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.

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