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 ...

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:

1. 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.
2. 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

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

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?

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

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!

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.