Last week saw some significant events in Thornbury.

On TUESDAY 8th MAY, outgoing mayor Gill Brooks, passed on the baton to NEW MAYOR Phyllida Parsloe at the Annual General Meeting of Thornbury Town Council. Pam Shipp is to be her deputy. Phyllida has chosen four students from Marlwood School to be her consorts at official functions throughout this coming year.

On THURSDAY 10th MAY, the  possibility of an up-coming Thornbury COMMUNITY PLAN was launched at the Cossham Hall, to a welcome gathering of around 60 interested local members of the community. A number of exploratory questions were discussed, and a significant number of those present indicated their wish to continue with this process and help to establish a steering group that would take the challenge forward. If you missed this opportunity, and would like to participate in a group like this, please let me know, and I shall make sure you are kept informed of developments.

On SATURDAY 12TH MAY, at the Thornbury Skate Park, Mr DAN POTTER, the (newly) appointed outreach Youth Worker in Thornbury, had organised a SKATE-PARK-FEST of all things skate-park related. It seemed to me that hundreds of young people descended on the park, together with BMX bikes, scooters, skateboards and in-line skates, and some Mums and Dads in tow. A lunchtime BBQ was followed by some storming competitions with big prizes offered by some local associated companies. My daughter and I particularly enjoyed the BMX event, with some startling flips and manoevres, and one or two heavy landings. The overall event was won by Thornbury’s own Rory G, with a highly impressive sequence of twists and turns (that’s not the technical jargon, I know!) Congratulations to Dan for a fantastic event that did Thornbury and its young people proud.

POSTED BY: CLLR Gareth DAVIES

The EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC (EIP)

Is this the Final Act in a drama that has now spanned several years?.

The LOCALISM ACT is now in place.

SGC have completed their Core Strategy work and submissions to the Indpendent Inspector Paul Crysell are done.
If you wish to read all responses to the Inspector, by SGC, by public bodies, by members of the public, by developers, by councillors, by other interested parties, check out this SGC WEBSITE.

Be warned that it does not always connect adequately, so don’t give up on it if you fail at your first attempt
We are also attaching a couple of draft publications relating to the EIP.

EIP Draft Programme and participants list

Draft (11April) Programme for SG CS – covering letter

All hearings are in public, so you can choose to be present at any of the hearings listed in the schedule. In terms of participation, be aware that this is only for those who requested to be part of the process having stated they believe the Core Strategy is unsound/unjustified. Those in favour of the Core Strategy as it stands have had their say, and must place their trust in SGC. This is the majority position of Thornbury Town Council.

However, as you will know if you have been following this blog, the three Independent Councillors, representing NorthWest Thornbury, have firmly opposed both the Core Strategy process, and the majority town councillor stance. We have consistently represented that opposition, both here in this blog and to SGC and the Inspector. We have been invited to attend the hearings, and will be represented in person by Councillor Rob Hudson.

If you are on the participation list and wish to be part of the EIP debate, please confirm this with Kath Thorne, the SGC programme officer.
Rob Hudson will be contributing to the examination. If you still have burning issues that you fear may not be represented at that examination, relating to the unsoundness of the proposed Core Strategy, we would welcome contact to discuss those issues further.

Cllr.GARETH DAVIES

Apologies for not adding anything to this blog for some time. I have been busy attending the Finance and Policy Committee and the Playing Fields and Cemeteries Committee, and I’ll do some updates on them soon,  but for now I’ll focus on developments with the Armstrong Hall. All councillors are trustees, and attend trust meetings after each Town Council meeting. Some of us also sit on the Management Committee, which also includes members of the Advisory Committee, who include the Hall Manager and representatives of user groups. There are a lot of committees!

Well, in recent months the major issue has been the production by the group Arts and the Community in Thornbury (ACT) of a report setting out their vision for the development of an arts complex in the town on the Armstrong Hall site. They believe that a theatre with up to 500 seats, a new museum, meeting rooms and a cafe is a realistic possibility, and their report outlines how the site could be used to meet these aims, and what it might cost to develop and run it. It also compares it with other similar theatres in the country, and considers that the Thornbury catchment area is possibly big enough to generate the income to make it sustainable.

There has been a mixed reaction! Some critics say that Thornbury has no need for such a complex, and others that there is no way it could survive if it was ever built as it would be too expensive to run, and it would just become a white elephant. Yet others think the Armstrong Hall and Cossham Hall are perfectly suitable as they are, and a new complex would charge small community groups far more than they can afford to pay. What would become of Turnberries, the town cafes, and other facilities like the Christ the King hall and the Chantry? Much has been made of ACT’s description of their report as a ‘feasibility plan’, which some have taken to be a business plan (which it isn’t), and various people have tried to pick holes in it, particularly the ‘plans’ included, which were intended to demonstrate what could be put on the site rather than be a definitive design.

So, lots of hot air and fury! Whatever happens, the Armstrong Hall is not really the most suitable site for productions, and it needs constant renovation and updating. However, it is a valuable resource for Thornbury, as is the Cossham Hall, and they both fulfil very important functions. In order to go to the next stage ACT needs support from the Trust to approach possible donors. Without such support ‘in principle’ no one will take the proposals seriously and put up any money. The Trust has  therefore agreed the following resolution  to enable ACT to proceed with fundraising, and to get the money to do a detailed investigation of what the town needs, a proper design, and a full business case -

The Armstrong Hall Charitable Trust resolves to join with Arts and the Community in Thornbury and others in the construction of a new community and arts facility for the benefit of Thornbury and surrounding areas which will reprovide facilities to enable the services currently provided by the Armstrong Hall Complex to continue, including the Museum and in addition to provide a flexible performance space and supporting facilities.

To this end the Trust will - 

• contribute its land and buildings to the project
• take an active part in the specification and design of such facility
• agree new governance arrangements for the ownership of all land and buildings and an inclusive management and development structure.

All consistent with the Trust Deed of the Armstrong Hall Charitable Trust and subject to agreement by the Charity Commissioners

                                          and 

Subject to the following conditions:-

• guaranteed availability of capital funding for any land purchases and construction costs
• the preparation of third party validation of a satisfactory and sustainable business plan
• subject to the granting of all necessary statutory and development permissions.

A working group of AHT and ACT members is being established to kick this off, and no doubt there will be more to report in the future. The Community Plan launch meeting on 10th May will be good opportunity for residents to comment on ACT’s vision, and to get actively involved in this and other ideas for developing the town. I think ACT should be commended for their energy and enthusiasm, which has got the project off the ground. We’ll see now whether it can actually fly, and what sort of a ‘flying creature’ it will look like. Remember, the Trust has built safeguards into its commitment to provide support, and the project must look like a viable concern if it’s to get beyond the drawing board.

We haven’t posted for a few weeks now – taking a breather after the flurry of activites surrounding the final deadline for submissions to the Independent Inspector. Too late to submit any written representations. Now we wait to find out the initial response of the Inspector to SGC revisions, and presumably await the publication of a timetable for public hearings. We will keep you posted as the news breaks.

Meanwhile, please be informed that the date for the lauch of the Thornbury Community Plan has been postponed. It was initially intended to take place next week, but is now planned to take place on Thursday 10th May at 7.30pm at The Cossham Hall. Apologies for any confusion or diary clashes that may ensue. What this does mean, however, is that a timely free training event, being offered by CPRE, may be of interest and value to people interested in planning issues, shaped by the new Localism Act.

Details pasted below:

Interested in planning? CPRE are offering a free event in Bristol

Planning our future: The Localism Act and neighbourhood planning

Saturday March 24, 2012

9:30 am to 4:30 pm
Armada House, Telephone Avenue, Bristol BS1 4BQ

Free but booking is required

The Localism Act is intended to give communities a real voice in the planning system. It allows community groups to form ‘Neighbourhood Forums’ and to create Neighbourhood Development Plans, to help shape development in their area.

But how will it work in practice? How much power will community groups really have? And just how will decisions be made about which groups act as the Neighbourhood Forum for their area?

If you are interested in planning and development in your area and you want to learn more about how the Localism Act will work, CPRE is running a conference in Bristol to try to answer those questions. It is open to individuals and community groups who want to learn how to have a real voice in planning for their local area.

Speakers will include Paul Miner (CPRE Senior Planning Campaigner) and Sarah O’Driscoll (Bristol City Council Strategic Planning Service Manager).

There will be talks by ‘front-runner’ groups about the reality of producing Neighbourhood Development Plans, and discussions on the more awkward questions that the Localism Bill has brought up – just what are the limits of Localism? How can community groups effectively involve and engage the people in their area in planning? And can communities really use the Localism Act to say no to unwanted development?

Lunch will be provided – please let us know if you have any dietary requirements.

Places for this event are limited and will be allocated ‘first come first served’.

For more information or to book a place, please contact:

Joe Evans
CPRE Avonside
07854 741130
director@cpreavonside.org.uk

Supporting Communities and Neighbourhoods in Planning is a joint project between CPRE and the National Association of Local Councils, funded by DCLG.

PLEASE SEND YOUR FINAL REVISED COMMENTS ON THE CORE STRATEGY TO THE PLANNING INSPECTOR… by Friday Feb 17^th

To experience Councillors who fail to listen adequately, or respond to evidenced argument can be frustrating. But now comes the opportunity to raise those same objections with the Independent Inspector, from whom we may well elicit a more favourable response.

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.

Personalised responses will most likely carry more weight than simply cutting and pasting whole swathes of text.

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.

‘We were packed to the rafters in Cossham Hall on Thursday night. Thanks to partisan and scaremongering tactics from Cllr’s Halsall, Fardel and Holloway you could be forgiven for thinking you may have stumbled in on a Morton Way Neighbourhood Meeting. Whilst a good number of those among the gathering expressed views concerning the whole of the town, a majority of people attending appeared to be residents from along Morton Way who, to the exclusion of the rest of Thornbury, had days before received a frankly divisive and misleading letter from these three councillors which was designed to play on their fears of being surrounded by thousands of houses in an orgy of uncontrolled development.

As things stand, housing beyond Morton Way is not being considered in this strategy. No-one at the meeting was recommending such an outcome anyway, certainly not the Independent Councillors from NorthWest Thornbury, who have consistently campaigned for a fair deal across the whole town, ahead of “divide and rule” political manoeuvrings.

Why these three Lib Dem Councillors had not shown the same courtesy to NW residents two years ago, and were now choosing to disenfranchise them once again, beggars belief. Is there any link between this blindeye/deaf ear policy that was applied by SGC to the 700+ representations objecting to Park Farm’s inclusion in the Core Strategy? Two of these Councillors have since been democratically removed from the Town Council by unimpressed electors. As current Deputy Mayor, Councillor Halsall should be considering whether his own position remains tenable.

By dragging the name of the Liberal Democrat party into their pamphleteering, they must also have risked besmirching the good name of their fellow Town Councillors. Just who are these three councillors claiming to be speaking out on behalf of?  Are all Lib Dem Town Councillors to be perceived as in support of such undemocratic actions?

Ironically,  we believe that 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,  Thornbury now lies ill-prepared for the future. (For a full treatment of these issues, why not scroll through  www.greenandpleasantthornbury.blogspot.com Save Thornbury’s Green Heritage blogsite).

At Thursday’s meeting you would have heard the Independent Councillors clearly asking for the town to embrace:

• YES to maintaining the current Footprint of the town, and protecting all our Green Fields against major new housing developments in Thornbury.
• YES to small pockets of development only, incorporating our un-assessed brownfield sites.
• YES to a comprehensive Green Belt review, incorporating historic assets.
• YES to a Community Plan empowered to take all of these agendas forward.

 Our argument was rational and documented, with all supporting evidence in place. It would have offered a measure of protection to our future, in the brave new planning climate ushered in by Minister Greg Clark. He has called for “a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan.”  He has not been so hot on defining sustainability. On the one hand, if the Independent Inspector declares the Core Strategy unsound in relation to Thornbury, this will leave the town vulnerable to developers exploiting the presumption to develop at more “suitable” sites. But worst case, the Inspector somehow gives the go-ahead to build at Park Farm – Those other developers waiting in the wings rub their hands in glee, knowing that the worst site (least sustainable) in Thornbury has been justified, and knowing it will only be a matter of time  before the Morton Way sites fall to a similar fate.

I was grateful that so many people had turned up to a public meeting, but don’t let us be fooled into thinking that it somehow represented the pulse of our town. We Independent Councillors have been advocating the search for that pulse since even before we were elected to office. We are dismayed that there is often no mandate for decision-making in our town. On such a massive issue as the future direction in which our town develops, why wasn’t there an even-handed and un-partisan attempt to ascertain and then harness the creative will of all of our residents? This question will not go away. It haunts the Core Strategy. It haunts the Town Council – and an opportunity to lay this ghost to rest has been clearly and regrettably missed.

There will still be a launch of the Thornbury Community Plan on Thursday 15^th March, again at the Cossham Hall. I wonder if Cllrs Halsall, Fardel and Holloway will be writing to select groups of their electors inviting them to participate? Potentially there is much to be gained from Community Planning, and it won’t simply be about housing developments for the future, even if that may well be a part of the matter. In fact, a successful Community Plan is only really what you, the local Community desire and make it to be.

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 your shoulders. Does it matter enough to you to take the time to compose a personal letter/email (addresses below), in order to pursue a fair and good outcome for Thornbury?

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

 The Three Independent Councillors for North West Thornbury will be writing their own “addendum” to the official Town Council representation to the Independent Inspector, hopefully reflecting a more balanced and rational and evidenced view of the “pulse” of our town.

 REPORTED BY: Councillor Gareth DAVIES