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.

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AND STILL TIME TO RESPOND TO CORE STRATEGY CHANGES.

Cossham Hall was packed to the rafters on Thursday night, the occasion being a special town council meeting called to consider their response to the recently revised Core Strategy for South Glos, as required last year by the planning inspector. Albeit, despite his requests, very little had been changed with regard to Thornbury.

Residents from North West Thornbury had turned out to speak in defence of Park Farm and the need for a proper consultation for the whole town, but without doubt the majority of people attending were from the Morton Way. Apparently three Lib Dem councillors (including our own district representative Clare Fardell) had leafleted that area with what has been described as ‘partisan and scaremongering tactics’, ‘designed to play on their fears of being surrounded by thousands of houses’.

As you can imagine they were rightly concerned and spoke passionately in defence of their neighbourhood and its surroundings. It should be pointed out that at present Morton Way is not included as the council’s preferred site for development in the Core Strategy and was not on the agenda for discussion at the meeting. For the three councillors involved with the leafleting to raise such disquiet and concern unnecessarily, whilst ignoring other sections of the community, hardly seems in keeping with the requirement for them to represent constituents democratically, fairly, ethically, and in an open minded way. Ironically these Councillors are in fact offering a dis-service to Morton Way residents. By failing to engage with the big arguments that clearly render Park Farm the least suitable of all Thornbury’s potential greenfield sites, they are putting at risk all other identified sites including Morton Way.

As the meeting progressed other proposals were made such as the town council not supporting the plan for Thornbury as it stands today, but instead to carry out a proper assesment of all potential brownfield sites available for development, and by using these they would consequently protect all greenfield sites outside the existing footprint of the town. It became increasingly evident that residents from all parts of Thornbury were warming to such proposals regardless of the agenda they had arrived with. It was a pity that such welcome ideas acceptable to almost all those attending fell on stony ground when it came to the council vote. As predicted by one Independent Councillor the Lib Dem group voted en-masse to support the Core Strategy as it stands, regardless, as it is now becoming increasingly apparent, of the wishes of the town as a whole.

At the meeting Independent Councillors put forward the following for the town to consider:-

• Maintain the current footprint of the town and protect all greenfield sites from major new housing developments.
  
• Adopt a policy of brownfield site development (currently no assesment has been carried out) to meet the needs of the town.
  
• Carry out a comprehensive green belt review as required by the planning inspector, and protect valuable assets in the process.
  
• Engage in a Community Plan which will achieve all the foregoing and address the real needs of Thornbury in the forseeable future.

The case they made was rational and documented, with all supporting evidence in place, it offers a measure of protection for the future. It is a great folly by the majority on the town council to disregard such well thought through proposals and fail to recognise the full consequences of their decision. Would it have not been so much better for everybody if the town council had accepted the Independent proposals and include those in the Core Strategy instead of the risks they are currently taking. It does make you wonder what their motivation is.

For all those concerned with the way these issues have been dealt with there’s still time to address your opinions about the Core Strategy to the Independent Inspector. The deadline for writing to him is Friday 17^th February. But don’t be fooled into thinking that he will have much regard for views and opinions that are not backed up by hard evidence. Later this week we will be publishing on this blog 5 strong reasons why SGC has yet again failed to comply with the Inspector’s demands. We have urged South Glos planners and Lib Dem Town Councillors to stop papering over the cracks, but they have declined. The weight now falls on all our shoulders. Does it matter enough to you to take the time to compose a personal letter/email in order to pursue a good and fair outcome for Thornbury? If so we urge you to respond to the Planning Inspector by email or letter at the address below.

By Email: planningLDF@southglos.gov.uk

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