.

This BLOG is dedicated to a green and pleasant Thornbury. Without your help, it may not stay that way...

Friday 9 December 2011

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.