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