FINAL FINAL CS SUBMISSIONS

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.