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