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?