NOTE FROM THE INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR

The Inspector appointed to undertake the Core Strategy's Examination has supplied the following note regarding the Examination's progression:

I have had an opportunity to consider the results of the consultation process on the draft Main Modifications to the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy. This includes the Council’s response as set out in its letter of 16 November 2012.

I have found the views put forward helpful in clarifying my views on a number of matters but I would not wish to complete my report before investigating the option mentioned by the Council of identifying an additional site capable of contributing to a 5 year housing land supply. I appreciate that this is being suggested by the Council as a last resort and should only be considered if I were to conclude it was unable to demonstrate an adequate housing supply.

If I was minded to pursue this approach I would be unwilling to settle on the Council's suggested site to the east of Morton Way at Thornbury (Appendix D of its response) without giving consideration to the other sites across the District which were brought to my attention during the examination. I would also want to allow all parties the opportunity to put forward their views on the choice of site. I intend to issue a more detailed note early in the New Year regarding the matters that I would like to examine further. Further consideration of these issues would be made without prejudice to the final conclusions I reach. 

Paul Crysell
Inspector

We’ll keep you posted

In the meantime – we wish you and yours a happy Christmas. 

Gareth D
on behalf of STGH 

ALEXANDER HOUSE PUBLIC CONSULTATION?

Like me, you may have very recently received an invitation to attend a "Public Consultation" by  Barratt Developments PLC. It would seem that they think they have got their hands on options to develop the land that currently is the site of Alexander House Care Home for elderly people.
For your information, the "consultation" is taking place on Monday 3rd December from 2.30pm to 8.30pm at the Armstrong Hall. So, six days notice of the intention to consult, and one further week before the consultation closes on 10th December.
Since when did Barratts ever listen to the views of local residents in any meaningful way that would make a difference to their intentions to develop? But apparently, they say, "Your opinion matters."
This proposal is part and parcel of the Park Farm development project. In order to deliver the required bus link, that will render the Park Farm site even remotely more sustainable, this plot of land would appear to be the only option available to them. STGH have consistently argued that Park Farm is a ludicrous location for development, and this latest intrigue only reinforces those claims. If new housing is not beneath the floodwaters, it will be isolated and cut off from the town centre, and highly unsustainable.
If a link road was ever cut across to Alexandra Way, the Care Home would presumably have closed? Being located on public/SG land, presumably also, there would be an obligation to put the land up for open tender? Why do Barratts presume that they would win the bid? What deals have been done behind closed doors, yet again by South Gloucestershire planners and politicians, to further their own ends, rather than to serve the local residents whom they supposedly represent?
Park Farm was surrendered up to developers, against sound judgement and without local endorsement. Over 700 people represented against the decision when the Core Strategy was up for public scrutiny, but to little avail. (More  opposing representations than for any other site in South Gloucestershire.)
The latest rumours are that Morton Way North will soon follow - delivered to developers, once again against the force of local wishes.
Do you wish to have your say, and like Canute long ago, attempt to hold back the rising tide? Doors open at 2.30pm.

GarethD
on behalf of STGH

THE WISDOM OF BUILDING ON A FLOOD PLAIN

Flooding has become a hot (or should that be COLD?) topic across the country in recent years, and most especially last week.
A big thankyou to local walkers who  have been busy snapping some of the effects of flooding down at Park Farm, amongst other places. It seems difficult to credit that the Environment Agency is continuing to lend its approval to housing development on this site.
At one point, the pressure of water on the existing sewage system was forcing raw sewage out onto the fields and footpaths.
 Many house owners across the country are now finding problems obtaining house insurance, as insurers either refuse to offer cover to known flood-risk properties, or offer at exorbitent premiums.
Is this the fate that will await purchasers of Barratts soon-to-be-built Park Farm Flood Plain properties?

GarethD,
on behalf of STGH

Comments to Inspector

WE have once again put to paper and submitted our collective thoughts and comments on the Inspector's intial/draft findings, following on from the EIP.
You can read the whole document by clicking on THIS LINK. Unlikely it will have any impact whatsoever, when the weight of arguments already submitted have been summarily ignored!
It is terribly disappointing that, after such a major outcry from local residents who have driven a significant part of the EIP process, Thornbury has been seemingly airbrushed from Crysell's deliberations, giving the green light to SGC to hand over the future of Park Farm and the Medieval Fishponds to developers Barratts.
The repercussions will be deeply significant for Thornbury. Already there are rumblings that part of Morton Way will also be sacrificed to the sacred cow of housing development being championed by this government. More on this story to follow shortly.

Gareth
on behalf of STGH

A SHAMEFUL SPECTACLE

It was with no surprise, but a great deal of regret, that we witnessed South Gloucestershire Development Control West Committee surrender up Park Farm to the machinations of Planners, without even the slightest protest.
Barratt's outline planning application for 500 houses across the green and pleasant floodplains and heritage fields of North West Thornbury has now been rubber-stamped. Those unhappy with the outcome have no right of appeal, but then what would be the point? SGC have never listened to and engaged with the arguments and objections of local people. Their idea of consultation is to give people the opportunity to make representations, collect them all in and then continue with their stated intentions, with no regard for the legitimate issues and objections that have been raised.
Thornbury Liberal Democrat Town Councillors set the standard by declaring Park Farm the "least worst" site for development in Thornbury. Such euphemistic language was somehow intended to placate local residents so they would accept the hard choices that were being made. This dreadful phrase, once unpicked, reveals the lie it is intended to conceal.  STGH has been flagging up for over two years that Park Farm is the wrong site because it:

• will surround and impact upon the most important, nationally significant historic site in the whole of Historic Thornbury, the Medieval Fishponds and the Ancient Deer Park that provide the context and setting of Thornbury Castle.
• will be split by a flood-plain, thereby diminishing the size of site that can actually be developed, whilst increasing the density of housing to on average 45 houses per hectare (nearly twice the density of surrounding parts of Thornbury)
• will cause substantial harm to a number of important listed buildings in the area
• will be unsustainable because it is too far from the town centre for people to walk and the furthest distance for driving.
• will put lives at risk, by having its only access point into the newly-built estate leading out onto Butt Lane, a handful of metres from a dangerous S-bend.
• may have a downstream flood-impact on neighbouring Oldbury, who have strongly objected to the development.
• will require flood-mitigation measures that may ultimately "de-water" and destroy the archaeological heritage locked within the wetlands of the Fishponds
• has little or no existing infrastructure to support such a scale of development
• will significantly damage an area of high ecological and landscape value
• and more...

The Lib Dems would somehow have us believe that this medley of problems still offers Thornbury the best option for more housing in our Town. Frankly such a view is untenable. But the implications are deeply disturbing for Thornbury. If a town offers support for housing in such an obviously bad location, and it is approved, what happens when developers start applying for housing on more sustainable sites? When you ignore the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines with respect to protecting your heritage assets and you ignore your local voice, what happens next time when there's green fields you want to protect, and only public opinion to defend them? When you give bulldozers the green light to tear up what the South Glos Conservation Officer identified as the least suitable site for development around Thornbury, it'll be a case of 'where shall we build next?'
Three Independent Town Councillors, Rob Hudson, Vincent Costello and Gareth Davies have stood alone against the tide of political opinion in the Town Council and consistently opposed this development, and we salute them for their efforts. Together with STGH, they have rallied local opposition, and spoken out for truth and transparency and a fair deal for Thornbury. It is with heavy hearts that they and we all have had to deal first with the seeming indifference of Core Strategy EIP Inspector Paul Crysell, and now with the surrender of DC (West) SG Councillors to the whims and wishes of SG Planning Department. 
AT Thursday's Committee Meeting, SG Councillors were given every opportunity to call Planners to account for a deeply flawed and biased planning process that was riding roughshod over Government Legislation, and turning a blind eye to some of its own policies and specialist officers. They gave in to it all and in the twinkling of an eye Barratts was offered a 100% vote of support for its application. Not a dissenter in the ranks. Long live the Democratic Process.
Any thoughts on a Judicial Review?

Grace D,
on behalf of STGH

PARK FARM PLANNING APPLICATION

After two & a half years of opposition to the plans to develop Park Farm, it would appear that the future of these delightful green heritage fields now hangs by a thread.
The outline planning application (PT11/1442/O) submitted by Barratt Homes to build up to 500 houses across this extremely sensitive location, is being considered by South Gloucestershire Development Control (West) Committee  this coming Thursday 18th October starting at 2.30pm.
The meeting will be taking place in the South Glos. Thornbury Council Chamber, and members of the public are welcome to attend, and indeed to speak publicly to Councillors prior to their consideration of the application.
South Glos Planners (in particular Sarah Tucker) have prepared a briefing document for Councillors, and this has been published on the SG website. You should be able to access it by clicking on THIS LINK
Although her briefing makes passing reference to the large quantity of objections raised by local residents, it deals with these matters only cursorily, and continues to build upon the litany of flawed arguments, misrepresentations of the truth, and ill-conceived judgements that have beset this project from the beginning.
It will be a huge ask of the South Glos Councillors to locate the essence of what is fundamentally wrong with Barratt's application, and to lay it bare for what it is. It should never have reached this stage, and will only fail if there is a rigorous and persitent examination of the details of the application, together with the courage to correct  South Glos professional planners who should have known better than to dress up bad plans with a veneer of acceptability. The preparation of the Core Strategy for Thornbury has been a mess and there is still no proper assessment of Thornbury and its needs. There have been  many opportunities to throw out this planning application, but for reasons that are frankly obscure, it has survived.
The Independent Inspector of the Core Strategy decided to pass no judgement on Thornbury, leaving it instead to the local decision makers (SG Councillors) who may or may not be swayed by planners who are out of touch with the reality here in North West Thornbury.

PARK FARM SITE INSPECTION

While still awaiting the planning inspector’s final report South Glos council appear to have pre-empted its contents and have moved the planning process forward with the development control committee conducting a site visit at Park farm on Friday 28^th September.

One must assume that such site ‘inspections’ are an important and essential part of the process councillors undergo when seeking to arrive at decisions of such magnitude, which will have an irreversible effect on many peoples lives, and particularly as some of the committee will be unfamiliar with the site and its many nuances. However examination of the inspection programme for Friday 28th might lead you to think otherwise.

The programme includes a total of six planning applications, two of which relate to Park Farm. One for 500 houses with the second being an application of preventative guesswork hoping to stop all these new homes and the rest of us flooding at the first sign of anything more than a passing shower.

Leaving the council offices Thornbury at 0930 the committee are initially bussed around four locations from Tockington to Little Stoke visiting small sites with applications comprising of a single story extension and 2 semi’s plus 2 flats.

At 11.05 the committee take a coffee break prior to commencing the Park Farm inspection at 11.55 for no more than one hour on site before returning to the council offices in Thornbury by 1300.

The development area proposed at Park Farm equates to 26 hectares, or in old money an awful lot of acres. It is a flood plain, forms part of the ancient deer park relating to Thornbury castle, contains locally and nationally listed monuments, is ecologically extremely valuable containing many important and protected species, is high grade agricultural land, is many hundreds of years in the making – how on earth can they be expected to become familiar with such a large valuable site and gain sufficient feel and knowledge to make a decision of such magnitude in less time than it takes to view a few extensions and flats and literally the same space of time as a coffee break.

It absolutely beggars belief and makes a mockery of anything resembling proper process

Important Park Farm Update

Dear Supporter,

You may already be aware of the forthcoming site meeting for the members of the Planning Committee to look at the proposed development site by Barratts at Park Farm on Friday 28^th September 2012 at 11.55 am.

We could really do with as much public support as we can muster for this event, if anyone is free please come along, bring your friends, relatives, dogs pushchairs, posters, banners etc. etc. 

We still need to demonstrate that there is a lot of public concern about the site, its access and other limitations. Should the development go ahead it needs to be made clear that it needs very careful design/layout outcomes.

This is an opportunity to demonstrate to the councillors that the public do not support this application and the committee will take notice of the numbers of attendees, so please come if you can.

There is conflicting advice from SGC with regard to the meeting point, they have identified 2 areas; the public footpath adjacent to Morton House and the entrance to Park Farm at Butt Lane, we will keep you posted when we find out where it will be.

Watch this space and thank you for your continuing support,

Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage.

DISAPPOINTMENT AN UNDERSTATEMENT

The shock of coming to terms with the INDEPENDENT EXAMINER'S preliminary findings on the soundness (or not) of the Core Strategy, has still not left me.
At first I thought I must have mis-read the document.
Or perhaps the Examiner had forgotten to attach the Appendix relating to Thornbury?
Surely all those hundreds of hours of investigation and research, documentation, letter-writing and representing, public meetings, enquiries, and finally the whole day of EIP relating to Thornbury, must have elicited SOME response from the Examiner?
But unless your reading of the publication is different to mine, it would appear that Paul Crysell has made ZERO reference to the scandal that is Park Farm, with its proposal for housing to encompass our national heritage Medieval Fishponds, and concrete over the last traces of the Tudor Deer Park.
No mention of the Sustainability Appraisal that never was an appraisal.
Not even an oblique reference to the new Planning Framework that was supposed to strengthen the protection of Heritage Assets.
No requirement for flooding risks to be carried out sequentially as prescribed by law.
No acknowledgement that building at Park Farm will in no way realise a Castle School unified on a single site, nor revitalise our Town Centre.
No nod to the potential brownfield sites that might adequately meet local needs in the coming years.
No recognition of the hundreds of local representations opposing the CS proposals, nor taking to task of a Council that failed to engage in meaningful consultation because it was already too closely entwined with the housing developers.
No reference to the bias and dishonesty and flawed data that has informed the process at almost every turn.
How we had hoped for more from an INDEPENDENT Inspector!
We are rocked to the core, but cannot give in yet. We will reflect further for the time being.
We would welcome comments and suggestions from sympathisers.
The Inspector has invited responses to his preliminary findings, over the next 6 weeks. We have an opportunity to let him know what we think of his findings. As always, address them to Kath Thorne the programme officer at SGC who will be passing them on to Mr. Crysell.
We will advise further in the next week or two.

Gareth D
on behalf of STGH

LETTER FROM SG PROGRAMME OFFICER

Dear Examination Participant

I am writing to advise you that the Examination Website has now been updated to reflect the Inspector’s Interim Statement incorporating his draft main modifications.  These documents can be accessed via the www.southglos.gov.uk/corestrategyexamination.

The Inspector’s suggested modifications will be subject to a 6 week formal public consultation. The Council is currently now progressing to prepare the necessary supporting sustainability appraisal and make arrangements for the consultation to commence.  Details of this and the timetable for the public consultation will be made available shortly on the website, although it is currently anticipated consultation will start in early October.  Everyone who has made representations on the Core Strategy will also be notified. All comments received, as part of this consultation process, will be passed to the Inspector for his consideration in drafting his final report.

If you have any queries regarding accessing these documents, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Kath

Kath Thorne

Programme Officer

South Gloucestershire LDF - Core Strategy Examination

DD: 01454 863742

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INSPECTOR

We don't yet know what they are, only we know that he has made some!
SGC have now officially received the Inspector's preliminary findings. He has concluded that the December 2011 Core Strategy is capable of being made sound provided a number of modifications are made. The findings and suggested modifications in his report are currently being reviewed and considered by the Council. We understand that these will be presented to the Policy and Resources Committee as a supplementary report on Monday 17th Sept at 2pm in Kingswood. The findings are also due to be published on the SGC Examination website in the near future. How near is anybody's guess. As soon as we get wind of them, rest assured we will be publishing!

RADIO BRISTOL for Cllr. HUDSON

On Thursday 30th August, our very own NorthWest Thornbury Councillor Rob Hudson was interviewed on Radio Bristol.  "Breakfast with Steve Le Fevre" carried a particular focus on the state of the Core Strategy  in respect of Thornbury, and invited a number of guests to speak - only Rob accepted the invite. For those who missed the interview, it was repeated later in the day as part of a news round-up.
For those of you, like me still in holiday mode who may have missed both versions, click on the player below to listen to the podcast. Rob makes some interesting and important contributions to the ongoing debate about the future of housing for Thornbury.

  

Also of interest to some may be the e-mailed  response to the interview from veteran Green Spaces campaigner Ron Morton - I have taken the liberty to print his comments here too.

Dear BBC Radio Bristol,

........

I was out about this afternoon and caught the 4.00pm Radio Bristol News on the car radio, specifically the item with the interview with Cllr. Rob Hudson in respect of building in Thornbury at Park Farm. Somebody in authority is trying to pull a fast one over the BBC!

Mr Hudson said it would be wrong to build on this heritage-rich land, the authority figure said no decision has yet been made. This is simply not the case.

Whilst it is true that the Barretts planning application has been submitted but not decided & that the Core Strategy has yet to be approved by Mr Chryssell the Planning Inspector, South Gloucestershire Council is 100% committed to building up to 500 dwellings at Park Farm. Barretts & South Glos. Council have already held the public Master Planning Workshop for the site.

This incident is simply the latest in a long, long line of council lies, manipulations, breaches of planning protocols, failures to declare interests and general skulduggery by Thornbury Town Council, South Gloucestershire Council and Lib Dem Councillors. The Core Strategy Group led by Patrick Conroy within the Planning Department are determined that these heritage rich fields (Grade 2 listed & thus supposedly protected by the national Garden Society) be concreted over, for whatever reason. The reasons they actually give about the nature of Thornbury are spurious and unsupported by evidence. The Sustainability Appraisal for the development was written after the decision to build had been made. There is a great deal more.

The whole thing is a can of worms that the BBC would do well to investigate.

etc. etc.

Ron Morton

Save Our Green Spaces.

APOLOGIES FOR MIX-UP

My apologies for muddling up the reference numbers and links in the previous two postings - thanks to the reader who pointed this out to me - I have now corrected my error.

Just to be absolutely clear, what you now read are the correct reference numbers and links for each of the stated applications, should you still wish to make any objections.

Objections can be emailed f.a.o. Sarah Tucker at planningapps@southglos.gov.uk

The original Barratt/Pegasus application for 500 houses at Park Farm is PT11/1442/O.

The recent duplicate application for 500 houses at Park Farm is PT12/2659/O 

The recent Bloor application for 300 houses at Morton Way North is PT12/2395/O

If you have made a representation in the past few days using my erroneous information, sincere apologies, but would you mind re-submitting under the correct reference number? 

DUPLICATE PLANNING APPLICATION by BARRATTs

Not having been trained in planning applications, it's still a bit of a mystery as to why Barratts have submitted a seemingly duplicate planning application for 500 houses on land at Park Farm.
The question on many residents minds is -" to re-submit or not to re-submit objections?"
Below are extracts from an e-mail written by Sarah Tucker, the case officer at SGC for this application, in responding to a query on this matter by a local resident:

Dear                    ,
since the applications are for the same development we will take the representations on the earlier application as for the new, duplicate application, although if you want to send in representations on the new application, you are welcome to. Since it is a different application, (albeit the same scheme) the representations have to be attached to the application that they were submitted to, this is for audit trail purposes. However, when I do my report to Committee, I will summarise all comments from both applications, as they relate to both applications as the schemes are the same.
The dates for determination are different as the applications were submitted at different times. The reason Barratt’s have done this is to give them the opportunity of appealing the first application against non-determination to the Planning Inspectorate, and carrying on negotiating on the duplicate application. They are within their rights to be able to do this.
I will be able to take representations on either application up to the date of the Committee, although it would be prudent to get them in as soon as practicable. At this moment I do not have a Committee date for determination.
I hope the above is of use
Regards
Sarah Tucker
Major Sites Team
01454 863780

Our own lack of trust regarding planners leads us to feel that it may be prudent for concerned residents to re-submit their objections to the new application, just to be belt and braces.
The major amendment to the original application submitted last year, is that the link road connecting the new estate with the centre of Thornbury has moved. It was originally intended to cross the Castle School playing fields and exit onto Park Road. The new plans show the access road emerging from behind the Alexander Way Old Peoples Home, out onto Alexander Way.

We would urge you if you have not already, to consider objecting to this application. Try not to be too subjective in your reasoning - you need to be articulating PLANNING objections. (See previous blog entry for links to sample objections.)

Objections can be emailed f.a.o. Sarah Tucker at planningapps@southglos.gov.uk
Be sure to quote the planning application reference number of your objection. (PT12/2659/O)
Also, ask for confirmation of receipt. It should eventually appear under the SGC reference list of documents relating to the planning application - if it does not, make sure you follow up with an enquiry.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FROM ALL DIRECTIONS

No sooner have Bloor Homes submitted an application for up to 300 homes in the greenfields at the northern end of Morton Way (click on l.h. blog button for more details of the application, or take a direct look at the application made to SGC online PT12/2395/O)...

now Barratts have  re-submitted their application for 500 houses on the heritage fields surrounding the medieval fishponds at Park Farm PT12/2659/O. This may seem confusing to you, as it does to me, because they have already submitted this application once. You may have already objected using the original reference:PT11/1442/O.
There is a legal explanation for this duplicate application, but it currently eludes me! Our understanding from Sarah Tucker the case officer at SGC is that if you have already represented to the original Park Farm application, your objections remain valid for the second application. You may choose to re-submit them with the new reference number for forms sake, but she assures us that the content from both sets of representations will be considered together when finally the case is heard, because it is THE SAME APPLICATION.
With both the Bloor and Barratt applications, although there is an official deadline for responses to be submitted, you can continue to submit your representations, and they will still be received and considered up until the point at which SGC sits to consider the planning applications in question.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will know that STGH opposes both planning applications.
You can read our objections by clicking on the links below.

• STGH OBJECTION TO BARRATTS HOUSING APPLICATION FOR PARK FARM.

• STGH OBJECTION TO BLOOR HOUSING APPLICATION FOR MORTON WAY NORTH.

We would urge you if you have not already, to consider objecting to both of these applications. Try not to be too subjective in your reasoning - you need to be articulating PLANNING objections.
Objections can be emailed f.a.o. Sarah Tucker at planningapps@southglos.gov.uk
Be sure to quote the planning application reference number of your objection. Also, ask for confirmation of receipt. It should eventually appear under the SGC reference list of documents relating to the planning application - if it does not, make sure you follow up with an enquiry.

CLARIFICATION of STGH POSITION.

Despite what you may have read in the letter pages of the Gazette, or heard from Lib Dem Town Councillors, we can assure you that Save Thornbury's Green Heritage has NOT changed its position.

STGH has been consistent in maintaining that local housing needs for Thornbury should first be met from within the existing town footprint. If a need is shown for more housing than is possible from brownfield sites, Park Farm is still not a sustainable site. It is known to have flooding and heritage issues and is too far from the town centre. But our opposition to development at Park Farm and our claim that it is one of the least sustainable sites, does not mean we actually support housing development at other sites.

The Planning Inspector asked for 'common ground statements' between any relevant parties who objected to the Core Strategy. STGH did as he asked but have now been misrepresented over common ground reached with two potential developers. We agreed with Welbeck and Bloor that Park Farm was wrong for development, but we did not agree with them (or SGC or TTC) on the level of need suggested for new housing for Thornbury. We stand firmly behind our original assertion that housing needs should at this stage be met from within the current town boundary and we argued this in February at the Special Town Council Meeting in the Cossham Hall. The North West Thornbury Councillors proposed this as an amendment to the decision to build at Park Farm, also suggesting a survey of potential brownfield sites was carried out. Typically, It was voted down by the Lib Dem majority.
 
STGH has been accused of ‘supporting development’ at Morton Way sites because we agreed that “other sites such as Morton Way South and Morton Way NE have less or no flood risk and are sequentially preferable for development.” That agreement should not be construed as any STGH support for development at Morton Way. We have simply agreed with a statement of fact with regard to site comparisons and flood risks.

From the beginning, STGH has sought to protect the whole of Thornbury, though the battle ground to date has been Park Farm. We always agreed with the 2005 Planning Inspector’s view that there was no justification for development in Thornbury. However, we have also always said that, if the case for more development is made, let houses be built after proper community consultation and an accurately evidenced sustainability appraisal that selects the most appropriate site. This has never happened and that is why STGH exists.

If anyone is interested in reading exactly what the Statement of Common Ground says, then you can  

CLICK THIS LINK.

MATTER 27 - now CLOSED!

The experience of sitting through nearly 7 hours of legal deliberations over the soundness of the Core Strategy relating to  Thornbury, was utterly exhausting, and frankly a bit disorienting.
The Inspector asked many questions, but he had already indicated in advance more or less the line of questioning he would follow. What he didn’t do was give much away as to what he thought about the quality or significance of the answers. So if like me you went to the hearing believing that the Core Strategy for Thornbury is deeply flawed and therefore unsound and unjustified, there was nothing on offer to make you change your mind. What did seem to come across, however, was that the Inspector wishes to see more rather than less houses being built across the whole of South Gloucestershire.

To my mind there are now three scenarios:

1. The current Inspector agrees with the previous Inspector, and SGC’s own Heritage Officer, that Park Farm is unsuitable for the development of 500 new homes, but approves one or more of the other development options around Thornbury, which can yield between 500-1000 extra houses to meet both local and strategic need.
2. The Inspector finds the CS to be sound in relation to Thornbury, and approves Park Farm as the preferred option for 500 houses to meet local need.
3. The Inspector advises along meeting as much strategic need as possible for SGC in terms of housing quotas, and approves all of the development sites around Thornbury, including Park Farm, and all along  Morton Way, and even possibly a small development off the Bristol Road, near to the Leisure Centre. This could mean up to 1500 extra houses for Thornbury meeting both local and strategic needs.

The one outcome that seems highly unlikely, is the one put forward by Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage, and supported by the NorthWest Thornbury Town Councillors, that all local housing needs should be met from within the current footprint of the town, using brownfield sites as and when they become available. Only at such time as improved infrastructure, employment opportunities and transport links are on offer, do we believe that Thornbury is really ready for outward expansion.

We wait and see. Inspector’s verdict may not be until early autumn.

Tomorrow (Tuesday 17th July at 7pm at the Town Hall,) the Town Council will again be considering Barratt’s second planning application for Park Farm. Did you know for example that according to SGC the latest proposals include a link road being constructed from the new development through into Alexander Way (in the vicinity of the Old Peoples Home which is due for closure in the next few years)? All residents are welcome to come along and voice their views.

It's also not too late to send in objections to the latest Barratt housing application at SGC.

For reasons unfathomable to many in the community, Thornbury Town Council (at least the LibDem majority) have been intent on locating more housing at one of the least sustainable and most inappropriate heritage sites in our town. When the worst site gets a green light, this naturally encourages other developers with more sustainable credentials to chance their hand. Consequently,  Bloor Homes are now believed to have submitted their own  planning application for housing development at the northern end of Morton Way.  Things are hotting up for Thornbury. Let's hope the floodgates have not been well and truly opened.

Tomorrow: EIP hearing for THORBURY - MATTER 27

At last we come to the day that may well define Thornbury for years to come. We have pinned a lot of faith and hope on an Independent Inspector who sees the Core Strategy and  its Sustainability Appraisal relating to Thornbury, for what it is – deeply flawed and unsound.

A number of STGH members will be attending the hearing, together with NorthWest Thornbury Independnet Councillors Rob Hudson, Vincent Costello and Gareth Davies, and a few local residents, all of whom have been invited to join the table of discussions. We’ve spent a few hours this evening ordering our files and reviewing the questions posed by the Inspector.

I’m not certain that by tea-time tomorrow there will necessarily be clear indications as to the Inspector’s conclusions. It may certainly stir things up for next week’s Special Town Council Meeting on Tuesday 17th July at 7pm in the Town Hall, when Councillors will be discussing Barratt’s latest housing application for Park Farm.(All members of the public welcomed to attend, and also to speak.) I shall report back before then as to any inklings from the hearing tomorrow.

Our sincere hope is that Area Fa or Option 6 (Park Farm) is deleted from the Core Strategy as an unsustainable option for housing development. When the majority (Lib Dem) Town Councillors have argued so long and so strenuously for more housing for Thornbury, the implications that this may have for developing other parts of Thornbury is hard to anticipate. A major strand of the EIP hearing relating to all South Glos, is that the Inspector is looking for more, not fewer houses across the county. 

Despite  STGH consistently arguing that Thornbury should retain its current footprint and meet housing needs from within brownfield sites, Thornbury may well be presented with some difficult options tomorrow, that will have ramifications across the whole town.

Update from EIP Programme Officer Kath Thorne:

Dear Participant

The Inspector has now reviewed issues that arose during the first two weeks of the hearing sessions and has decided that it would be helpful to clarify certain matters arising from the discussions to date.  It is, therefore, the Inspector’s intention to hold further sessions on Wednesday, 18 July and in this respect, please find attached a note from him indicating the format for these extra sessions;  you will see that there are 4 areas which the Inspector wishes to cover. (See Note below.)

Please can you confirm your attendance by sending me an email or giving me a call.  It is expected that those who participated in sessions 8 & 13 re housing and retail will wish to attend on the 18 July.

You will see from the note that the Inspector has indicated that if you are unable to attend these extra sessions, he is willing to take written submissions, although he asks that these are as brief as possible, do not repeat arguments previously made and explain how far any changes would address your concerns or what further alterations would be needed in order to do so.

For information, please note for those who are not already aware, the Inspector has rescheduled Matter 28 Communities of the East Fringe to Tuesday 17 July 2012 commencing at 2pm in order to extend Matter 27 – Thornbury on the 13 July to a full day in view of the number of participants.

An updated programme will be placed on the examination website later this morning and a copy of the attached note put into the examination library (PA19).

If you have any queries regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Kath

Kath Thorne

Programme Officer

South Gloucestershire LDF - Core Strategy Examination

DD: 01454 863742

Note from Inspector: 

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE CORE STRATEGY – FURTHER SESSIONS ‐ WEEK 4
 
Having reviewed issues in the first two weeks of the hearing sessions I have decided it would be helpful to clarify certain matters arising from the discussions to date.
My intention is to hold further sessions on Wednesday 18 July. Thursday 19 July will be available to complete these if it is not possible to do so on the 18th.

The areas I wish to cover are:
1.  Revisions to policy CS15 and the provision of a 5 year housing land supply.
2.  Consideration of alternative policy wording in relation to the Mall and Cribbs Causeway retail areas. Following the debate on Matter 13 the Council said it would clarify how these locations should be treated during the plan period.
3.  Options for taking the CS forward, assuming it is possible to address deficiencies in the Plan, whether by means of a further period of suspension, early review of the Plan or any other mechanism.
4.  Initial views of key policy changes put forward in the Council’s ‘Schedule of Rolling Suggested Changes’ (SRC1) in advance of main modifications I might recommend.
 
I do not wish to hear points which have already been made but would like to know if any of the changes would address in whole or part the problems identified by participants. This would help me to decide whether it would be possible to recommend modifications to make the Plan sound.
My intention is to devote the morning of the 18th to housing and retail changes (items 1 & 2) and the first part of the afternoon to item 3. Under item 4 I do not consider it is necessary to seek views on every modification suggested by the Council but I would welcome them on those I consider to be of particular importance.
It is possible that other matters will arise during Week 3 which necessitate inclusion as part of the additional sessions in Week 4. Should this happen I will deal with these issues on 19th July.
For any participant who is unable to be present at these extra sessions I am willing to take written submissions although I ask that these be as brief as possible, do not repeat arguments previously made and explain how far any changes would address your concerns or what further alterations would be needed in order to do so.
Paul Crysell
Inspector
30 June 2012

COMMUNITY PLAN and EIP LATEST

1. Thornbury Town Community Plan

The official launch of the Community Plan will be on this coming Thursday 10th May, starting at 7.30pm in the Cossham Hall. Although this will not necessarily OVERTLY deal with planning issues, it will be an opportunity for members of the public to identify the issues they feel are most pressing for our town. All residents are welcome to offer their views, and most importantly, this will be giving local people the opportunity to volunteer to help shape the future of our town - an opportunity that should not lightly be passed up.

2. The Examination in Public  (EIP) for Thornbury – Friday 13^th July ‘12

The Planning Inspector has now confirmed the Matters he wishes to cover at the Hearings for Thornbury on 13^th July. These provide the basis for further discussion during the Hearing and are detailed below:-

 THORNBURY – POLICIES CS32 & CS33

1.            Concerns have been raised regarding both the consultation process and the sustainability appraisal.  What evidence is there to show the Council has failed to comply with the either legislative or regulatory requirements in connection with these processes?

2.            A number of respondents say the Council’s aim to retain and improve services, facilities and employment in Thornbury is not supported by the evidence.  What information has the Council relied upon in reaching its conclusions on the need for and the scale of development appropriate for the town?

3.            In relation to proposals for development at Park Farm a number of potential constraints have been identified.  These include heritage and archaeological assets, wildlife and agricultural land quality as well as concerns with flooding, the loss of open space and access issues.  How far have these factors been taken into account in identifying this location as the Council’s preferred choice?

4.            Do alternative sites in the Thornbury area particularly to the east and south have advantages over the Park Farm location and, if so, what are these?

5.            Is Morton Way South a more sustainable location for housing purposes and/or are the constraints at this location a significant factor against the development?

6.            Some respondents are concerned that no account has been taken of the impact of a new nuclear power station at Oldbury.  How significant is this to the proposals for Thornbury?

The latest list of participants asked by the Inspector to be part of the hearing includes:-

Oldbury Parish Council

J Richards Bloor Homes

Thornbury Town Council

Thornbury NW Ward Independent Town Councillors (Gareth Davies/Vincent Costello)

Shortwood GB Campaign

Pegasus Pl for Barratts

Graham Lanfear

R.Hudson

Emery Planning for Fearson Homes

Grace Davies - STGH

Rosemary Burton

T Roberts for Atherton Family Trust

Chris Rickard

Mrs Hall

Dominic Lawson

The Examination Hearings for South Gloucestershire actually commence at 10.00am on 19 June and will take place in the Council offices at Kingswood Civic Centre, High Street, Kingswood BS15 9TR.  The Inspector has lots of issues regarding the Core Strategy that need resolving – full details of all these issues and matters for each hearing session are on the South Glos website: www.southglos.gov.uk/corestrategyexamination

The Thornbury hearing on 13^th July is towards the end of the hearing period. 

STGH will be continuing to put forward the evidence that the Core Strategy for Thornbury is unsound and does not follow the principles of the government’s NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework). We continue to believe that Thornbury’s green heritage should be protected.    

Members of the public are allowed to attend any of the sessions to observe, but only those invited to participate can do so. 

If you have questions or concerns you wish to discuss with STGH, please contact us by email ourgreenheritage@gmail.com

The EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC (EIP)

Finally we arrive at the EIP season proper.

The LOCALISM ACT is now in place.

SGC have completed their Core Strategy work and submissions to the Indpendent Inspector Paul Crysell are done.
If you wish to read all responses to the Inspector, bySGC, by public bodies, by members of the public, by developers, by councillors, by other interested parties, you can ...

check out this SGC WEBSITE.

Be warned that in our experience, it is frequently not connecting adequately.
We are also attaching a couple of draft publications relating to the EIP.

EIP Draft Programme and participants list

Draft (11April) Programme for SG CS - covering letter

If you wish to personally attend any hearings, even more if you wish to speak, it is important that your name appears on the documentation being collated by Kath Thorne the programme officer.
Save Thornbury's Green Heritage will be contributing to the examination - we will update you as to who will specifically speak at what hearing. If you still have burning issues that you fear may not be represented at that examination, we would welcome you to contact us and discuss those issues with us further.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND THE NEW LOCALISM ACT

We haven’t posted for a few weeks now – taking a breather after the flurry of activites surrounding the final deadline for submissions to the Independent Inspector. Too late to submit any written representations. Now we wait to find out the initial response of the Inspector to SGC revisions, and presumably await the publication of a timetable for public hearings. We will keep you posted as the news breaks.

Meanwhile, please be informed that the date for the lauch of the Thornbury Community Plan has been postponed. It was initially intended to take place next week, but is now planned to take place on Thursday 10th May at 7.30pm at The Cossham Hall. Apologies for any confusion or diary clashes that may ensue. What this does mean, however, is that a timely free training event, being offered by CPRE, may be of interest and value to people interested in planning issues, shaped by the new Localism Act.

Details pasted below:

Interested in planning? CPRE are offering a free event in Bristol

Planning our future: The Localism Act and neighbourhood planning

Saturday March 24, 2012

9:30 am to 4:30 pm
Armada House, Telephone Avenue, Bristol BS1 4BQ

Free but booking is required

The Localism Act is intended to give communities a real voice in the planning system. It allows community groups to form ‘Neighbourhood Forums’ and to create Neighbourhood Development Plans, to help shape development in their area.

But how will it work in practice? How much power will community groups really have? And just how will decisions be made about which groups act as the Neighbourhood Forum for their area?

If you are interested in planning and development in your area and you want to learn more about how the Localism Act will work, CPRE is running a conference in Bristol to try to answer those questions. It is open to individuals and community groups who want to learn how to have a real voice in planning for their local area.

Speakers will include Paul Miner (CPRE Senior Planning Campaigner) and Sarah O’Driscoll (Bristol City Council Strategic Planning Service Manager).

There will be talks by ‘front-runner’ groups about the reality of producing Neighbourhood Development Plans, and discussions on the more awkward questions that the Localism Bill has brought up – just what are the limits of Localism? How can community groups effectively involve and engage the people in their area in planning? And can communities really use the Localism Act to say no to unwanted development?

Lunch will be provided – please let us know if you have any dietary requirements.

Places for this event are limited and will be allocated ‘first come first served’.

For more information or to book a place, please contact:

Joe Evans
CPRE Avonside
07854 741130
director@cpreavonside.org.uk

Supporting Communities and Neighbourhoods in Planning is a joint project between CPRE and the National Association of Local Councils, funded by DCLG.

FINAL FINAL CS SUBMISSIONS

PLEASE SEND YOUR FINAL REVISED COMMENTS ON THE CORE STRATEGY TO THE PLANNING INSPECTOR... by Friday Feb 17^th

Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage believe that a pro-forma or highly orchestrated response to the latest changes in the Core Strategy is unlikely to affect the Inspector’s decision.

However, individual/personalised letters or e-mails will undoubtedly carry more weight - using your own style to communicate objections.

The five statements below are all strong, evidenced grounds on which to object. You can include and expand upon all or any of these in your own objections. Paragraph six contains a concluding statement you can adapt, because the inspector is also asking for opinions on how the Core Strategy should be changed in order to make it sound/justified.

The quickest method is probably to cut and paste then personalise as an email.

AREAS OF OBJECTION

• The fundamental problems of insufficient public consultation and an unjustified Sustainability Appraisal have not been addressed in the revised Core Strategy.

• The new evidence added to the Sustainability Appraisal has not altered the existing flawed evidence and its resulting conclusions. eg. (i)The walking distance from Park Farm to the Town Centre is still quoted inaccurately as 15 minutes. The previous Planning Inspector even recognised it was a 25 minute walk. (ii) the ecology of the Park Farm area has not been properly assessed or recognised. As a local resident I know for a fact there are bats, egrets, kingfishers, badgers, etc...commonly sighted.

• The recent Scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds as an Ancient Monument is a very significant achievement for this prized heritage area of Thornbury. Why has this area so inappropriately been chosen as the area for major housing development? There has been no proper recognition of this heritage and historic asset and no re-assessment of the Sustainability Appraisal as a result.

• There has been no review of the Greenbelt around Thornbury. Areas such as Park Farm, containing prized heritage & historic assets, as well as valuable agricultural land, should be brought into the Greenbelt and protected from development. Why hasn’t the Greenbelt been reviewed to include this area?

• The wrong process has been followed with regard to flood risk assessment for Thornbury. Surely with such incomplete knowledge and assessment of all the flood risks in the Park Farm area, a site should not be selected for development?

• Although some changes have been made in this version of the Core Strategy, it is still, in my/our opinion, UNSOUND, with many inaccuracies and unjustified conclusions. Park Farm should be removed from the Core Strategy as a site for development.
  

SEND your responses:-

By Email to: planningLDF@southglos.gov.uk

By letter to: Strategic Planning Policy and Specialist Advice Team, South Gloucestershire Council, PO Box 2081, South Gloucestershire, BS35 9BP

By hand to: South Glos Council Offices in Thornbury.

Please ensure you include your full name and address.

Deadline for reply is Friday 17^th February 2012.