Debate,! what Debate?? Town Council Meeting 12th 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]
