LongChurch_6
QRcodeDownHatherley_111x111

Down Hatherley Parish Council (official website)

OPEN DOCUMENT from George Sharpley

TWIGWORTH let down by borough council.doc

DOWN HATHERLEY LANE CLOSURE

from junction with B4063 to Dowty social club entrance

RESTRICTED HOURS 08:00 - 17:00 full road closure for 390m
from 18th - 21th October 2017

NEWS NEWS NEWS NEWS

NEXT PARISH COUNCIL MEETING

DOWN HATHERLEY

DOWN HATHERLEY
VILLAGE HALL

WEDNESDAY
18 OCTOBER 2017
7pm

All are welcome to attend

Button Gwinnett and the American Declaration of Independence

This event is free to attend

Why was a Gloucestershire man the second signatory on the American Declaration of Independence? Our talk will feature local historians and members of the Gwinnett family, Elizabeth Jack and Colin Gwinnnett Sharp. Learn about Button’s early life, his emigration and rise to high political office and his unfortunate end in a duel. We will also tell the tale of the restoration of Button’s parents’ tomb in Down Hatherley churchyard. This has its own intrigue and can be visited following the talk.

The reference code for this event is CV18

You must prebook your tickets before arriving at this event
Tickets are available from Gloucester Tourist Information Centre,

or direct from

07875 965450 or email elstevenson@hotmail.co.uk

Prebooking Required

Religion
War

Event Dates & Times

Sun 3rd Sep, 2017 15:00 - 17:00

St Mary & Corpus Christi Church
           

NEXT PARISH COUNCIL MEETING

TWIGWORTH

SITE OFFICE
ORCHARD PARK

THURSDAY
2 NOVEMBER 2017
7pm

All are welcome to attend

NORTON
PARISH

TWIGWORTH PARISH

FloodNotice4000

GLOUCESTERSHIRE AIRPORT UPDATE

FROM CLLR GRAHAM BOCKING

“ If I may explain in a little more detail my reasons for mentioning the airport in our last inTouch leaflet as a possible alternative localtion for housing. I grew up on air bases as my father was in the RAF, so aircraft and aircraft noise doesn’t bother me or cloud my viewpoint.

The three local councils Tewkesbury, Cheltenham and Gloucester have been tasked with building 35,000 new dwellings and have come up with a combined plan they call the Joint Core Strategy (JCS). In this they currently plan 3,500 dwellings to meet Gloucester City’s need in the greenbelt/flood plain between Churchdown and Gloucester, both sides of Cheltenham Road East (by the fire station and up to John Daniel’s) for 1,100 and off Innsworth Lane for 1,300 more with 995 just north of that. I believe these developments are flooding risks and would clog up Innsworth Lane, Cheltenham Road East and Pirton Lane virtually bringing Churchdown to a standstill.

In my opinion a ‘Garden Village’ with direct access to the A40 is a preferable option (although I would be happier if we didn’t have to do either). This would increase revenue for the local Council’s and the public transport advantages would be huge.

The airport site is big enough to take much of the housing currently proposed at Innsworth, Twigworth and Churchdown. it is afar better location with it being next to the A40 and the main commuter routes. It doesn’t flood. It would not use up green belt agricultural land. It’s location is in a part of the greenbelt now heavily degraded by existing and proposed developments, including on the airport site itself.

I would also like to stress that this article is my opinion and, although supported by some, is not necessarily the view of all Churchdown Conservative councillors or the Conservative Party in Tewkesbury

It is an option I believe people should be aware of and I wanted to gauge public opinion (hence the feedback request). Rest assured that I will continue to fight against these other
developments as I too live in Churchdown and wish to protect it from becoming part of Gloucester’s urban sprawl. "

TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL – JCS MEETING 31st JANUARY 2017

I had the misfortune to be sitting in the public gallery, and observing our Borough Council at work questioning and debating the amendment to the Joint Core Strategy.

Basically, although a previous meeting (25 October 2016) had democratically rejected the inclusion of Twigworth in the JCS plan, this amendment proposed to bring Twigworth back into the plan.

The amendment was passed with a vote of 19 for and 14 against.

If Twigworth was unsuitable last time, why had it become suitable this time, admittedly with a lower number of homes proposed?

No satisfactory explanation was given as to why the resolution from 25 October had not been complied with. Pro-development councillors argued that the JCS Plan would only be sound with Twigworth in, yet the 25 October resolution had asked for Twigworth to be removed and replaced with allocations from elsewhere to make the Plan sound.

THE Q&A SESSION

The question and answer session went into detail with experts giving their opinion about flood risk and traffic flow with technical documents beyond the comprehension of the average person. The hydrology consultant had been commissioned from a consultancy which advises developers, and was given freedom to critique the advice of the hydrologist advising the Neighbourhood Development Plan who has advised against developing at Twigworth because of the degree of risk. Twigworth Parish Council had asked for this adviser to be present to brief the councillors but this request had been refused.

Three main issues emerged …

1. Flood Risk (see also above and below)

2. Traffic Flow ( all questions on the lack of up to date traffic modelling, costs of the mitigation measures, and the nature and affordability of a new road, bringing a grotesque intrusion in the Severn Vale, were comprehensively fudged by a County Council official).

3. Loss of Green Belt (see also below)

THE DEBATE

The debate after the Q&A session, largely forgot the three main issues, and descended into a debate about the consequences of not passing the amendment.

The issues were …

1. The site at Ashchurch was no longer going to be released by the MOD for development, so the JCS were desperate for new sites.

2. The allocation at Twigworth was for Gloucester City’s needs not for Tewkesbury Borough’s needs.

3. If the JCS did not meet their quota of sites for housing need, the Council would lose their ‘New Homes Bonus grant’ (a sizeable amount). This dominated many pro-development Councillors’ arguments even though it is not a planning matter and should not influence the actual decision.

4. If the JCS did not finish their plan, the Government could take direct control, and the Council would lose their power.

5. The new houses at Twigworth could not have water run off connected to the sewage network. No practical solution about drainage and long term maintenance was forthcoming. The can was kicked down the road to be decided later in the Planning Application stage.

6. This loss of Green Belt could be appealed, and the JCS would be delayed by a call in, which is precisely what the Councils seek to avoid.

SUMMARY

I must applaud the 14 councillors, who stood their ground, and voted against this amendment.

Sadly, the rest of the Council were more concerned about revenue, power, and lethargically ending the JCS planning exercise than serving the residents of Twigworth and the commuters on the A38.

One issue never raised – the destruction of a village by being engulfed in suburbia, and impacts on downstream communities.

It will flood.

There will be traffic chaos.

But maybe you will be reassured by the words of Tewkesbury’s monotone planner who kept insisting it’s “deliverable and sustainable”…