• Deadline of 16th September to write to the Independent Inspector, commenting on the new Draft National Planning Policy Framework and how it will impact upon development proposals. STGH has been working on its own response, and although this is still in draft form, you can read it by CLICKING HERE, and use some of its content to inform your own personal responses. All comments should be directed via Kath Thorne who can be e-mailed at Programme.Officer@southglos.gov.uk
  
• You may wish to write to Thornbury Town Council or SGC, congratulating them on the recent scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds as an Ancient Monument by English Heritage, and asking what impact this is likely to have on the revised Core Strategy.
• Council Meetings begin again in September, check out the NorthWestThornburyTC blogsite for precise details. First Full Council meeting will be Tuesday 6th September 7.30pm.
  

ENGLISH HERITAGE & THE MEDIEVAL FISHPONDS

During the summer holidays, when I for one had turned my attention to more leisurely activites, English Heritage announced that the Park Farm Medieval Fishponds are to be scheduled a "historic monument". This is fantastic news for the fishponds and for Thornbury, and may well have been influenced by the dedicated hard work put in by the "Friends of Park Farm Medieval Fishponds" in recent months. At a time when the future of the fishponds looks to be under serious threat from developers Barratts, who would like to surround the historic site with 500+ modern houses at a density of up to 40 per hectare, this must surely call into question the wisdom of the original decision to identify Park Farm as Thornbury's "preferred option" for development?
Bristol Evening Post reported the breaking news as follows: (click on picture to enlarge in own screen)


Clicking on THIS LINK will take you to the Thornbury and Dursley Gazette's version of the same breaking news.
To read a full copy of the English Heritage Report, CLICK HERE.
To read a version of the STGH press release relating to this news, CLICK HERE.

LAST REMINDER BEFORE SUMMER HOLIDAYS

Closing date for submitting objections to Planning Application: I last posted 5th August as the closing date for submissions. This now appears as Wednesday 3rd August on the South Glos Website.
If you want to read any submissions already made, click on this link and browse other objections at your leisure - they are a mine of information, each one revealing new grounds for objecting. Select the best and personalise them into your own letter. If you have missed the deadline, don't worry and send it anyway to PlanningApplications@southglos.gov.uk
The Planning Inspector has delayed initial pronouncement on soundness of Core Strategy- no doubt there will be some surprises in store this coming autumn.
Happy Summer Holidays.

Debate,! what Debate?? Town Council Meeting 12th July 2011?

Debate,! what Debate?? Town Council Meeting 12^th July 2011?

Councillors attending a specially convened meeting last Tuesday night to debate a planning application by Barratt Developments for 500 houses at Park Farm Thornbury were faced with an angry gallery at the Town Hall, so packed that the usual centre piece committee table had to be removed to create additional space for the public.

The meeting opened with a number of councillors declaring prejudicial interests and subsequently leaving the chamber. Councillor Halsall spoke first and explained that as a governor of the Castle School he had an interest in the development so would have to leave the meeting and not vote. He left the room, followed by Clive Parkinson who also declared an interest as a Castle School Governor. Councillor Parsloe also declared an interest as a Trustee of the Sheiling School. Councillor Costello then declared a personal and prejudicial interest, and made a short statement before leaving. Councillor Davies then declared a personal and prejudicial interest and stated that even though he had been elected to represent the north west ward on this issue he was unable to vote or take part in the debate, which he considered a shame as he was probably more knowledgeable about the application than any other councillor as he had actually read most of the large box of evidence supplied by Barratts in support of the application. He was interrupted by the chairman who told him that statements from the public would be taken before statements by Councillors. He questioned whether he should remain in the room and was told he could and he could ask Councillor Costello to return to the room as the chairman understood he wanted to give a fuller statement too. Councillor Parsloe also returned to the room.

No less than seven residents, including former councillors and two ex-mayors gave detailed statements as to why the planning application should be refused. These included irreversible loss of valuable historical and ecological sites, landscape and conservation area damage, and serious traffic safety issues that would result from the development. It was also pointed out that the original decision to adopt Park Farm was based on the gain that could be achieved for the Castle School and the apparent closeness of the site to the town centre. It is now evident that the Castle School is unlikely to achieve what was originally expected and the walk from the development to the town centre is over 25 minutes. Councillors were asked to consider whether it was appropriate to support the planning application for this site in the light of these changing circumstances.

The chair of Concern for Thornbury also reminded councillors that the longer term visionary plan for development of the town had for many decades been to preserve the assets to the North and West and develop if required to the east which has resulted in Midland Way, Morton Way and its underpass in preparation for possible further growth towards the A38.

Numerous shortcomings and weakness in the information provided by Barratts to assess the suitability of Park Farm were emphasised. Just one example of how the sites important history, heritage and ecology had been undermined were highlighted by a representative of Avon Bat Society who pointed out that Barratts had claimed there had seen no bat activity on or near the site after a survey carried in February 2010 - which was probably accurate as bats hibernate between October and March.

Statements by two Independent Councillors followed. Councillor Vincent Costello, an expert in urban planning, pointed out that there was no need to succumb to this pressure being applied by Barratts and that the town council should recommend that the application should be refused awaiting the outcome of the core strategy deliberations of the planning inspector.

Councillor Davies started by asking how many letters of objection had been received by the council. He was informed that numerous letters had been received, about 29 or 30, which were too numerous to read out, but that no e-mail objections had been received recently as the council’s e-mail facility had been out of order for over a week! Councillor Gareth Davies continued to highlight the theme of misinformation by producing a brochure sent by Barratts to all town councillors prior to the meeting which applauded the benefits this development would bring to Thornbury, none of which could be proven. He spoke strongly against councillors claiming on the one hand that they were “listening” to their electors, and then ignoring the uncomfortable data that such consultations produced – as happened with the original 2008 Thornbury resident’s survey, which indicated that further development was preferred beyond Morton Way, - as happened with the massive objections to the draft Core Strategy, - and as was happening with all the objections focussed on this meeting here today.

In response to all this, Councillor Tyrell read out a statement followed by a ‘proposal’. First she stated the town council could not determine the application; only advise their support or otherwise. Her address then focused on her opinion, which was not changed - more houses were needed to be built in Thornbury. She stated that everyone was well aware of the arguments why Park Farm had been chosen and she was not going to go over those arguments again. Unfortunately, this was not the case – no-one has yet heard a well reasoned and evidence based rationale for building at Park Farm. Yes, the Councillors have made statements, but they have provided no facts and they were reminded at the meeting that the Planning Inspector is critical of both the process and consultation carried out by South Gloucestershire during the formation of the Core Strategy. Councillor Tyrell also inferred that it didn’t matter how many residents objected to their decision – they had the final say on what ‘had merit’ or not and they would judge. This seems to imply that, regardless of what Thornbury residents think, they know best and will decide on things themselves. This is the arrogance now displayed by a group of LibDem Town Councillors who haven’t been challenged for years on their decision making.

Immediately following the conclusion of her statement Councillor Tyrell, instead of referring to the leader of the council to open the debate, then read out the proposal that Thornbury Town Council raises no objections to the application subject to a number of planning conditions. Amongst these was that the bus link onto Park Road was an essential condition, bus services should be subsidised for a minimum of 5 years, a convenience store should be provided, health facilities should include the provision for additional doctors, dentists, therapists and other health staff, There were also a long list of other requirements which are standard for new developments such as “high quality housing”, 35% affordable housing, footpaths and cycle paths should provide good access and should be accessible to disabled people etc. etc.

Following this, there was no debate, or call for debate. The Chairperson did not ask if any other councillor wished to speak or comment or ask questions.

It was obvious that the councillors were unaware of letters from members of the public.There was no attempt to inform the public that e-mails could not be received. Instead of debate the proposal was quickly seconded and voted on to accept and support Barratts application.

It looked suspiciously like agreement had been reached by a group of councillors prior to the meeting and no debate was required as the proposal was to be accepted regardless of counter argument and information being brought forward on the evening. We understand one councillor abstained and the remaining (all liberal Democrats) all voted for the proposal. This appears to show that the councillors had a closed mind set before the meeting started and no amount of information or discussion at the meeting would change the way they had decided (or been told) to vote. This appears to be in breach of the councillors Code of Conduct.

It appears that not only have the Standing Orders been breached but also the meeting itself did not follow proper procedure.

Those of us at the back of the room could not see or hear how many councillors voted.

It should be noted that other than Councillor Tyrell, no words of support for the application were heard from councillors or from members of the public , quite the opposite. At the end of the meeting shouts of 'disgraceful' 'rubbish' 'disgusting' 'debate?? more like stitch up' were heard from the public. Several people registered with STGH their ‘shock’ and ‘speechlessness’ at how the Town Council had conducted this meeting, condemning it as a ‘sham’. Even one councillor who had not spoken at the meeting admitted afterwards that Park Farm was a beautiful part of Thornbury and should not be built on.

[Summary prepared by residents attending the meeting]

DEADLINE EXTENSION

Once again South Glos have extended their deadline for submissions/objections to the Park Farm Planning Application. I believe it now stands at Friday 5th AUGUST - although it is feasible this will be extended yet again. Each time new documentation is added to the application, this triggers a set amount of time that must elapse before the consultation can be closed.
So if you haven't objected yet ..... get writing! (See previous posts for detailed advice on grounds for objection.)

A full account of the shameful Thornbury Town Council endorsement of the application on Tuesday night (12th) will follow this post in the very near future. Apologies for delay - pressures of the day-job and family commitments!

Update Following the Exploratory Meeting by the Planning Inspector

This meeting is meant to be reported on the South Glos website, but at last visit, nothing was yet posted. South Gloucestershire Planners were presented with a legal challenge to the Core Strategy by barristers from Brittell. Apparently South Glos did not follow proper procedures relating to presenting the public with correct information at the timings laid down in statute. We certainly knew things were not right here in Thornbury – no Sustainability Appraisal appeared until May 2010 and then it was only partially completed. In fact we were not given a more complete version until AFTER the consultation period ended! And we can go on.......

The Planning Inspector referred to a legal case recently between ‘Save Historic Newmarket’ and Forest Heath District Council which concluded that the Council’s Core Strategy was flawed because it had not tested it’s ‘strategic’ (preferred) site option adequately against all other reasonable alternatives. We certainly feel this is also the case in Thornbury...

On top of all this, the main reason for Park Farm being the ‘preferred’ option is undoubtedly because of the benefits The Castle School were meant to receive as a result. We have evidence that this is now not going to be realised – so there is no real basis for a Park Farm development anymore. It certainly isn’t the most Sustainable option in terms of accessibility, heritage, landscape or flooding, and anyway, where exactly is all that evidence about needing 500 new homes in Thornbury?

So, the Planning Inspector has 4 choices –

(i) Throw out the Core Strategy due to Unsoundness & resubmit when ready (could be a year or more)

(ii) Suspend/delay the CS for up to 6 months to allow for further work/amendments

(iii) Proceed with the Enquiry in Public, but with some changes to the CS being necessary

(iv) All seems ok to proceed with Enquiry.

The Inspector will make his decision in about 10 days time, meanwhile we are thinking it could be option (ii) which is most likely, although (i) isn’t out of the question!

Meanwhile, it’s worth reading through the current Local Development Framework http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NR/exeres/5cf44123-5099-4865-87c1-8c9cbc8ffac0 which is what development/planning decisions will be based on until 2012 without a new CS in place.

WHAT IS THE PRIORITY FOR US ALL NOW?

Please send in your objections to the Planning Application for 500 homes on Park Farm by Friday 8^th July

If you check the list of documents already submitted relating to the planning aplication, (CLICK HERE) you will find some samples of letters/objections already made by members of the public (Listed as Consultation Replies). Please try to modify your own statements to give a personal look to them.

(Details of how to do this are in the previous posting) Send to PlanningApplications@southglos.gov.uk

It is also not too late, if you haven't already, to make an objection to Thornbury Town Council, who have delayed their own decision-making until Tuesday 12th July. Even better, come along to the Town Hall and make your objection in person! You have the right to be heard for up to five minutes.