green & pleasant Thornbury

FINAL FINAL CS SUBMISSIONS

2012-02-09T13:27:00.000-08:00

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.

2012-02-06T04:30:00.000-08:00

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

SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING on 2nd Feb 2011

2012-01-29T10:20:00.000-08:00

On Thursday of this week, 2nd Feb 2012, at 7.30pm, Thornbury Town Council are hosting a Special Town Council Meeting at the Cossham Hall. According to the official agenda, they will be gathered "To consider the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy incorporating Post Submission Changes."
This is a public meeting, to which you, the members of the public, are invited to attend, and indeed participate.
Public participation will take place at the start of the meeting, and you will be invited (if you so wish) to speak to the Town Council for a maximum of 5 minutes, but only on the agenda item indicated.
So if you've been following the big debate over the past eighteen months about the suitability (or not) of different sites around Thornbury for housing development, now is the opportunity for your voice to be heard by Thornbury Town Councillors.
If you can't attend in person, but would like to put a view forward to be considered, you may write to the Town Clerk expressing your view.
Following public participation, Councillors will debate the issues themselves and formulate a corporate response to submit to the Independent Inspector, on behalf of the whole town

We hope to see as many townsfolk as possible attending the debate and making local democracy a reality for Thornbury.

The final deadline for submitting your individual personal views to the Inspector is not until Friday 17th February. Following on from Thursday's debate, we will be posting a few suggestions on this blogsite as to how individuals can best complete those submissions.

2012-01-04T04:11:00.000-08:00

Dates for your Diary

As we now move firmly into 2012 it is time again to pick up the baton and consider where we are with the long term plan for Thornbury.

Having failed to satisfy the Planning Inspector at their first attempt, a second modified version was unveiled by South Glos Council in late December. There is now a period of consultation during which residents can express there views to the council on any amendments it contains.

The consultation ends on 17^th February and copies of the latest plan can be collected from the council offices in Castle St Thornbury.

Other than providing copies of the plan as indicated above it is difficult to find how the council are communicating with the public on this vitally important issue. However, two forthcoming events should be helpful in assisting with the formulation of your response:-

Saturday 7^th January. 10.00am at Turnberrie’s Community Centre. Thornbury.

Welbeck Land are holding an exhibition and community planning day where the public have the opportunity to participate directly with the design team in workshops and hands-on design groups to discuss key issues such as layout and landscape design, sustainability, transport and the local economy.

Refreshments will be provided during the event which is scheduled for approximately two and a half hours.

Saturday 14^th January. 10.00am to 1.00pm at Cosham Hall. Thornbury.

All three newly elected Independent Councillors are holding a surgery. Rob Hudson, Gareth Davies and Vincent Costello will be available to provide updates, discuss pressing issues and concerns, and importantly listen to the ideas of residents from throughout Thornbury.

The motivation driving the event is to provide a communication platform for residents to participate in the current wellbeing and future success of our town.

It is hoped to provide some refreshments on the day and all are welcome.

2011-12-09T02:13:00.000-08:00

Same Old Same Old.

Earlier this year Mr Crysell, the government appointed Independent Inspector, summoned South Glos Planning Department to a meeting at the Armstrong Hall Thornbury. The purpose of this meeting was to give South Glos representatives an opportunity to answer his concerns over the long term housing plan they had submitted to him. The outcome of the meeting was a failure to convince Mr Crysell that the plan had sufficient merit to be accepted by him, and was subsequently declared unsound and not fit for purpose.

Alternatives offered to South Glos Council as a way forward were, to scrap the plan completely or to attempt revisions which would provide sufficient improvement to warrant the plan acceptable. South Glos opted for the latter, suggesting six months as the time required for examination of all issues. This revised version would first go before the Council for approval and acceptance, then and only then would the rest of us get to see it during a period of consultation.

Something strikes me as not quite right here. Call me a bluff old traditionalist if you will, but I have always been led to believe that consultation meant an opportunity for the wider public to put forward their views on a proposal or plan. These opinions would be taken forward and into account when the plan came up for discussion by the appropriate authority, and necessary changes would be made at that point. It seems for the majority of my (not telling you) years I have been misled, and the real meaning of consultation is ‘we will devise a plan that you may or may not like, you can make comments if you can find out about it, but it won’t make any difference because we will have already given it the green light’.

We have now arrived at the end of the six month revision period, plus a week or so, and the amended plan is shortly to go before our elected representatives for approval. We have managed to get a preview of what lies in store for Thornbury and the bottom line is no change.

Park Farm is still preferred for development despite the many representations made since the controversial Barratt application. Planners claim to have reconsidered all other potential sites and say that no fundamental changes have occurred which change the findings of their previous appraisals. However, the question still remains, what fundamental changes took place between 2006 when the previous planning inspector said that Park Farm was the worst possible place to build houses in Thornbury, and now, when South Glos planners are claiming it is the best?

The ‘new’ flood risk assessment shows that development anywhere in Thornbury poses a degree of risk, but of all potential sites Park Farm is the only one with a flood risk right through the middle. Some other options have the risk adjacent to them, which you would assume makes life easier for planning site layout, housing density and open areas etc.
The flooding area at Park Farm is where Barratt’s are proposing sports pitches for Castle School. We can only assume that water polo will be top of the sports timetable for a substantial part of the school year.

The propensity to flooding in the fields surrounding Park Farm will mean that any development will necessarily be pushed further from the town, creating longer journeys on foot and by car, at the same time as increasing housing density to preserve the builders profits. Increased density equals smaller homes and poorer quality environment around them.

Apart from the ‘redeeming’ qualities listed above, any development at Park Farm will do untold and irreversible damage to the important historical and ecological value which currently exists. In the Thornbury conservation review 2004, the area around Park Farm was considered to be extremely valuable for its contribution to the historic setting of the town and should be preserved. After many centuries in the making, what has changed so dramatically in six years to warrant its destruction in a matter of months if developers are allowed to proceed, and for what.

Whichever way you view the selection of Park Farm, either originally, or the now ongoing insistence that it is the most sustainable option available, you cannot but wonder, exactly what is driving this barmy ill conceived scheme.

NEWSLETTER from the INDEPENDENT COUNCILLORS

2011-11-25T10:14:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-11-18T01:00:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-11-11T02:44:00.000-08:00

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 .....

2011-11-04T00:32:00.001-07:00

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?

2011-10-28T01:12:00.000-07:00

As winter approaches we encounter Halloween or All Hallows Eve, originally a Celtic celebration to mark the beginning of the cold and barren part of the year. Bats have long been associated with the festival but the connection is far less ominous than some would suspect. In Halloweens origins people would gather around camp fires to ward off evil spirits. Attracted to the warmth and bright lights of these fires were many small flying insects, natural food for hungry bats. People saw them flickering in and out of the firelight and eventually they became a feature of the festival.

Much more sinister is the Bat survey carried out by Barratts at Park Farm.

Bats are a protected species which means that developers when submitting planning applications are required to carry out ecological surveys to ensure that they or their habitat are not endangered in any way. The survey report they had prepared included statements such as :-

no bats were seen to emerge from potential roost sites'
'a small number of Pipistrelle bats were recorded'
'surveys recorded a small number of bat species using the site'

The story that follows is a true account of personal experience at Park Farm:-

Bats Reunited” – A True Story by Jennie Bennett”.

It was an early summer evening and I saw something fall in front of our window and thought straight away that it might be a bat, because for nights Luke (my youngest son) and I had been watching them come out every night from the main bedroom window, looking up to the tiles you can see them come out one by one. I ran outside into the front garden and it was a little bat who'd crawled along the ground and up the house bricks and tucked herself under the window sill. I didn't know what to do at first but felt it better if I left her there in case she was rescued that evening by her family. I went straight out early the following morning but she was still there, only shrivelled up and lifeless. I put her in a shoebox and on some cotton wool and called the Bat Group to ask their advice. To be honest I thought she was dead. They told me to keep her somewhere cold and return her to them in an envelope they'd provide, so they could identify the bat species. I left her in the box for a few hours and then thought I'd better check on her to make sure she was definitely dead and put her in a sealed bag in the fridge. However, on saying our last goodbyes, I was amazed to see a very faint pulse, very excitedly I called the Bat Group back for further advice.Basically being out all night she was hypothermic and dehydrated. I used a hot water bottle placed under the box to warm her through for several hours. I had to melt some honey with hot water, cool it and feed it to her from the corner of a piece of kitchen roll. And unbelievably she licked it from the piece of kitchen roll, she was so small and I felt in awe of this little thing. I left her in the box until the young volunteer couple came over to us from Charfield to help us set her free and check her over. When they arrived, we sat and they handled her and she crawled all over them, they identified her as a young girl, and fed her some mealworms, which she loved. They explained that when they are all getting ready to leave the roost, they can get excited and felt she may have been knocked out accidentally. Before they come out, you can hear them up there, it's like they're chattering. At 9.30pm, which was the time the bats were leaving their roost each night, we went outside with her. The young man held her up and told me there were recordings being read from her cries to them and their communications to her and over 1000 bat calls recorded that night. The bats left our tiles one by one, and we were counting, over 80 bats left our house that night, never had we counted so many. They flew around us and back up, knowing that we had her. Then she went, she flew all the way up in front of the houses and then back to our house, landing on one of the tile fronts and then crawled back up into the roost - Fantastic!!! Still thinking about it now makes me feel emotional.

How different in tone to the reports submitted by Barratts with their planninig application. It seems by comparison that the presence of this protected species has been deliberately downplayed to suit a purpose.

Interestingly the same survey in a description of the site described ‘a small shallow stream’ flowing westward across the site. Can this be the same stream featured last week which the Environmental Agency is so concerned about under the heading ‘Flooding’. Can this be the same stream which acts as a surface water drain for Thornbury and flows via Oldbury and causes the residents there considerable disquiet. If so it must be that Barratts don’t have surveys done after it has been raining.

2011-10-22T03:06:00.000-07:00

Where are we now?

Although things seem to have been relatively quiet recently while we wait for South Gloucestershire Council to reveal changes to the long term plan (Core Strategy) since the planning inspector announced in the summer that he was not satisfied with their first attempt, STGH has been busy.

Amongst other things efforts have been made to discover who actually made the decision to propose building on this most historically valuable part of our town. Freedom of information requests exposed that a less than robust process took place, as indicated in the statement made by Christine Rickard to Thornbury Town Council (see below). Interestingly the enquiries also showed that the councils own Heritage and Landscape Officers believed the selection process to be flawed and the choice of Park Farm to be wrong.

STGH has also written to the planning inspector with the findings revealed by the information requests.

The planning application by Barratts has generated a substantial number of objections not only by individuals and organisations but also government departments such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage which is tasked by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in preserving important historic buildings, features and landscape.

The Environment Agency has particular concerns with development at Park Farm.

Did you know for example that the proposed housing development area includes the flood plain where flooding occurs on a regular basis?
The stream which flows through this area acts as the drain for Thornbury which then flows on to Oldbury, where properties are already prone to flooding. Any housing at Park Farm will undoubtedly put more strain on the drainage and increase the problems downstream putting properties at greater risk.
Problems upstream could also occur when blockages and increased use further downstream affect the natural drainage flow.

Flooding issues such as these have the potential to seriously affect residents insurance premiums.

Did you know that the Medieval Fishponds (now recognised and listed as an important Ancient Monument and therefore legally protected) are fed by natural springs - that’s why they are there.
English Heritage has expressed concern that loss of water from these springs will lead to irretrievable damage to the ponds.

Did you know that the water supplies for several properties in the area are partially supplied by natural springs?
It is inconceivable that development of the size in Barratts plan will not affect the water course, the supplies to the fishponds and the local properties.

What can you do about it?

South Gloucestershire Council have yet to reveal their hand with proposed changes to the long term plan but whatever they are they must be consulted on prior to being sent to the planning inspector for a second time.
They have suggested to him that they will be ready in early December followed by a six week consultation period which means that comments by anyone will need to be in by something like the third week in January.
We will be keeping a keen eye on progress and will provide updates as soon as they become available.

In the meantime we are hoping to provide further snippets on the issues surrounding Park Farm on a regular basis on this blogsite. Should anyone feel they would like to submit an appropriate item we will be pleased to receive and review the content at ourgreenheritage@gmail.com

2011-09-28T09:57:00.000-07:00

At the Town Development Committee meeting of 27th September 2011 a statement (reproduced in full below) on behalf of STGH was prepared and delivered by Christine Rickard detailing recent developments at the site selected by the Town Council as their preferred option.

To coincide with the disquiet felt locally about Park Farm, a number of nationally recognised bodies have now voiced concern at the potential damage this proposed development would cause to this most historic and important part of Thornbury. Let us hope that the individuals responsible for this outragous decision will now finally be prepared to listen to common sense. But what concerns me most is that 'there's none so deaf as those who do not want to hear'.

Statement on behalf of STGH :-

I would like to follow my last statement to you with a few more pieces of evidence about the Park Farm area, just in case you are in any doubt about its historic value.

The Council for British Archaeology has registered a firm objection against Barratts proposals stating:

“given the impact the development will have upon a scheduled ancient monument and the issues of setting of a number of historic buildings, a listed park and the Thornbury Conservation Area the Council for British Archaeology’s view is that the proposals will cause substantial harm to the significance of these historic assets. The CBA wishes to register a firm objection to the proposed development and advises consideration is given for the new housing development to be located in a less sensitive area”.

They also point out that the heritage assessment prepared by Barratts claiming “key settings would not be affected” is not a view held by other heritage groups or the CBA.

These other groups include: English Heritage, The Garden History Society, Avon Gardens Society as well as Thornbury and District Heritage Trust.

The Planning Inspector has decided that the Core Strategy as it stands is not Sound. The areas he has identified in his letter to South Gloucestershire Council are, he says, the minimum requirements. His implication being that other areas he has not yet looked at should be sound and if further work is required then the opportunity for revision and justification is NOW.

Looking at how the choice of Park Farm came to be made it is quite clear that the decision making process was not robust. The influence of the Thornbury Steering Group on the decision is remarkable when it is apparent this is a group for which no notes or minutes of any discussions or meetings were ever kept. The members of that committee will need to look to their own conscience’s to decide whether they should have declared interests or even have been on the Steering Group in the first place.

Add to this the strong advice from South Gloucestershire’s own heritage and landscape officers that the process was flawed and the choice of Park Farm due to its important heritage assets was the wrong one. As well as misinformation being presented to the Policy Advisory Group on the 30th November 2009 about which options were in the green belt (they were told options 1,2 and 3 were in the Green Belt), this is not true.

We do not believe the Inspector will regard this process as sound.

All of this, together with the scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds gives Thornbury Town Council the opportunity to reappraise their original decision.

It is the duty of local authorities of which, as Town Councillor’s you are a part, together with English Heritage and other specialist bodies such as those listed above, to protect our scheduled monuments and our historic assets. You may not have been aware of the significance of the heritage of the Park Farm area until this recent scheduling, you cannot continue to argue ignorance and it is time for Thornbury Town Council to start the process to protect this area from development.

The Town Council needs to confirm to its residents that it will no longer support any development or area of housing opportunity at Park Farm.

Christine Rickard.

WHAT THE PLANNING INSPECTOR SAID ...

2011-09-04T04:03:00.000-07:00

We had all been eagerly awaiting an announcement from the Planning Inspector, following the Exploratory Meeting with SGC on 29th June.
He had written to SGC to inform them of his conclusions from that meeting. That letter has now been put into the public domain by SGC, and can be browsed at your leisure by clicking on THIS LINK.
You will need to read the whole letter to get a full measure of the impact of his critique of SGC and their Core Strategy. In summary terms however, he has offered SGC two options:

If they can be absolutely confident of getting the work done in time he will suspend the EIP (Examination Process) for 6 months whilst the Core Strategy (CS) is re-worked in certain key areas, re-published and re-consulted on.
SGC could start the whole CS process over, beginning from scratch but taking into consideration significant changes in legislation that have ensued with a change of National Government

Thornbury does not get any specific mentions (It's a very general, broad sweep document.) Issues he raises that must impact directly on Thornbury would probably include:

his criticism of SGC's failure to undertake a full assessment of its Green Belt. This necessarily affects Thornbury, which has no Green Belt or buffer of its own, but finds itself historically on the fringe of Bristol's own Green Belt. When development sites were first considered for Thornbury, instead of taking a strategic look at the Town and its setting and needs, planners operated a " limited and piecemeal approach ...... bring(ing) into question the validity of its approach to assessing development potential."
his criticism of procedural/legal process. "I share some of the concerns expressed in relation to the procedural process and to avoid a risk of challenge the Council should, ideally, re-publish and re-consult on the CS in its current form."
revisions to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) "Undertake any necessary revisions to the SA as a result of further work which is carried out to support the CS". STGH has always been deeply critical of the SA in relation to Thornbury. In the light of the recent scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds by English Heritage as an ancient monument - it is exceedingly doubtful that Park Farm would ever have received an endorsement, had this scheduling been in place 2-3 yrs ago. This new situation must have serious implications for the SA, together with new findings relating to flooding and Castle School that were never available at the start of the process.

It is no surprise that SGC have opted for the first of the two alternatives presented by Paul Chrysell. To read their full response to the Inspector, CLICK HERE.
They have announced their intention to undertake all necessary work, and "re-publish the Core Strategy in December 2011 for 6 weeks consultation incorporating post submission changes. This would also be supported by the necessary technical evidence and SA."
A busy time ahead for SGC planners!

Meanwhile, all the implications from these announcements have not fully sunk in. We will deliberate forthwith, and seek advice from people more knowedgeable than us in the planning world as to what it might mean for us in terms of an action plan and further campaigning.
In the short term, the following actions may be worthwhile:

Deadline of 16th September to write to the Independent Inspector, commenting on the new Draft National Planning Policy Framework and how it will impact upon development proposals. STGH has been working on its own response, and although this is still in draft form, you can read it by CLICKING HERE, and use some of its content to inform your own personal responses. All comments should be directed via Kath Thorne who can be e-mailed at Programme.Officer@southglos.gov.uk
You may wish to write to Thornbury Town Council or SGC, congratulating them on the recent scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds as an Ancient Monument by English Heritage, and asking what impact this is likely to have on the revised Core Strategy.
Council Meetings begin again in September, check out the NorthWestThornburyTC blogsite for precise details. First Full Council meeting will be Tuesday 6th September 7.30pm.

ENGLISH HERITAGE & THE MEDIEVAL FISHPONDS

2011-09-03T13:00:00.000-07:00

During the summer holidays, when I for one had turned my attention to more leisurely activites, English Heritage announced that the Park Farm Medieval Fishponds are to be scheduled a "historic monument". This is fantastic news for the fishponds and for Thornbury, and may well have been influenced by the dedicated hard work put in by the "Friends of Park Farm Medieval Fishponds" in recent months. At a time when the future of the fishponds looks to be under serious threat from developers Barratts, who would like to surround the historic site with 500+ modern houses at a density of up to 40 per hectare, this must surely call into question the wisdom of the original decision to identify Park Farm as Thornbury's "preferred option" for development?
Bristol Evening Post reported the breaking news as follows: (click on picture to enlarge in own screen)

Clicking on THIS LINK will take you to the Thornbury and Dursley Gazette's version of the same breaking news.
To read a full copy of the English Heritage Report, CLICK HERE.
To read a version of the STGH press release relating to this news, CLICK HERE.

LAST REMINDER BEFORE SUMMER HOLIDAYS

2011-07-30T15:02:00.000-07:00

Closing date for submitting objections to Planning Application: I last posted 5th August as the closing date for submissions. This now appears as Wednesday 3rd August on the South Glos Website.
If you want to read any submissions already made, click on this link and browse other objections at your leisure - they are a mine of information, each one revealing new grounds for objecting. Select the best and personalise them into your own letter. If you have missed the deadline, don't worry and send it anyway to PlanningApplications@southglos.gov.uk
The Planning Inspector has delayed initial pronouncement on soundness of Core Strategy- no doubt there will be some surprises in store this coming autumn.
Happy Summer Holidays.

Debate,! what Debate?? Town Council Meeting 12th July 2011?

2011-07-17T15:40:00.000-07:00

Debate,! what Debate?? Town Council Meeting 12^th July 2011?

Councillors attending a specially convened meeting last Tuesday night to debate a planning application by Barratt Developments for 500 houses at Park Farm Thornbury were faced with an angry gallery at the Town Hall, so packed that the usual centre piece committee table had to be removed to create additional space for the public.

The meeting opened with a number of councillors declaring prejudicial interests and subsequently leaving the chamber. Councillor Halsall spoke first and explained that as a governor of the Castle School he had an interest in the development so would have to leave the meeting and not vote. He left the room, followed by Clive Parkinson who also declared an interest as a Castle School Governor. Councillor Parsloe also declared an interest as a Trustee of the Sheiling School. Councillor Costello then declared a personal and prejudicial interest, and made a short statement before leaving. Councillor Davies then declared a personal and prejudicial interest and stated that even though he had been elected to represent the north west ward on this issue he was unable to vote or take part in the debate, which he considered a shame as he was probably more knowledgeable about the application than any other councillor as he had actually read most of the large box of evidence supplied by Barratts in support of the application. He was interrupted by the chairman who told him that statements from the public would be taken before statements by Councillors. He questioned whether he should remain in the room and was told he could and he could ask Councillor Costello to return to the room as the chairman understood he wanted to give a fuller statement too. Councillor Parsloe also returned to the room.

No less than seven residents, including former councillors and two ex-mayors gave detailed statements as to why the planning application should be refused. These included irreversible loss of valuable historical and ecological sites, landscape and conservation area damage, and serious traffic safety issues that would result from the development. It was also pointed out that the original decision to adopt Park Farm was based on the gain that could be achieved for the Castle School and the apparent closeness of the site to the town centre. It is now evident that the Castle School is unlikely to achieve what was originally expected and the walk from the development to the town centre is over 25 minutes. Councillors were asked to consider whether it was appropriate to support the planning application for this site in the light of these changing circumstances.

The chair of Concern for Thornbury also reminded councillors that the longer term visionary plan for development of the town had for many decades been to preserve the assets to the North and West and develop if required to the east which has resulted in Midland Way, Morton Way and its underpass in preparation for possible further growth towards the A38.

Numerous shortcomings and weakness in the information provided by Barratts to assess the suitability of Park Farm were emphasised. Just one example of how the sites important history, heritage and ecology had been undermined were highlighted by a representative of Avon Bat Society who pointed out that Barratts had claimed there had seen no bat activity on or near the site after a survey carried in February 2010 - which was probably accurate as bats hibernate between October and March.

Statements by two Independent Councillors followed. Councillor Vincent Costello, an expert in urban planning, pointed out that there was no need to succumb to this pressure being applied by Barratts and that the town council should recommend that the application should be refused awaiting the outcome of the core strategy deliberations of the planning inspector.

Councillor Davies started by asking how many letters of objection had been received by the council. He was informed that numerous letters had been received, about 29 or 30, which were too numerous to read out, but that no e-mail objections had been received recently as the council’s e-mail facility had been out of order for over a week! Councillor Gareth Davies continued to highlight the theme of misinformation by producing a brochure sent by Barratts to all town councillors prior to the meeting which applauded the benefits this development would bring to Thornbury, none of which could be proven. He spoke strongly against councillors claiming on the one hand that they were “listening” to their electors, and then ignoring the uncomfortable data that such consultations produced – as happened with the original 2008 Thornbury resident’s survey, which indicated that further development was preferred beyond Morton Way, - as happened with the massive objections to the draft Core Strategy, - and as was happening with all the objections focussed on this meeting here today.

In response to all this, Councillor Tyrell read out a statement followed by a ‘proposal’. First she stated the town council could not determine the application; only advise their support or otherwise. Her address then focused on her opinion, which was not changed - more houses were needed to be built in Thornbury. She stated that everyone was well aware of the arguments why Park Farm had been chosen and she was not going to go over those arguments again. Unfortunately, this was not the case – no-one has yet heard a well reasoned and evidence based rationale for building at Park Farm. Yes, the Councillors have made statements, but they have provided no facts and they were reminded at the meeting that the Planning Inspector is critical of both the process and consultation carried out by South Gloucestershire during the formation of the Core Strategy. Councillor Tyrell also inferred that it didn’t matter how many residents objected to their decision – they had the final say on what ‘had merit’ or not and they would judge. This seems to imply that, regardless of what Thornbury residents think, they know best and will decide on things themselves. This is the arrogance now displayed by a group of LibDem Town Councillors who haven’t been challenged for years on their decision making.

Immediately following the conclusion of her statement Councillor Tyrell, instead of referring to the leader of the council to open the debate, then read out the proposal that Thornbury Town Council raises no objections to the application subject to a number of planning conditions. Amongst these was that the bus link onto Park Road was an essential condition, bus services should be subsidised for a minimum of 5 years, a convenience store should be provided, health facilities should include the provision for additional doctors, dentists, therapists and other health staff, There were also a long list of other requirements which are standard for new developments such as “high quality housing”, 35% affordable housing, footpaths and cycle paths should provide good access and should be accessible to disabled people etc. etc.

Following this, there was no debate, or call for debate. The Chairperson did not ask if any other councillor wished to speak or comment or ask questions.

It was obvious that the councillors were unaware of letters from members of the public.There was no attempt to inform the public that e-mails could not be received. Instead of debate the proposal was quickly seconded and voted on to accept and support Barratts application.

It looked suspiciously like agreement had been reached by a group of councillors prior to the meeting and no debate was required as the proposal was to be accepted regardless of counter argument and information being brought forward on the evening. We understand one councillor abstained and the remaining (all liberal Democrats) all voted for the proposal. This appears to show that the councillors had a closed mind set before the meeting started and no amount of information or discussion at the meeting would change the way they had decided (or been told) to vote. This appears to be in breach of the councillors Code of Conduct.

It appears that not only have the Standing Orders been breached but also the meeting itself did not follow proper procedure.

Those of us at the back of the room could not see or hear how many councillors voted.

It should be noted that other than Councillor Tyrell, no words of support for the application were heard from councillors or from members of the public , quite the opposite. At the end of the meeting shouts of 'disgraceful' 'rubbish' 'disgusting' 'debate?? more like stitch up' were heard from the public. Several people registered with STGH their ‘shock’ and ‘speechlessness’ at how the Town Council had conducted this meeting, condemning it as a ‘sham’. Even one councillor who had not spoken at the meeting admitted afterwards that Park Farm was a beautiful part of Thornbury and should not be built on.

[Summary prepared by residents attending the meeting]

DEADLINE EXTENSION

2011-07-14T00:42:00.000-07:00

Once again South Glos have extended their deadline for submissions/objections to the Park Farm Planning Application. I believe it now stands at Friday 5th AUGUST - although it is feasible this will be extended yet again. Each time new documentation is added to the application, this triggers a set amount of time that must elapse before the consultation can be closed.
So if you haven't objected yet ..... get writing! (See previous posts for detailed advice on grounds for objection.)

A full account of the shameful Thornbury Town Council endorsement of the application on Tuesday night (12th) will follow this post in the very near future. Apologies for delay - pressures of the day-job and family commitments!

2011-07-05T15:16:00.000-07:00

Update Following the Exploratory Meeting by the Planning Inspector

This meeting is meant to be reported on the South Glos website, but at last visit, nothing was yet posted. South Gloucestershire Planners were presented with a legal challenge to the Core Strategy by barristers from Brittell. Apparently South Glos did not follow proper procedures relating to presenting the public with correct information at the timings laid down in statute. We certainly knew things were not right here in Thornbury – no Sustainability Appraisal appeared until May 2010 and then it was only partially completed. In fact we were not given a more complete version until AFTER the consultation period ended! And we can go on.......

The Planning Inspector referred to a legal case recently between ‘Save Historic Newmarket’ and Forest Heath District Council which concluded that the Council’s Core Strategy was flawed because it had not tested it’s ‘strategic’ (preferred) site option adequately against all other reasonable alternatives. We certainly feel this is also the case in Thornbury...

On top of all this, the main reason for Park Farm being the ‘preferred’ option is undoubtedly because of the benefits The Castle School were meant to receive as a result. We have evidence that this is now not going to be realised – so there is no real basis for a Park Farm development anymore. It certainly isn’t the most Sustainable option in terms of accessibility, heritage, landscape or flooding, and anyway, where exactly is all that evidence about needing 500 new homes in Thornbury?

So, the Planning Inspector has 4 choices –

(i) Throw out the Core Strategy due to Unsoundness & resubmit when ready (could be a year or more)

(ii) Suspend/delay the CS for up to 6 months to allow for further work/amendments

(iii) Proceed with the Enquiry in Public, but with some changes to the CS being necessary

(iv) All seems ok to proceed with Enquiry.

The Inspector will make his decision in about 10 days time, meanwhile we are thinking it could be option (ii) which is most likely, although (i) isn’t out of the question!

Meanwhile, it’s worth reading through the current Local Development Framework http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NR/exeres/5cf44123-5099-4865-87c1-8c9cbc8ffac0 which is what development/planning decisions will be based on until 2012 without a new CS in place.

WHAT IS THE PRIORITY FOR US ALL NOW?

Please send in your objections to the Planning Application for 500 homes on Park Farm by Friday 8^th July

If you check the list of documents already submitted relating to the planning aplication, (CLICK HERE) you will find some samples of letters/objections already made by members of the public (Listed as Consultation Replies). Please try to modify your own statements to give a personal look to them.

(Details of how to do this are in the previous posting) Send to PlanningApplications@southglos.gov.uk

It is also not too late, if you haven't already, to make an objection to Thornbury Town Council, who have delayed their own decision-making until Tuesday 12th July. Even better, come along to the Town Hall and make your objection in person! You have the right to be heard for up to five minutes.

Objecting to Planning Application

2011-06-18T14:16:00.000-07:00

Thornbury Town Council will consider the Park Farm Planning Application at it's meeting on Tuesday evening 21st June. If you plan to object, please do so very soon. You may even wish to a attend the meeting, starting at 7.30pm, and state your objections in person.

But the priority task must be an objection lodged with South Glos Council by Wednesay 6th July. Please follow the simple advice set out below. This list may be revised following the Exploratory Meeting of theIndependent Inspector on 29th June, but don't worry about this - better to object now than to risk missing the boat!

OBJECT TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION NOW BEFORE 6^th JULY

It is really important that we don’t give up at this late stage and that South Gloucestershire Council receive as many objections to the Planning Application for housing development at Park Farm.

The system only counts objections that they consider to have validity. For example, ‘modern houses are ugly’ wouldn’t count whereas citing breaches of existing policy does.

The Council counts objections that read the same as just one objection. This, of course, makes it difficult for the ordinary person to know what to write. To help everyone, we have come up with a list of valid objections that you can choose from. Just copy and paste three or four into your objection, top and tail it with a variation on words and you will have an objection that counts.

You can still be heard so please take the time to e-mail PlanningApplications@southglos.gov.uk or write to South Glos Council

Choose from –

OPENINGS (select one)

I object to the Planning Application PT11/1442/0 for up to 500 dwellings by Barratt Developments on the following grounds -

OR

I wish to register my objection the Planning Application PT11/1442/0 for erection of up to 500 dwellings by Barratt Developments on 26.21 hectares of land at Thornbury.

OR

Objections. Planning Application PT11/1442/0. Barratt Developments. Thornbury.

OBJECTIONS (Select three or four)

The Planning Application has come forward before there is a policy in place to support it and so the application is premature.
The Core Strategy has yet to be examined by the Planning Inspector and there are known concerns about the soundness and legality of the identification of Park Farm as a site for development
The existing Local Plan states that Park Farm is not the most suitable site for development.
National Planning Policy document PPS1states, “It may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity where development plan is being prepared or under review.” The Core Strategy is under review and so should not be the guiding document whilst an existing local plan is in force.
The site for development was identified and adopted before a sustainability appraisal was conducted and has significant sustainability drawbacks e.g. distance from town centre, lack of public transport, absence of access roads.
The consultation process employed to identify Park Farm as a suitable site for development was flawed and undemocratic and has been cited as such by Steve Webb MP, other developers, pressure groups and residents.
Approving the application would interrupt due process as the Core Strategy that identifies Park Farm for development has yet to go through an independent examination.
Insufficient verifiable evidence has been provided to show that the proposed development would result in the benefits claimed in the as yet to be adopted Core Strategy i.e. countering an aging population, filling open school places and increasing town centre vibrancy.
Park Farm is unsuitable as a sustainable site for development due to its distance from the town’s facilities, flood risks and the resulting destruction of a valuable heritage.
There are material errors in the application e.g. development would not be visible from Thornbury Castle or St Mary’s church and the site is not within a 25 minute walking distance of the town centre.

CLOSING

(select one and add you name and address to the end. You need to sign and print your name underneath your signature if you write by post)

The application is premature, and in any case flawed, and should be rejected.

The council should refuse this application, at least pending the completion of the due process of the examination and adoption of the Core Strategy

The selection of this site for development was the result of poor consultation and it’s sustainability remains subject to challenge by residents, developers and others. The application should be refused for these reasons.

TIME FOR ACTION!

2011-06-12T10:39:00.000-07:00

Many of you will have recently received letters through your doors - Notification of Planning Application in relation to Park Farm. It seems as if the moment has come once again to urge you all to rejoin the fight for fair play and honourable decisions for the future of Thornbury with some direct action of your own.
There are little glimmers of what might be construed as hope from the direction of the Independent Planner, relating to the soundness and legality of the Core Strategy that South Glos have produced. (See last Posting.) We have two deadlines fast approaching that need your input if our Town and District Council are going to be convinced that people in Thornbury are serious about objecting to the development at Park Farm. What we need once again is a significant mass of documented public opinion from you supporters out there.

1. Thornbury Town Council will on Tuesday 21st June consider the Planning Application by Barratt Homes to build 500 houses at Park Farm. It is not within their power to grant or withhold that planning permission, only to make a recommendation on behalf of Thornbury Town as to how they would like South Glos Council to proceed. Judging by their past record it is unlikely that TTC will withdraw their support per se for the planning application. However, we believe there may be very good grounds for TTC recommending NOT to accept the planning application at this particular time of asking. Please write to TTC before this deadline to urge the Council to recommend to SGC a refusal of planning permission at this juncture. The following reasons should support your letter:

This may be standard practice for developers such as Barratt Homes to put forward Planning Applications regardless of whether the Core Strategy has been finalised and signed off by South Glos and the Independent Inspector. However it would be incredibly premature of both Town and District Councils to approve this application. There are legitimate doubts as to the soundness and legality of the Core Strategy. The Independent Inspector has already indicated the need for a preliminary Exploratory Meeting, which is unusual in itself, and the agenda he has drawn up would suggest that Thornbury issues may be uppermost in his thoughts. Why are Barratts attempting to ride roughshod over this due legal process, and force the council's hand? Probably because they are a business concern, and care first and foremost about their own pockets/profitability. Council should not be influenced by such matters or be seen to be in the developer's pocket. It is the developers who should be showing our legal process more respect. Patrick Conroy (Head of Spatial Planning at SGC) wrote to Barratt's as early as last year urging more restraint when Barratts threatened to submit planning applications even before the ink on the DRAFT Core Strategy was dry! Thornbury should not be hurried. As so many residents and other stakeholders have raised concerns over the soundness of the Core Strategy in relation to Thornbury, we urge both councils to withhold approval and allow decisions to date to be tested before recommending any planning application.

The recent local TTC elections were unprecedented in terms of the message NorthWest Thornbury has been sending the Town Council. At his last full Council Meeting as Mayor, the previous incumbent, Mr Chris Clifford, when challenged over TTC's Core Strategy statement, said "Let the ballot box decide". And it did just that by removing from office two ex-mayors, who between them had a vast quantity of years of service to the town - not as a slight on past services, but simply because they had stopped listening to and representing the deeply unhappy voices of local residents. Residents in NWThornbury have been saying for a long time that this is not about "My Back Yard" but about undue process, lack of supporting evidence, meaningless consultation. Thornbury is the only area of South Gloucestershire to have had a site selected for development and a sustainability appraisal conducted AFTER selection - which alone raises issues of soundness. Councillors would do well not to ignore legitimate concerns. We are urging all of Thornbury's Councillors to show that they have listened to concerns and are prepared to defer recommending an application, at least until after the Independent Inspector has taken a view.

Send your letters to: Thornbury Town Council, c/o The Town Clerk, The Town Hall, Thornbury, BS35 2AR, or e-mail directly to: j.payne@thornburytowncouncil.gov.uk before Tuesday 21st June - that gives you 8 days from this posting! If you DON'T live in NWThornbury, you may wish to copy in your own Town Councillor to encourage him/her to get the message, too.

2. South Glos Council have given until Wednesday 6th July for individuals to register their own personal response to the Planning Application for Park Farm. (SGC assure us that comments received after this date will still be considered up until Committee sits to consider the application, so it may be wise to wait at least until after the Planning Inspector's Exploratory Meeting on 29th June has shed more light on the situation). All the details of the planning application are available on this website: CLICK HERE. However it will probably overwhelm you with the mass of information contained herein; we hope to consolidate our grounds for objection over the next week or so, including any legal/professional advice we can glean, at which point we will be publishing for your benefit our very best suggestions as to possible lines of opposition. Keep checking this website - if you are on our mailing list, we will e-mail you the details directly. This is the big one. We urge you to find the time to express your views once again.

Planning Inspector requests Exploratory Meeting!

2011-06-08T13:58:00.000-07:00

It would appear that all is not well with the South Glos Core Strategy, as many of us have known for a very long time. The Independent Inspector has called for an Exploratory Meeting to undertake a preliminary assessment of the Core Strategy. This is not routine - it is an exceptional procedure when serious concerns become apparent in the Core Strategy. This letter was sent to all Representors who responded to the Core Strategy back in August of 2010. The agenda for the meeting, which will take place on 29th June at 2pm at Nibley Court looks very similar to a list of all the issues we have already found fault with for so long. Is the plot very slowly unravelling for the Core Strategy? Our simple solution for the Inspector has always been

Exclude Thornbury from the Core Strategy - this is not a strategic housing site for South Glos, and never has been.
More housing for Thornbury is a local issue for local people to decide.
Thornbury needs to start again from a blank sheet, and come up with a housing strategy that is based upon evidenced needs, that is sustainable, and that is determined through genuine and open discussion and consultation, by the people and for the people.

PARK FARM - application for Planning Permission

2011-06-01T03:43:00.001-07:00

Things are certainly hotting up on the Park Farm front. Pegasus, on behalf of Barratt Homes, have put in a request for planning permission for a drainage/balancing pond to be situated OUTSIDE of the "preferred option" site. For full details of the planning application, view the South Glos website that has recently gone up.
We're not entirely sure at this stage on which basis to most effectively oppose the application. It was discussed in some detail last night at the TTC Development Committee. Despite strenuous opposition from Hudson and Davies, the mood of the committee seemed to be that because TTC support in principle the Park Farm development, it would be churlish to object to a drainage proposal that would ultimately support the housing opportunity, and they were prepared to leave it all in the hands of technically-informed developers who know about drainage matters better than them. We vigorously oppose this conclusion. You may wish to visit the www.northwestthornburytc.com website to follow last nights discussions more closely.
We will keep you posted very soon on how you personally can act to object to this planning application. Why the developpers couldn't wait until after the outcome of the Core Strategy Independent Inspection, is anybody's guess?

DEADLINE FOR FINAL WRITTEN COMMENTS TO INSPECTOR

2011-05-27T15:37:00.000-07:00

Today marked the final official day for submitting written comments to the Independent Inspector concerning final revisions to the Core Strategy. There was also an invitation to submit comments on the "Planning For Growth" statement made by Minister of State Mr Greg Clark MP.
If you would like to read our submission, CLICK HERE to better understand the worrying implications of this statement for the future of Thornbury.
To read a modified version of this statement, submitted by North West Thornbury's three Independent Councillors, Hudson, Davies and Costello, CLICK HERE.

So now we wait .... until the Inspector starts to assemble the materials and people to begin the work of his Independent Assessment of the Core Strategy.

POST-ELECTION REPORT

2011-05-10T14:39:00.000-07:00

Dear Supporters

I am pleased to advise you that thanks to your help and assistance and votes, Rob Hudson, Vincent Costello and Gareth Davies have all been elected to Thornbury Town Council, as independent representatives for the North West Ward.

This has been no mean feat as their decision to stand was taken less than five weeks before the polling date. At that time none of them had any previously prepared manifesto or campaign material, or knowledge of electoral rules and regulations! Despite this, and the lack of backing by a mainstream political party, you have ensured they overturned the large majorities held by the former long standing LibDem councillors for Thornbury North West.

The people of Thornbury now have an independent voice on the Town Council; some new faces with new ideas and new perspectives - not hindered by party loyalties. I’m sure these three will work hard for the long term future of the town and do their best to ensure that any future decisions made take account of the views and aspirations of the NW Thornbury residents. Their blog, and further details concerning the election and its outcomes, can be viewed at www.northwestthornburytc.com

It was always going to be a ‘tall order’ to win a seat on the District (South Glos) elections, but despite Rob and Vincent not succeeding in this, they did very well – acquiring 800+ votes each (compared to the winning seats who obtained around 1400).

I will update you with any news we get on the Park Farm housing – we are currently still awaiting the public enquiry by the Independent Inspector, which probably wont happen until the Summer/Autumn.

Thank you for your support.

Grace Davies

Local Elections on May 5th

2011-05-03T14:51:00.000-07:00

Let’s hope we end up with some Town Councillors who are prepared to listen to their constituents when it comes to making decisions about the future of our town – realising that residents may actually have some good ideas as well as informed reasoned argument and sound evidence! We’re looking for Councillors with integrity, who will challenge the status quo, and make some really good decisions - not settle for ‘least worst’ options!

So, here’s a last reminder to think carefully about who you vote for and who is prepared to really get involved and challenge the poor process that has occurred in selecting Park Farm for a housing development. It’s not over yet and the Planning Inspector’s Public Enquiry will inevitably involve Thornbury Town Council in some way.

If you live in North West Thornbury, my recommendation for the Town Council Election is to vote for Rob HUDSON, Gareth DAVIES and Vincent COSTELLO (all INDEPENDENT candidates). Check out their blog at www.NorthWestThornburyTC.com

For South Gloucestershire elections, you have 2 votes and Rob HUDSON and Vincent COSTELLO are both standing for North Thornbury as INDEPENDENT Candidates. Check out their blog at www.NorthThornburySGC.com

We believe it will be good for Thornbury to have a better mix of Councillors – not just all Liberal Democrats!!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT

Grace Davies

Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage

SETTING THE RECORDS STRAIGHT

2011-04-13T16:08:00.000-07:00

Mis-informed by the Lib Dems re. PARK FARM The insert in the Lib Dem Focus election special contains numerous inaccuracies and misleading statements and the electorate should know the reality. Their four main reasons for 500 houses are, as always, inaccurate and misleading. The truth is -· They rely upon 2001 and data to prove a fall in population whilst others use more recent data (down just over 200 and hardly demonstrating a need for so many houses).· The age profile of the town reflects national trends and Thornbury is no different.· The primary schools do have vacancies but a prediction of just a small rise in place take-up is misleading. More recent statistics show that by 2015 there will be a big increase in children of primary school age across the country and definitely affecting Bristol & S.Glos. · Even if true, the naivety of their claim that numbers will fill our shops and library etc are breathtaking. A better retail mix, not a bigger population is the answer. The claim that Councillors assisted people to make their views known at every stage is depressingly economic with the truth. · Telling us in April 2010 they had already made up their mind without consulting is hardly something to crow about.· Going out in all kinds of weather to deliver leaflets in response to critcism over lack of consultation is hardly something to crow about.· They were not solely responsible for getting South Glos to agree to accept comment on the Core Strategy in any form. STGH did exactly that.· Arranging a meeting for STGH with South Glos planners only served as an opportunity for them to say how they had already decided what should happen.· When STGH have had time to speak at Town Council meetings, councillors have not answered questions but have often been brought information they did not have. STGH woke them up to a long list of things about which they were ill-informed.· Some councillors replied to many e-mails from STGH – never once did anyone manage to answer what was asked; they simply gave the party line or ignored the actual question.· It's doubtful they gave informed replies to others because they were never well enough informed to do so.· Their leaflet drops over the Christmas break sound heroic until we load in the fact that we should have had exhibitions etc before they made up their minds for us.· Dropping leaflets quickly when developers put on exhibitions was for their benefit, not ours. They oppose development on Morton Way and in any case had already decided for us. STGH is new to politics, but not surprised by Lib Dem spin and selective news giving. Their claims will be countered. It has to be said that their complacent approach and attitude to selecting Park Farm has lost them much confidence. There is much clear evidence to show that they were ill-informed, disinterested in local views and unwilling to represent those who elected them. It’s a natural consequence of what is virtually a one party town council (it wouldn’t matter which party) and people having lost their way in office. Hopefully, the Lib Dem grip will be loosened on May 5th. Tony Domaille (on behalf of STGH)

FINAL POST FOR A WHILE - ELECTIONS R COMING

2011-04-09T14:08:00.000-07:00

Thanks for following this blog. I never intended for it to come to this, but with Town and District Council Elections fast approaching, I think it's time that some of us took a stand. Our incumbent Councillors have absolutely failed to represent us adequately at both Town and District levels. Three of our number at Save Thornbury's Green Heritage, including myself, have decided to put our disenfranchisement to the test. This will be my last blog entry until after the elections - I am hoping that an STGH colleague will take up my mantle in the intervening weeks.
If you wish to follow the campaigns, it will all depend on what Ward you are living in as to what your voting options will be.

In North West Thornbury you will get three votes for Town/Parish Councillors, and if you so choose, you can vote for HUDSON, DAVIES (that's me!) & COSTELLO, who will be standing as INDEPENDENT Candidates.
Follow their campaign at www.NorthWestThornburyTC.com

At South Glos District Council level, North Thornbury Ward is an amalgamation of the three Town/Parish Wards of NW, NE and Central Thornbury. You will get two votes for South Glos District Councillors, and if you so choose, you can vote for HUDSON & COSTELLO, who will be standing as INDEPENDENT Candidates.
Follow their campaign at www.NorthThornburySGC.com

Save Thornbury's Green Heritage intend to survey all the candidates standing in all the wards to find out exactly where they stand in relation to the Core Strategy - that way you can make up your own minds how to vote in an informed manner. Some Candidates may have you believe tht the Core Strategy is done and dusted - it's all over - out of the hands of the local Councillors. This simply is not true. An independent Inspector is still to assess the Core Strategy, following rigorous examination of the process. He/she may be very interested to learn that even now new Councillors may be coming to the fore, with a very different perspective on what is best for the future of Thornbury.

If you would like to support any of the campaigns, perhaps by delivering leaflets in your local area, or by putting up a poster in you window, why not contact the "campaign team" at

garethd123@gmail.com

with your offers of support.

Or you can download a poster directly from this posting by clicking on the link:
NW Thornbury Poster (HUDSON, DAVIES & COSTELLO)
N Thornbury Poster (HUDSON & COSTELLO)

Another Housing Exhibition - Bloor Homes / N Thornbury

2011-04-03T14:13:00.000-07:00

Although the land at the North end of Morton Way has not been identified by South Glos as an area for housing development in the Core Strategy, Bloor Homes would like to consult local residents on the suitability of this site as an alternative to Park Farm.
Come and see their plans, and let them know what you think.
Exhibition on Thursday 7th April 2011 3-8pm at Cossham Hall.

Save Thornbury's Green Heritage have consistently argued against development on ANY greenfields around Thornbury. However, because South Glos planners failed to carry out a proper appraisal of the potential sites around Thornbury in the first place, and gave their approval to what was probably the least suitable site, at Park Farm (as clearly stated by the Independent Planning Inspector in 2006), they are now facing the consequences. Bloor Homes will probably quite rightly argue that their site is more suitable for development than Park Farm. Why not go along to the exhibition and see what you think?

Save Thornbury's Green Heritage is a loose affiliation of local residents.

We are delighted to announce that three local/STGH residents have indicated that they will be standing as INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES for NWThornbury in the local Town Council Elections on May 5th.
Two of them will also stand for NorthThornbury in the South Glos District Council Elections.

More information to follow shortly. (or check out their brand new blog at NorthWestThornburyTC.com)

Satisfaction Survey from South Glos

2011-03-21T14:05:00.000-07:00

A golden opportunity to let South Glos know what you think about their consultation process. You only have until 31st March to respond to the survey, so don't delay.
Is their consultation process all it's cracked up to be when over 700 local residents find fault with the selection of Park Farm as the preferred option for housing development in Thornbury, but no changes to the Core Strategy materialise in the Revised version?
For more thoughts on why it was such a poor consultation, check out this document on our website:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s9bEaIOYEDpP3xqxSkBUtAgeZYj4UL1XLs2U2IxVYPU/edit?hl=en&authkey=CM7Ku6sC

To respond to the South Glos Survey, click on this link:
https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/consult.ti/Core_Strategy_Satisfaction_Surve/consultationHome

Please complete before 31st March!

Last call for local election candidates to stand and oppose the currrent LIB-DEM, non-listening hegemony. Let's bring consultation and listening to the voice of the local electorate much closer to home, and demand that your vote is only available to candidates who will genuninely represent you.

Responding to the BARRATT website

2011-03-13T12:02:00.000-07:00

It is with reluctance that I post the link to the newly sprung-up Barratt website describing the Park Farm Development that Barratt Homes are proposing. I know that Local Councillors have been accused of acting as Estate Agents to Barratts for praising up this development, unwanted by the vast majority of Thornbury people who have voiced an opinion. My own motives are less accommodating!
The website is a follow-on from the Exhibition last week at Turnberries, with no new information, but an opportunity for those who missed the Exhibition to see what all the fuss was about.
The final page of the site "Your views" does afford you the opportunity to respond in person to their proposals. Please do not be fooled by the glossy pictures and the appearence of green spaces.
Barratts have already faced a reduction in the size of their development site due to unforseen circumstances, and their desire is to maximise the profitability and return. If planning permission is granted, past experience would suggest that the Barratt development may look nothing like they would lead you to believe.
Existing Park Farm has a density of 20-25 houses/hectare. This development, on the very fringe of the town where ideally housing should thin and blend into the countryside, is being proposed at 35 houses/hectare, with some EVEN MORE DENSE areas proposed around the entrance on Butt Lane and close to Castle School/Medieval Fishponds.
Why have our Councillors led us to this "Promised Land", without taking note of our views, or being prepared to represent them on our behalves?
Good news - local elections will soon be upon us. An opportunity to make a significant difference to the shape and intentions of our Town Council! We have already heard from a few individuals who intend to stand as Independent Candidates at the Elections. We are eager to hear from more who wish to challenge the existing hegemony. Contact us at ourgreenheritage@gmail.com or post a comment to this blog.

BARRATT HOUSING EXHIBITION - NOTHING NEW?

2011-03-06T10:20:00.000-08:00

Barratt Homes organised an exhibition for the General Public this Saturday past (5th March) at Turnberries.
STGH organised a welcoming committee at the main entrance and were handing out two documents, which, if you didn't get to read, you can click on them here and/or download them:

Hopefully Barratt Homes had a particularly rough ride and we have given them something to think about. Perhaps any of the SGC or TTC councillors who attended, managed to pick up on the palpable hostility to the scheme that many Thornbury residents voiced. It's never too late, Councillors, to start genuinely representing the local people who will shortly be deciding who to vote for in the forthcoming May elections.
If anyone had any interesting encounters at the Exhibition, it may be very helpful to share them by clicking on "Comments" at the bottom of this Blog entry.

THORNBURY'S MEDIEVAL FISHPONDS

2011-02-27T11:33:00.000-08:00

For your interest - information about a new group forming to protect the long-term interests of Thornbury's Medieval Fishponds.

First Meeting Thursday 10th March 7pm at The Movement Hall, Sheiling School.

Please note - despite the South Glos logo and telephone contact number, this is NOT an SGC initiative, but rather an initiative of local residents concerned at the plight of the Medieval Fishponds in the face of possible housing development. SGC are simply facilitating the coming together of local community groups.

click on image to see it enlarged in own window.

FEB 2011 SUBMISSION to SGC

2011-02-26T12:57:00.000-08:00

It's finally in the hands of the Independent Planning Inspector.
Friday 18th Feb was the deadline for submitting comments on the REVISIONS that SG planners had made to the Core Strategy and Sustainability Appraisal. Click on the TAB at the top of the page to read our full submission. Now we must wait to see if good reason will be listened to, or brushed aside. Is the promised "Big Society" just talk, or do the views of local people, and their criticism of local council bad practice, actually count for something?

Meanwhile, Barratt Homes are proposing an exhibition next

Saturday 5th March at Turnberries, from 10-4pm,

about their plans for housing on Park Farm. Surely this is a little premature of them? If you intend to go, be sure to make it known to them that as yet they have no planning permission to build at Park Farm, and our hopes continue to rest with the good name and office of the Independent Planning Inspector.

LAST CHANCE TO OBJECT TO THE PLANNING INSPECTOR

2011-02-14T16:16:00.000-08:00

In December 2010 the revisions to the Core Strategy were produced by South Glos Planning department, consisting of a 750+ page document, which only became available days before the Cabinet and Full Council were to discuss it, and despite our efforts in the 5 minute time slots provided at these meetings to challenge the conclusions, the strategy was signed off.

But it isn’t over yet! A Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State has to be convinced that the Core Strategy is sound and justified before South Gloucestershire can proceed.

Having spent the last 9 months reading hundreds of documents, talking to residents, researching evidence, and attending endless meetings, the Steering Group of Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage believe that the Core Strategy for Thornbury and in particular, the way Park Farm has been selected, is far from sound and justified.

This is the last chance we have to make comments to the Planning Inspector on the recent changes.

Please send your comments on the revisions made to the Core Strategy by Friday 18^th February. Email them to: planningLDF@southglos.gov.uk

To help you formulate your own response, we have listed below just a few of the reasons why the process followed by South Glos Council (SGC) has felt so inadequate, and why so many of Thornbury’s residents feel disenfranchised from it.

Comments from Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage on the revised Core Strategy

The process used for Thornbury was different from that used for the rest of South Gloucestershire (Thornbury was an ‘add on’ after the process started, at the Town Council’s request)

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) ostensibly used to support the selection of the site was not made available until some months AFTER the selection had been made (in 2010).

The SA for the rest of SGC’s Core Strategy was produced in 2008. The population of Thornbury did not have an opportunity to debate the site options whilst in possession of the SA data before the decision had been made

The views of Thornbury residents have been ignored at each stage of the process. (‘Improvements’ to the CS and SA have been made to take account of representations, but no notice has been paid to the actual concerns raised).

SGC’s attitude to ‘community involvement’ is to follow their Statement of Community Involvement process - but totally ignoring all counter arguments - and then say they carried out public consultation.

The majority of the Core Strategy (excluding Thornbury) appears to have required only minor changes between August 2010 and December 2010, probably because the residents were able to share in the SA data at the Issues and Options stage. However, Thornbury - 500 houses out of 21,500 - elicited 2/3rds of all the representations, a total of 736, of which over 95% objected to the preferred location

As a result of the points made in the representations by STGH and others about the inadequacy of the SA, SGC has had to fundamentally rewrite it, and has belatedly included attempts to justify its decisions.

The revised SA is still totally inadequate, biased, and should be started again from scratch

It has still singularly failed to provide evidence that building 500 houses will improve the vibrancy of the town centre, address school roll issues, or the town’s alleged demographic issues.

The site at Park Farm is still the least appropriate in Thornbury – as pointed out by the Planning Inspector in 2006 – because, inter alia

it is too far from the town centre to walk,
it forms a logical edge between the town and the countryside of the Severn vale
it is too close to some of the main historic sites in Thornbury – the Castle, St Mary’s Church, the mediaeval fishponds, listed buildings – and it would irrevocably destroy an ancient deer park
the flood risk pushes most possible development to the north of the site
it contains a wide selection of Biodiversity Action Plan priority protected species
it would require major infrastructure development to make it viable at a time of national austerity
it contains mainly Grade 2 or 3a agricultural land, much of it organically farmed
Access via Butt Lane will exacerbate already serious traffic problems
Transport connection onto Park Rd has not been properly thought out – there are serious safety and traffic issues, plus impact on the conservation area.

Our conclusion is the same as in August: the choice of the Park Farm area as the preferred location for housing development should be deleted from the Core Strategy as it is not based on a sound foundation of evidence, and there has been minimal consultation with the residents of Thornbury.

Why can’t we have a proper analysis of the needs of the town, and a plan to meet them?

DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE STAKEHOLDER PLANNING WORKSHOP?

2011-01-30T14:30:00.000-08:00

Did you know South Glos Planning department are hosting a Master Planning stakeholder workshop at the Armstrong Hall this coming Tuesday 1st February to examine plans for the new 500+ housing development ear-marked for Park Farm.
Are you a local stakeholder? Have you been informed of this event? Have you been invited to attend? Apparently entry is by invitation only.
Jane McDermott of SGC, contactable at jane.mcdermott@southglos.gov.uk or by phone on 01454 868712, is officially organising the event. We know of serveral delegates who are declining to attend, so you may wish to turn up on the night and chance your arm for a spare invite, or contact Jane in advance and advise her of your wish to attend.
Hopefully high up on the agenda will be:

Why is SGC presenting our town with one developer on one site when the Residents of Thornbury are still waiting to be consulted on all the Issues and Options to do with developing our town, that never appeared when the rest of South Gloucestershire was considering its own Issues and Options.?

Selection of this site is not based upon the Sustainability Appraisal but on an alternative undisclosed agenda - is it hoping too much that this will be revealed on the night? If not, delegates will hardly buy in to a development proposal based on deception and mis-information.

Do keep an eye on the website in the next few weeks - we will be rapidly updating you on events, and how to make your final submission to the Independent Planning Inspector by 18th February 2011.
Next stop after that - local elections in May when our so-called representatives can be held accountable for their undemocratic actions.

THEY CALL THAT AN EXHIBITION?

2011-01-20T11:35:00.000-08:00

Disappointment for many hundreds of residents as South Glos Planners provide Thornbury with an Exhibition of "Damp Squib" proportions. Same inaccuracies; same rhetoric; same arguments for Park Farm that failed to convince us the first time round. Most galling of all, no meaningful answers to profoundly disturbing questions. Many of the planners were either misinformed or lacking the background information to be able to satisfy unhappy Thornbury residents.
Many residents walked away frustrated by the arrogance of planners and our seeming inability to hold them accountable to local people.
What Planners didn't tell you at the Exhibition (and how simple it would have been for them to show us this courtesy), is that if you continue to be unhappy with the revisions to the Core Strategy pertaining to Thornbury, you can submit a further representation which will go directly to the Independent Government Inspector who has the ultimate decision on whether South Glos has acted in a reasonable/justifiable and fair manner. We will shortly be posting our own recommendations as to what appear to be the main shortcomings of the Revised Core Strategy in relation to Thornbury. Either wait for this posting, or simply click on this link to download a form that you can use for your own personal response. Remember, you need to be stating why the REVISION of the Core Strategy is flawed.

DEADLINE FOR FINAL RESPONSES IS 18th FEB.

THEY THINK IT'S ALL OVER

2011-01-17T14:03:00.000-08:00

500 plus homes to be built at Park Farm? It’s not too late to stop it!

Whatever South Gloucestershire Council want, a Planning Inspector still needs to be satisfied that this development is right for Thornbury. Cllr Claire Fardell recently pointed out that residents believed “…there is no point in responding because the matter has already been decided,” but it isn’t too late to have your say if you come to the exhibition at the Armstrong Hall, running from 10am til noon and 6pm til 8pm on Tuesday 18^th January 2011 and start by asking council officers these questions:-

Why does the Core Strategy claim we need housing development to counter an aging population when official statistics show Thornbury has fewer OAPs and more under 16s than the national average?

Why does the Core Strategy claim we need housing development to counter falling school rolls when the birth rate is rising, schools like St Mary’s are oversubscribed and others report stable numbers?

Why does the Core Strategy claim an increase in population will boost High Street footfall when current research shows a better retail mix and not greater numbers brings vibrancy?

Why Park Farm? Where are the defensible boundaries? What’s to stop developers building all the way down to the river Severn?

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD ON TUESDAY 18^th JANUARY.

IT’S NOT TOO LATE. IT’S NOT ALL OVER!

THE EXHIBITION -Two years too late?

2011-01-06T11:30:00.000-08:00

Even if you've been reading your Gazette today you may not know that South Glos has finally proposed an "exhibition" about Thornbury's housing needs, to take place on Tuesday 18th January at the Cossham Hall from 10am-12pm and again from 6-8pm.

"South Gloucestershire Council’s ward members wish to ensure that local residents understand how this decision (to adopt the Core Strategy) has been reached. The exhibition will be a chance for local people to see why the Councils think there is a need for some more housing in Thornbury and why the Park Farm area has been chosen as the preferred site. "

This may well be SG's stated wish, but when does it plan to inform residents that this Exhibition is taking place?
If this exhibition does indeed deliver what it promises it would be quite remarkable. To date SG council has failed miserably to demonstrate both a need for more housing in Thornbury and reasoned evidence as to why Park Farm could possibly be the preferred site.

Their Core Strategy was unintelligible to normal members of the general public lacking expertise in such matters (as was belatedly acknowledged at a recent Council Meeting by Clare Fardell 13-12-10).
The Sustainability Appraisal was not a balanced appraisal whatsoever, but rather a biased, contradictory and inaccurate attempt to justify a decision that had been made long before any "consultation" was ever instigated.
Local residents were not fooled, and responded en masse to the Draft Core Strategy official Consultation. More than 2/3rds of all respondents to the Core Strategy were making representations about the Thornbury section, and of the 739 individual representations concerning Thornbury 713 opposed the strategy and only 26 supported it – 96.5% against!
But apart from a few cosmetic tweaks here and there, South Glos made no significant concessions to local opinion, and the main thrust of their plans remain unaltered.

So ultimately, what do we hope to learn from this exhibition? Difficult to answer at this stage, (a shame it didn't happen two years ago at the outset of the whole process!) but we are actively encouraging as many members of Thornbury/Morton/Oldbury as possible to attend the exhibition in an attempt to make South Gloucestershire planners accountable to local opinion. We will shortly be distributing a flyer suggesting lines of questioning residents may find useful in attending this event. (Also to be posted on this blog by early next week)

WE NEED HELP
- looking for some volunteers to deliver flyers to local residents over the next week or so.
Please contact me at ourgreenheritage@gmail.com if you can spare even as little as half an hour.

South Glos are also planning a stakeholder workshop on Feb 1st from 6.30-9.30pm to discuss further plans for the development of Park Farm, but that event is by invitation only. Have you been invited? Would you like to have been invited? Why not take it up with organiser Jane McDermott (jane.mcdermott@southglos.gov.uk)?

Following on from the exhibition it is not too late to make comments on the revised Core Strategy, which will be submitted not to the same old local SG planners who have pointedly ignored our views, but to an independent Planning Inspector who will scrutinise the whole process. (Deadline 18th Feb) Hopefully s/he will hold planners and councillors to account in favour of a fair and balanced process in Thornbury where the views of local residents count for something. But presumably we'll be told all about how we can submit our comments at the exhibition!

THE FINAL LET-DOWN?

2010-12-20T16:20:00.000-08:00

We were let down by South Glos planners, who refused to listen to the overwhelming critical opinion of Thornbury residents finding fault with the content of the draft Core Strategy.
And now, we have been let down by our own elected South Glos cabinet and councillors, none of whom were able or willing to listen to the voice of their electorate, and follow the clear mandate that local residents gave them. (Even despite a few Yate and Chipping Sodbury councillors having the courage to vote against the Core Strategy - none in Thornbury/Severnvale could manage to do this. And this was despite 716 out of 739 critical Representations asking planners and councillors to think again for Thornbury. )
Regarding the current state of the Core Strategy, Patrick Conroy has written: " Should you wish to make comments these should be received by Friday 18 February 2010 and be limited only to those matters that the Council is proposing to change."
In early January, we will be publishing some suggestions of possible comments you may wish to make. This is still a critical time because all submissions will be put before the Independent Government Inspector of Planning. We must have faith that there is still someone prepared to listen to the voice of localism - if not, is the much vaunted "Big Society" dead even before it is launched?
Also keep an eye out for an exhibition being promised by South Glos Council (possibly in conjunction with Barratts) regarding the development plans for the Park Farm Estate. Treat with caution! This is not the long-asked-for balanced examination of all the potential sites around Thornbury, but rather it has been twisted once again simply to justify the plans of the planners, instead of listening to the opinions of local residents. Be sure to make your voice heard.
And finally folks, 2011 is a local election year. Be also sure local councillors can be called to account for their failure to represent us!

FINAL CHANCE FOR CORE STRATEGY - SAY "NO" FOR THORNBURY

2010-12-12T23:50:00.000-08:00

What will cabinet and councillors vote to do with the Revised Core Strategy this week? We are urging them NOT TO ACCEPT the strategy for Thornbury.

Core Strategy Submission for Thornbury: Vital information & questions for SGC Cabinet – 13th December, 2010.

You are being asked today to consider the revisions and recommendations that form South Gloucestershire’s Core Strategy. Our focus is on the Thornbury section, which received 739 representations during the consultation, 96.5% of these were against housing development at Park Farm.

Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage do not believe that the changes made to the Core Strategy address the issues facing the town, and the ‘preferred’ location for development at Park Farm is simply not justified by the evidence. There has been insufficient evidence gathering and a lack of consultation about the options – certainly no basis to make critical decisions that will change the town forever.

Vital information and questions we believe you should address at this stage before accepting the Core Strategy include:-

1. The so-called ‘defensible boundary’ of Morton Way (SA para. 4.41a/c and 4.42)

Where did the phrase ‘the community’s desire to protect land beyond Morton Way from development’ spring from? When was Thornbury asked this question? In the TTC residents’ housing questionnaire in 2008, a majority of the people who responded preferred Morton Way for development – in fact giving it more votes than for all other sites combined. If it is the Thornbury Town Councillors’ desire to allocate a ‘defensible boundary’ to protect land beyond Morton Way, this should have been made clear. The 700+ representations objecting to the proposals for Park Farm in the Core Strategy demonstrate the community’s strong desire to protect land at Park Farm. A petition of 100 Morton Way residents did not want development at Morton Way, but they did not want it at Park Farm either.

Who has decided that the Park Farm site ‘…is set by physical boundaries which will limit the extent of development, therefore a precedent would not be set for longer term expansion and there would be less likelihood that development here would encourage an unsustainable commuter suburb’? Where are these boundaries? If a road really is a limit to development, there is Oldbury Lane and Butt Lane to the north, but what on the west? Kington Lane? The River Severn? Surely this is a recipe for Oldbury and Thornbury to be combined into one commuter sprawl.

There is no justifiable evidence regarding ‘defensible boundaries’ to show that Morton Way sites are not sustainable, but Park farm is sustainable.

In addition to this, during the ‘issues and options’ phase of the Core Strategy, the ‘options’ for Thornbury were not properly investigated, resulting in a Sustainability Appraisal which wasn’t published until March 2010, after Park Farm had been selected. The other options for Thornbury have therefore been dismissed before being properly investigated. There has been no level playing field.

2. Park Farm is NOT the only option capable of enabling the Castle School to consolidate (SA para. 4.41c)

Your officers are saying that Option 6 is the only option capable of realistically enabling the Castle School to consolidate onto a single site at Park Road. Have you challenged them to justify this statement? Other options could allow for this to happen, so why are these statements being made? In any event, the Core Strategy should be about meeting Thornbury’s housing needs, not those of one school.

In addition, are you sure that the updated plans have the support of the Castle School’s Governing Body? We believe they do not. In fact, we are aware of governors who have been told nothing of the changes proposed and how it will impact the school (including a road going through their playing field to Park Road from the housing development).

The role of land at the sixth form site being used in the negotiations also needs investigating. (If Barratts are being offered land here in exchange, it may be in breach of Article 107(1) of the EC Treaty in relation to state aid. Open market values on the land should be sought through open competition (as with the recent situation between Bristol City Council and Bristol City Holdings Ltd).

3. No longer any valid justification for Park Farm Option 6 (para. 4.42)

In paragraph 4.42 the updated version crosses out many of the justifications made in the draft SA for supporting the Park Farm site – because they aren’t true! It isn’t closer to the town centre compared to Morton Way sites; it doesn’t have community support; it isn’t the only site not in a conservation area!

In addition, there is incomplete evidence for justifying housing development at all on the basis of falling primary school rolls and improving town centre vibrancy (also para. 4.42). The empty shop premises (which conveniently exclude Tesco as it is deemed to be ‘out of centre’) are way below national and Bristol averages (9.52% in Thornbury, 13% nationally, and 15% in Bristol), and primary school numbers are now rising significantly! One primary school in Thornbury (St Mary’s) has had to go to appeal this autumn to expand its places.

4. The destruction of an historic deer park adjoining Thornbury Castle, St Mary’s Church and the Medieval Fishponds (para. 4.42)

Are you actually aware of the historical significance of this site? (If not, STGH have a map available).

Are you aware of the five 300 year old hedgerows, the three listed monuments, the six listed buildings, the streams, the wet woodlands, the SNCI Parkmill covert? Are you aware that English Heritage (which advises the Government) has submitted objections to this site being developed – saying not enough baseline evidence has been collected on the historical and environmental character of the area to inform plans? They also support the scheduling of the Medieval Fishponds.

Building houses here – however carefully landscaped – will eliminate the kingfishers, egrets, curlews and lapwings, and destroy a significant area of historic parkland forever.

In addition to this, despite what is written in paragraph 4.42, the reasons for the last National Inspector finding Park Farm the least suitable site for development and Morton Way the more favourable option have not changed since 2006. If anything, there is more evidence for preserving the heritage of the Park Farm site. Surely this far outweighs a claim (in paragraph 4.41a) of two SNCI’s located near to Morton Way, which development could negatively impact upon if not managed appropriately?

5. What can you do at this stage?

When considering the part of the Core Strategy relating to Thornbury, please do not approve the plans for Thornbury. These vital decisions must be backed up by proper fact based evidence to support the correct conclusion, and with full consultation. There are a ridiculous number of changes being made to the Thornbury section (it has practically been rewritten). This will take time to consider properly - it can’t be rushed through.

If you just accept what is put in front of you today, there will be no further opportunity to review/consult, particularly as the Director for Planning is asking for delegated powers to carry out amendments before submission to the Planning Inspector. We request you not to grant this delegated authority, which would allow the planners to make further changes to the detail of the submission without any opportunity for public scrutiny or debate.

The PINS advisory visit (by Planning Inspector Simon Emerson) in 2009 suggested that the Core Strategy could identify broad options for development in Thornbury, rather than define a site allocation. Surely it would be preferable to reappraise the housing need and development options for Thornbury before making such a huge decision based on flimsy evidence. With Oldbury and Shortwood for example, there has been a deferment on the decision as set out in the Strategic Housing Availability Assessment.

You are probably aware that Cllr Clare Fardell, who represents NW Thornbury, questioned the choice of the Park Farm site at the JPSE Committee last Wednesday, expressing concern that the other site options seemed to have been dismissed. Please support this and investigate it further.

The National Planning Inspector will be scrutinising the development of the Core Strategy. We have gathered documents and evidence (many through Freedom of Information requests) that demonstrate the inadequacies of the process and the current conclusion to build at Park Farm. We are happy to discuss these further, but in the meantime we ask that you do not approve the Core Strategy section for Thornbury.

Produced by Steering Group of Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage 12^th Dec 2010

Responding to the "REVISED" Core Strategy.

2010-12-10T05:21:00.000-08:00

Yesterday there was a meeting of the South Glos Joint Planning Committee. Their purpose for meeting was to review the REVISED proposals for the Core Strategy, being proposed by the SG Planning Department, in the light of public Representations.

Members of the public were permitted to attend this meeting. Below is the approximate text of the presentation made by STGH's Rob Hudson, trying to raise awareness with councillors of the huge shortcomings of this latest document.

Comments to Joint Meeting of Planning etc Committee – 8^th December, 2010.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. My primary interest is in the Thornbury section.

I haven’t had long to digest the changes made to the pre-submission draft. As you are only too well aware it is a bulky document.

However, we in Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage do not believe that the changes made address the issues facing the town, and the preferred location for development at Park Farm is not justified by the evidence. Moreover, there has been totally inadequate engagement with the community. There has been no discussion about the options, and no opportunity to sensibly debate the best way to meet the needs of the town.

Hopefully the proposed Localism Bill will give us a framework to influence the way in which council planners, officers and elected councillors ‘listen‘ to residents in the future.

In the meantime I’ll highlight briefly a few major concerns –

Thornbury Responses to Core Strategy:

More than 2/3rds of the respondents to the Core Strategy made representations about Thornbury, and of the 739 individual representations concerning Thornbury 713 opposed the strategy and only 26 supported it – 96.5% against!

The Castle School’s ‘longstanding aspirations’:

It says (SA 4.41c) ‘Option 6 is the only option capable of realistically enabling the Castle School to consolidate onto a single site at Park Road’. Have you challenged your planning officers to justify this statement? It is simply not true – any of the options could allow for this to happen. Why are these statements being made? In any event, the Core Strategy should be about meeting Thornbury’s housing needs, not those of one school.

The so-called ‘current defensible boundary’ of Morton Way (SA 4.41a):

Where did the phrase ‘the community’s desire to protect land beyond Morton Way from development (4.42)’ suddenly spring from? Who in the community was asked? In the TTC questionnaire in 2008 (the only research carried out with residents) a majority of the people

who responded preferred Morton Way for development – in fact giving it more votes than for all other sites combined. If it is the Thornbury Town Councillors’ desire to protect land beyond Morton Way, please say so. The community - 700+ (96.5%) of whom objected to the

proposals for Park Farm in the core strategy - desire to protect land at Park Farm. A petition of 100 Morton Way residents did not want development at Morton Way – significantly they did not want it at Park Farm instead.

Who has decided that the Park Farm site ‘…is set by physical boundaries which will limit the extent of development therefore a precedent would not be set for longer term expansion and there would be less likelihood that development here would encourage an unsustainable commuter suburb’(4.41c)? Where are these boundaries? I can accept Oldbury Lane and Butt Lane to the north, but what on the west? Kington Lane? The River Severn? Surely this is a recipe for Oldbury and Thornbury to be combined into one commuter sprawl.

The destruction of an historic deer park adjoining Thornbury Castle, St Mary’s Church and the medieval fishponds:

Are you actually aware of the site proposed and what its historical significance is? If not, I have a map here I’ll be delighted to share with you.

Are you aware of the 300 year old hedgerows, the streams, and the wet wood land? Building houses here – however carefully landscaped – will eliminate the kingfishers, egrets, curlews and lapwings, and destroy a significant area of historic green fields for ever.

The spurious arguments and inaccurate evidence for addressing the issues of falling primary school rolls and improving town centre vibrancy.

I don’t have time to give you details about these now, but the empty shop premises (which conveniently exclude Tesco as it is deemed to be ‘out of centre’) are way below national and Bristol averages, and primary school numbers are no longer falling! They are already moving in a positive direction. One primary school in Thornbury has had to go to appeal this autumn to expand its places. Lies, damned lies, and statistics!

The strategy regarding Thornbury is flawed, not evidence based, and totally ignores the views of residents.

When considering the part of the Core Strategy relating to Thornbury, I ask you to listen to the voice of the residents, and delete it from the plan. Do the job again properly, backed up by fact based evidence which supports the correct conclusion, and with full consultation .

Thank you.

Rob Hudson, Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage

What are these "Castle School ASPIRATIONS?"

2010-12-05T14:18:00.000-08:00

Following the draft publication of the revised Core Strategy, and the near total re-write of the "Thornbury" section, a number of additional considerations are being brought into focus by planners, perhaps none more interesting than "Castle School Aspirations for consolidation onto a single site". This is an aspiration that even governors/teachers/parents/pupils ie the existing stakeholders seem to know nothing about, but it is now being wielded as one of the central justifications for pushing Park Farm as the preferred site for new housing developments in Thornbury. Read Chris Rickard's letter to councillors and council Leader John Calway, by clicking on this link for further fascinating insights into the secret world of planners. See also her letter to local councillor Clare Fardell.
You can also read my own letter to councillors sitting on the Joint Meeting of the Planning, Transport and Strategic Environment Select Committee and Development Control Committees.

WHAT THE COUNCIL HAVEN'T TOLD YOU ....

2010-12-04T09:00:00.000-08:00

Having read and published all of the representations submitted concerning the Core Strategy, the South Glos planners have now amended and revised the Core Strategy, and submitted a Final Version to be approved by SG Councillors.
Bear in mind that of approximately 1200 submissions for the whole of South Gloucestershire, a good half of them are responding to Thornbury development plans. Thus 620 respondents made 739 representations, 713 objecting to the current Park Farm proposals, with a meagre 26 representations supportive (including would-be developers, Barratts.)
We've been eagerly waiting to find out what planners have made of this weight and volume of objections...... and now we know, but only because some sharp eyes happened upon the agenda and attached documents of the Planning And Develpment Control Committee which is meeting this coming Wednesday 8th December at 10am at Nibley Court, Yate. (you may attend this meeting if you wish, and even speak your opinions for 5 mins)
http://council.southglos.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=151&MId=4903&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Why does South Glos Council do this? Why the lack of transparency? Is it because they are ashamed of the shocking job the planners have done in revising the Core Strategy, and would rather keep it from public attention until it is too late?

The big news is that the "Thornbury" section of the CS has been completely rewritten. This is no surprise, because the original version was so flawed that it could not possibly have been allowed to stand. The shock is that planners have deliberately ignored the criticisms of their original conclusions. In a stand of breath-taking arrogance, they have decided that the responses of 610 anxious local residents are not worthy of their consideration. Because this has only ever been about meeting the objectives of the plannning department, not genuine consultation, the planners have introduced new criteria, that local people were never party to at the time of consultation, and of course it is recommending that the Park Farm development should proceed as they always intended.

You may wish to read the re-draft for yourself by clicking on this link and going to PDF pages 45-64
Most of this is devoted to generic reasons for supporting more housing in Thornbury- the old chestnuts of promoting town vibrancy, and falling primary school rolls feature strongly, but with new primacy given to Castle School aspirations to consolidate onto a single site (which it is claimed can only happen with a Park Farm development - not true, however). A new link road giving access onto Park Road has been slipped into proposals. And further Morton Way developments have been declared unsustainable on the basis of this road forming " a highly defensible boundary" to future development (despite pre-constructed underpass, and being the favoured site by a majority of local residents surveyed by Town Councillors in 2009.) Is this because we cannot trust planners to defend our Green Heritage for us? Not sure what Welbeck Strategic Land will make of such a subjective dismissal of all their recent efforts at Public Consultation?
These are worrying times, but it is still not too late to halt the South Glos planners.

We urge you to read the documents for yourself. Check our webiste over the next few days for links to important letters and documents related to current developments.
Please lobby your councillors who must vote on Mon 13th December whether to accept the Core Strategy as it stands. Urge them to throw out the section relating to Thornbury. The people of Thornbury have spoken - It's time for the rest of South Gloucestershire to sit up and affirm the real voice of localism that was delivered on 6th August via the Core Strategy Representations.

MEDIEVAL FISHPONDS WORK-PARTY

2010-11-29T13:29:00.000-08:00

For those of you who enjoy and appreciate the beautiful Medieval Fishponds, currently NOT surrounded by 500 of Barratts finest new homes.........there will be a work-party on Saturday 4th December to carry out some gentle renovation and coppicing. You are warmly invited to join in the fun, meeting at 1.30pm at the Parkland Way parking area by the entrance to Manor Walk.CLICK HERE for a delightful virtual walk around the Fishponds, courtesy of Mwingereza.

Wellbeck Exhibition prompts Comment in Gazette

2010-11-27T12:58:00.000-08:00

The exhibition staged by Welbeck Strategic Land at Cossham Hall last week has prompted a thoughtful lead Article in this week's Gazette. (See below.)
Have a look on our Media page to browse the back history of media interest in this saga of development planning and so-called "consultation" in Thornbury.
In particular, this week's Gazette Comment makes very interesting reading, and raises important questions for local councillors who would seek re-election by you the local residents.

Date for your diary: Mon 13th December 2pm - South Glos Cabinet will be meeting (in Thornbury Council Offices) to decide any changes to the Core Strategy in the light of the Public Representations.
Please consider coming along to this meeting - it is open to the public, and our South Glos councillors need to know that the current plans are not acceptable to local residents.

ABBREVIATED CRITIQUE OF SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

2010-11-15T13:01:00.000-08:00

We have had very serious reservations about the use of the Sustainability Appraisal to justify the selection of Park Farm - our full critique of this document runs to 24 pages!
We have just produced a summary version of this critique, listing its most obvious inconsistencies, all inside 2 pages of A4. Click Here to read for yourself.

REVELATIONS FROM THE CORE STRATEGY CONSULTATION

2010-11-12T03:06:00.000-08:00

The publishing of all submissions to the South Glos Core Strategy Consultation proves fascinating reading. LINK: www.southglos.gov.uk/corestrategyconsultation Quite possibly there are some gems hidden amongst this vast quantity of documentation, just waiting to be unearthed - please let us know if you personally come across any submission that you feel needs more of a profile.
A few early findings:

thanks to all the hard work of local Thornbury/Oldbury residents, there are vastly more objections to the proposed inclusion of the Park Farm estate in the Core Strategy, than for any other development across South Gloucestershire.
a concensus is emerging that it is not just residents in NW Thornbury who have been troubled by the inaccuracies, bias, unsustainability and injustice of the so-called "Sustainability Appraisal".
an unexpected objector has emerged in the form of developers Welbeck Strategic Land. Their weighty submission to SGlos makes fascinating reading. It would appear that the strength of these objections has prompted them to set up a Public Exhibition at Cossham Hall next Thursday 18th November between 3-8pm which will "provide information on all six sites considered by South Gloucestershire Council." This week's Gazette has an article exploring further Welbeck Strategic Land's proposals.

For your information, South Glos have amended their timetable and intend to have their Full Cabinet vote on the Core Strategy on 13th December, with their decision taken to Full Council on 15th December. Whatever the outcomes of these votes, that is not the end of the story - in March/April 2011 the whole process must be independently and publicly examined and approved by the National Planning Inspector. Only at this point can the Core Strategy be adopted. We remain firmly convinced that the only route to approval of the Core Strategy must be by removing the proposals relating to Park Farm, and starting again with a new and fair, open, balanced, objective Sustainability Appraisal of all potential sites around Thornbury, that welcomes the voices and contributions of local residents and grass-roots communities.

Things to consider in the short term:

Thornbury Town Councillors (Town Development committe 2-11-10) have expressed an interest in the Public Exhibition being held at Cossham Hall this coming Thursday 18th November (between 3-8pm). Why not join them and drop into the Exhibition for yourself. It would be good for a show of strength in voicing our concerns over the flawed South Glos Core Strategy, and our belief that it must not be allowed to stand in its current form.
Read some of the Representations to the Core Strategy - We have no guarantee that Councillors will be reading them through, so write to them and let them know your findings. (see this blog on 22nd Sept for list of names and e-mail addresses)
In May 2011 there will be elections to South Glos and Thornbury Town Councils. As a group of disillusioned electors we are determined to find and vote for councillors who will listen to the voices and concerns of local residents. We would urge you to strongly consider whether this is something that you might be able to do. Please let us know your thoughts.

THE DIGGERS ARRIVE

2010-10-10T12:56:00.000-07:00

Local residents were somewhat shocked to see diggers at work in the lush green fields of Park Farm. One local resident sent me a panic-stricken e-mail asking if the builders had arrived!

Because of course OFFICIALLY South Glos are still considering all the representations made by you and me and all the other local residents (oh yes, and developers) who may have submitted views concerning the proposed 500+ housing development, earmarked for the fields behind Castle School, that back onto Thornbury Castle, the Medieval Fishponds, and much of Park Farm.
UNOFFICIALLY planners have already indicated to STGH that they are still proceeding with the current plans regardless of our representations. So much for "Consultation"!

Despite David Cameron's talk of The Big Society last week, where local people are urged to take on local responsibility, South Glos Planning Department seem to prefer the little society, where they can ride roughshod over the nuisance opinions of local people, prefering to listen to the financial arguments of the developers, and meeting their own self-imposed deadlines and targets.
Are we really too late to see some fair play in Thornbury? Currently these diggers are only here to carry out some archaealogical surveys. Next time, they could be here to dig the footings.

We urge you to write to your South Glos Cabinet Members (see names and addresses in previous post below 22-9-10) as soon as you possibly can.

Ask them if they have actually read the Sustainability Appraisal yet - and if they have, how they can possibly pursue the Park Farm development on the basis of such a flawed and inaccurate piece of non-appraisal!
Ask why local residents have NEVER been consulted on which one of the six identified sites (Sustainability Appraisal) would be the best option for housing development inThornbury?
Ask why the most recent Government Inspector to examine housing sites around Thornbury, having declared the Park Farm estate to be UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, is now being completely ignored.

Please don't put off writing. We must act together to make a difference NOW.

WHO TO BELIEVE???

2010-10-04T13:32:00.000-07:00

Our Local Councillors (SGC and TTC) tell us that families are in decline and rolls are falling in local Primary Schools, and consequently we need to add vibrancy to our schools by building 500+ new houses on the edges of Thornbury, starting out with the beautiful and historic Park Farm Estate that edges onto Thornbury Castle.

National Newspapers tell a different story .....

(click mouse on newscutting to see it enlarged.)

Councillors have been very busy looking into the future in order to find justification for a housing project that has never received a mandate from the local residents of Thornbury - but the true fate of our Primary Schools may be very different if these projected national trends are to be believed. More housing for Thornbury could actually mean no spaces for local children in local schools as demand exceeds supply. (Remember - 500+ houses is the official line, but some reports have indicated 750, even 1,000 new houses to come)

And on the subject of schools, it's very difficult to get a straight answer as to how Councillors/Castle School is involved in the current wheeling and dealing with Barretts over building plans on those Park Farm fields behind the school that lead on to the Medieval Fishponds.
One thing we know for sure is that the Government, in the shape of Michael Gove, Education Secretary has absolutely pulled the plug on the "Building Schools for the Future" programme. Talk of a re-build for The Castle School, or a consolidation of the Sixth Form onto the main site at Park Road looks suddenly completely misplaced.
That may actually be a relief for local sixth-formers, many of whom cherish their sixth-form site, away from the main school, as one of its principle attractions. What would happen to "town vibrancy" too, if sixth-formers are located too far from the town centre to be able to "nip-in" for shopping and snacks?

So in the light of all this, any chance of our local councillors holding up their hands over the flawed justification of the Park Farm fields as a suitable site for housing development, and saying "Sorry, we got that one wrong....."??
We can but hope.
Please keep drawing your councillors' attentions to these injustices and inaccuracies that are being perpetrated by ELECTED representatives.
Local Elections in May 2011 might prove to be our only recourse.

CONSULTATION? WHAT CONSULTATION?

2010-09-22T12:11:00.000-07:00

Dear STGH Supporter,

First of all, a big thank-you to everyone who took the opportunity to respond to South
Gloucestershire Council’s core strategy. You may well have picked up from the
media that the council had hundreds of responses indicating the depth of feeling that
exists concerning housing development in Thornbury.

Earlier this month, representatives of Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage went to the
council’s planning meeting with high hopes that all your responses would have made
councillors and official sit up and take notice. Disappointingly, it quickly became
clear that they very much want to ignore public opinion and press on with their plans.
Click HERE to read summary notes of meeting.

So what can we do now? Well, we believe that we have to keep on putting our views
forward and make it as difficult as possible for the council to ignore us. If we all write
to councillors and officials and remind them of just how many of us need to be heard,
we can show them that we won’t just go away.

Please write to the people below.....
Let’s have them each receiving hundreds of messages –

1 ) Asking them to become familiar with our critique of the Sustainability Appraisal (available to read on our website - which draws full attention to the SA's contradictions and inaccuracies), and not allow it to be used to justify the selection of Park Farm as the favoured option for development.

2) Asking them to be fully aware of, and not ignore the current Local Plan that says there is no need for any housing development in Thornbury.

3 ) Reminding them that the new coalition government’s policy is to engage with local communities - unlike SGC which has declared that there is to be no further engagement with the Community who live in Thornbury about how their town should be developed.

If the people who are supposed to represent us are made to listen to the views of many, they must surely begin to listen and act in our interests.

Please find a few minutes to write to them. The more we do together, the greater the power of our argument.

Many thanks.

People to write to -

Leader of South Glos Council:
Councillor John Calway - john.calway@southglos.gov.uk
Deputy Leader of South Glos Council:
Councillor Sheila Cook - sheila.cook@southglos.gov.uk,
South Glos Executive Cabinet Members:
Councillor Heather Goddard - heather.goddard@southglos.gov.uk,
Councillor Allan Higgs - allan.higgs@southglos.gov.uk,
Councillor Matthew Riddle - matthew.riddle@southglos.gov.uk,
Councillor Brian Allinson - brian.allinson@southglos.gov.uk,
Councillor John Godwin - john.godwin@southglos.gov.uk,

also worth copying in your MP:
Steve Webb - steve@stevewebb.org.uk

CONSULTATION NOW CLOSED

2010-08-08T08:44:00.000-07:00

Hope you had a chance to make your own Representation to South Glos Core Strategy.
We have now submitted our own Representation on behalf of Save Thornbury's Green Heritage. It makes for fascinating reading - we have posted it onto this website - check out via the tab at the top of the page, then click on the link to any section that interests you.
Happy summer reading!

Service will resume on this blog in early September.

Final Deadline for Representations to CORE STRATEGY

2010-07-30T05:33:00.000-07:00

The deadline of 6th AUGUST fast approaches. if you haven't made a Representation to South Glos yet, we would urge you to do this before they close their doors to any new submissions.
You can download our simplified Response form by clicking on the link at the side of this page, or clicking HERE.
If you are bit braver, you could try responding to South Glos on its own website, and submit an online representation. To do this, click HERE.
Hopefully this website should go a bit quieter over the summer as we wait to see what South Glos Council make of the (hopefully) many hundreds of Representations urging them to think again about their plans for NW Thornbury.
In the Autumn we will be publishing on this website some of our findings about the Core Strategy and the Sustainability Appraisal and the process of misinformation that has led to this seriouos threat to Thornbury's Green Heritage.
Thank you all for your wonderful support and e-mails and comments and encouragement, and also donations towards printing costs.
Happy Holidays
Let's hope that the Autumn will bring us all better news.