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 .....

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?

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.

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

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.