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.
No comments:
Post a Comment