From: Rob Hudson
Sent: 18 February 2011 14:20
To: Planning LDF
Subject: Comments on Core Strategy Revisions

Dear Sir

I wish to make the following comments on the revisions to the Core Strategy, and why I consider it to be UNSOUND. The numbers and words in bold are the sections of the Core strategy and Sustainability Appraisal documents containing revisions relating to Thornbury.

  1. The case for more houses to solve the alleged issues regarding the town centre, school rolls and ageing demographics is not made.4.32a to p. The statistics quoted do not justify the comment under4.42 that ‘the Inspector at the time did not have the evidence of the new challenges facing Thornbury’. The ‘evidence’ quoted does not indicate that there is an issue with ‘town centre vibrancy’ that will be addressed by 500 new houses. It does not demonstrate a decline in school rolls, in fact a trend which shows the opposite is apparent. There is nothing to show that the community has a desire to protect land beyond Morton Way from development. What actually has changed? The age Demographics are dated from 2001, so clearly the Inspector in 2004 did have access to that evidence.
  2. It is now apparent that the real reason is the CastleSchool, 15.10a, and 4,32n to p, but that does not justify destroying the land around Park Farm.
  3. If additional land is needed, buy it, but don’t pretend that it has to be linked with building houses at Park Farm.
  4. The Park Farm site is the least sustainable around Thornbury, particularly now that the needs of the Castle School and the flooding issues by the stream (and excluding the work still to be done to deal with the other flooding risks not yet addressed) force the building of the majority of houses to the north of the site, well beyond a reasonable walking distance to the town centre (which conveniently excludes Tesco).4.37a and 4.38
  5. There is a current ‘defensible boundary’ from the Castle to Park Farmhouse alongside the CastleSchool fields and the fishponds. Building beyond it will leave it open to building down to Oldbury.4.38
  6. Planners and Councillors refuse to explain how breaching the so-called defensible boundary of Morton Way will open up the fields north of Morton Way to uncontrolled building, whereas building on Park Farm won’t open up the fields to the west of Park Farm to uncontrolled building. 4.38
  7. A different approach has been used for Thornbury to the rest of South Gloucestershire in the development of the Core Strategy 3.14. It excluded Thornbury residents from the opportunity to debate the options in the early part of the process (2007-2009).The entire Core Strategy and Sustainability Appraisal
  8. The Sustainability Appraisal for Thornbury was put together retrospectively to try to justify the choice of Park Farm once that choice had already been made, some time between October 2009 and March 2010. It failed to make a case then, and it fails to make it now.4.38
  9. It has had to be totally rewritten for Thornbury – and the revised version only became available at the beginning of December 2010, a few days before the Core Strategy was approved by the Council, and far too late for the majority of residents to have the opportunity to read it, let alone comment on it.4.38
  10. It still fails to demonstrate that Park Farm is the right site. In fact, it clearly demonstrates that it is the least sustainable of the site options considered.
  11. SGC should go back to the drawing board for Thornbury.
  12. Clearly this is not going to happen, because – for some reason known only to a small number of its councillors and officers – there is a specific reason, a hidden agenda, a done deal, probably involving the Castle School and its desire for some of the Park Farm site, which prevents SGC from coming clean and admitting its true motives.

I request the Planning Inspector to examine all the evidence regarding the Thornbury section of the Core Strategy in detail to establish why SGC is so determined to desecrate a vital part of Thornbury’s heritage. My faith in the planning process in this country might then start to be rebuilt.

Yours faithfully

Rob Hudson