I take it you dd not support the development? are you by any chance a resident from that area of Thornbury? from the people that I have spoken to in my local and neighbours most people are supportive of the development that is unless they are from the Park Farm area.
Most people are not supportive of the devlopment. That is an invention.
Thornbury Town Council involved itself in next to no consultation on the subject of development, but they did run a survey before choosing a site. The result of that survey was that Park Farm came out last as the choice of residents across the town. Nonetheless, the town council adopted it as their preferred option and then never bothered to tell anyone until May 2010.
Three Liberal democrat seats were lost at the local elections on this issue. the Government Planning Inspector has raised concerns about the soundness and legality of the plan. Seven hundred objections were made to the Core Strategy against a handful in favour.
Most people are not supportive of the development. Even those who don't support it have always been far more concerned with the total disregard for consultation and due process demonstrated by town councillors.
Having spent more than year studying how this all came about, I and many others can promise you that a pub conversation will not even get you close to discovering what this is all about. The inference of your post is the NIMBYism is the problem. If you believe that have been conned by a morally bankrupt council.
Be careful what you wish for.
Woo hoo...another 500 homes full of people with nowhere to shop so off they go also to Cribbs or Bradley Stoke. Whilst I have no objection to new homes being built I do object to the state of our High Street and shopping areas. Come on, lets have some shops here which will encourage Thornbury people to actually shop in Thornbury!!
@grumps2011 I reside in the North West Thornbury town council ward, but not that near to Park Farm. I have nothing to fear from the proposed development.
- I am not a homeowner, so the value of property is not a consideration;
- I have no car, so I have nothing to fear from increased traffic;
- I have no minor children, and so uninterested in Castle School;
- I don't even have a dog to take on walks across the fields.
I was asked to support the Save Thornbury's Green Heritage campaign group with a video. This was the first that I knew about the housing proposal, and my immediate thought was NIMBYism, something for which I have total disdain. Before taking the mickey, which I was inclined to do, I chose to read through SGC's appraisal of the six possible development areas, and was appalled by the blatently obvious bias in favour of Area F / Option6 (Park Farm). Of the many serious distortions of the truth found therein, my personal favourite was: "There are no records of notable or protected species of flora or fauna". I did produce some work in support of the campaign, whilst remaining separate and independent from that group, and expressing a view which was mine.
I am not against development, but I just don't believe that the construction of housing, so far from the High Street, will rescue Thornbury's retail trade from its present moribund state. People living over there would be inclined to get in the car to shop in town, and once in the car, I believe that they would opt to go to Cribbs Causeway instead. Where I would like to see development is Area D / Option 4 - west of Thornbury, beyond Dagg's Allotments and Mundy Playing Fields. This would require changing its green belt status, but that can be done, if the political will is there. I think that people living there would be more inclined to walk into town and do some shopping. It could make Mundy Playing Fields more like the town's "central park". It would also go some way towards redressing the unbalanced layout of Thornbury, which has its "town centre" located in its south-west corner. I would support that, even if I were the only homeowner in the locality.
I strongly believe that the endorsement, by most of Thornbury's councillors, of the Park Farm site, is connected with wanting Barratt Homes to fund/build the Castle School extension, under a section 106 arrangement. I would have more respect for those councillors, if they openly admitted that, but then being candid seems not to be the Thornbury way. I also dislike the way that we have councillors who are members of both councils - that does not help local democracy either.
So grumps2011, you don't speak for me, but continue drinking in your local, which I suspect is not The Anchor Inn, Morton.