Trowbridge Governance Review

Below is our submission to Wiltshire Council which will be made tomorrow.  Promoting an expansion of the boundaries of Trowbridge is one of our key priorities.

Transforming Trowbridge, a group of experienced private sector volunteers supported by the principal employers in the town, is working hard to attract investment and jobs into Trowbridge.  The outcome of this review is fundamental to our success.  If the town boundaries reflect the aspirations of the Core Strategy then your fundamental policy ambitions to make Trowbridge a strong and successful County Town will be achieved and we will have a well-resourced town council to meet the needs of the people living here.

We urge the Council to ignore the recommendations of the Working Group and resolve

-          That, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary land, allocated in the Core Strategy for the expansion of Trowbridge should be included within that town’s boundary as this will ensure community governance arrangements will better reflect local identities and facilitate effective and convenient local government which is the requirement set out in the Government’s Guidance
In particular

-          That the A350 represents a natural boundary between West Ashton Parish and Trowbridge

-          That Elizabeth Way represents a natural boundary between Hilperton and Trowbridge

-          That Trowbridge’s largest and most prestigious employment site, White Horse Business Park, is included within the town boundary

The Government Guidance and the wider strategic and policy issues seem to have been ignored and are barely referred to in the Working Party’s report on the Trowbridge review.  The principal reason for this review is brought about because of the decision of the Council to focus on Trowbridge as one of the three centres of population targeted for growth – not Hilperton, not West Ashton, not North Bradley etc etc.

The boundary extension is key (in these days of austerity)  to affording and developing sporting, health and well-being facilities for Trowbridge, joining up neighbourhoods to green spaces and corridors, allowing residents to connect with the surrounding countryside or town facilities without the need for cars.  Trowbridge, in the future will need to be more self-sufficient and this review offers a key opportunity to enable this to come about.

The conclusions of the Councillors on the Working Group have been reached without apparently taking these fundamental facts into consideration.  The Group seem to have been more focussed on parochial matters. 

At a consultation meeting I attended a councillor on the Working Group contradicted every contribution that he personally disagreed with. 

My own contribution on behalf of Transforming Trowbridge was criticised because we had a clear priority to press for an extension of the town boundaries and, therefore, we were biased. 

Apparently organisations with policy positions are not allowed to lobby for an outcome but it is OK for a Councillor with an agenda to be part of a so-called independent panel and promote the outcome he wants to see.

The Council’s strategic policies and Government Guidance have been largely ignored in the Councillors formulation of their recommendations in the report. That cannot be right.

Jeff Ligo

Director

Changes proposed to the Town Council boundary.

Trowbridge Town Council made proposals many years ago to Wiltshire Council to incorporate existing developments  at Broadmead, Paxcroft Mead and White Horse Business Park and proposed developments at Ashton Park in an expanded town boundary. 

Wiltshire Council has undertaken a Community Governance Review over the past two years and is due to make a decision at a meeting on Tuesday 12th July 2016.

The Agenda has now been published which you can access from the link below

http://cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=10304&Ver=4

Trowbridge Town Council has submitted the following questions to the meeting:

Questions to Wiltshire Council, 12^th July 2016.

Question 1.

At the November Full Council meeting Councillor Alan Hill spoke very eloquently about the need for the Wiltshire councillors to be presented with the evidence in order for them to be able to make decisions on this important matter affecting the future of Wiltshire. In doing so, Councillor Hill made a very simple argument in favour of the decision which was then made at that meeting; that the Community Governance Review Working Party should give further consideration to a number of the proposed boundary changes. Councillor Hill and other Wiltshire Councillors as well as those of us also interested in this issue have waited eagerly for the evidence to be presented, for the evidence to be analysed and assessed and for the arguments in favour and against to be weighed up and a conclusion drawn from the evidence.

How can the Working Group believe that the Community Governance Review (Pending Schemes) report before the Council for consideration today presents the evidence in a clear, coherent and consistent way, supporting the conclusions which have been made in the recommendations contained in the report, in a way which Councillor Hill and others expected and in a way that such a report to the council should be presented, if it is to be taken at all seriously?

Question 2.

With regard to the recommendation at paragraph 8.31, let’s consider the evidence and see how clear, coherent and consistent it is.

Two pieces of evidence are cited in the report.

The first is the detailed submission from Trowbridge Town Council, (which presents the case for the proposals).

The second is the recognition by the Working Group that the area consists of ‘a mixture of areas where development had already been built out, areas that had allocations in the Core Strategy . . . and areas currently utilised for local employment.’ In paragraph 6, the report states that; ‘The Working Group has therefore taken into account any significant development including unimplemented planning permissions and any relevant allocations in the Wiltshire Core Strategy.’

This reflects the government guidance.

In addition the Working Group comments that; ‘Schemes 27 and 28 were natural progressions of the urban extension of Trowbridge from scheme 26 where the housing had already been built.’

Therefore all of evidence presented in the report supports the proposal.

On what clear, coherent and consistent basis does the Working Group justify ignoring the evidence to reach the conclusion that no action is taken?

Question 3.

With regard to the recommendations at paragraph 8.32 and 8.33/8.34, let’s consider the evidence and see how clear, coherent and consistent they are.

Three pieces of evidence are cited in paragraph 8.32 of the report.

The first is ‘that the response to the consultation showed the majority of respondents disagreed with the proposal.’

The second looks at access to the area and notes; ‘that the only access to this area was from Trowbridge’

The third looks at improving the boundary and notes ‘that the existing boundary was out of date and anomalous.’

Three pieces of evidence are cited in paragraph 8.33 of the report.

The first looks at access to the area and notes; ‘that access to this area of land was only possible via Trowbridge’

The second looks at improving the boundary and notes; ‘that the proposed boundary would be an improvement.’

The third is ‘that the response to the consultation was mixed’

On what clear, coherent and consistent basis does the working group justify ignoring the evidence from the consultation (in an area with 28 residential properties), giving significantly greater weight to access and improving boundaries in paragraph 8.32, yet at the same time ignoring the evidence relating to access and improving boundaries, giving significantly greater weight to the consultation (in an area with only three residential properties) in paragraph 8.33/8.34?

Question 4.

With regard to the recommendations at paragraph 8.35 to 8.38 and 8.39/8.40, let’s consider the evidence and see how clear, coherent and consistent they are.

Two pieces of evidence are cited in paragraphs 8.35 to 8.38 of the report.

The first is the improved boundary; ‘Scheme 22 reflected a more easily identifiable boundary’

The second is the response to the consultation at paragraph 8.36.

Only one piece of evidence is cited in paragraphs 8.39/8.40 of the report.

This is the outcome of the consultation, which was ‘strongly in favour of the proposal’.

On what clear, coherent and consistent basis does the working group justify ignoring the evidence relating to improving boundaries, giving significantly greater weight to the consultation in paragraph 8.35 to 8.38, yet at the same time ignoring the evidence from the consultation, in paragraph 8.39/8.40?

Question 5.

With regard to the recommendation at paragraph 8.45 to 8.48, let’s consider the evidence and see how clear, coherent and consistent it is.

Only one piece of evidence is cited in paragraphs 8.45 to 8.48 of the report.

This is the outcome of the consultation, ‘the majority of responses came from outside the area and were therefore less influential’.

In addition the report at paragraph 8.47 includes a statement from the parish council, with no balancing statement from the town council.

On what clear, coherent and consistent basis does the working group justify ignoring the only evidence they cite in paragraph 8.45 to 8.48, on the basis that the consultation is less influential because responses come from outside the area, when for Schemes 21, 23 and 103 they have completely ignored the views of respondents who live in the areas concerned? How does the Working Group justify the inclusion of statements from one side, statements which could be made equally about both alternative proposals? Surely the only conclusion to be drawn from the inconsistency, incoherence and lack of clarity is that the Working Group has yet again failed to provide evidence to justify its conclusions?

Work has now started on the extension to Adcroft Surgery to accommodate the Bradford Road Practice, new access road of Seymour Road now under construction. see Wiltshire Times tihs week.  Planning application details here :
http://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/Search/DSA,837087

The Pavilions Trowbridge - The battle for the Article 4 Direction

Wiltshire Council's Article 4 Direction to prevent The Pavilions being turned into flats is now with the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) who can decide to order the Council to withdraw the Direction.  The confirmation of the Article 4 Direction is strongly supported locally and by our MP and the Parish Council.  Below is  a summary of Transforming Trowbridge's response to the DCLG.  The potential owners of the site have hired a barrister to make their case and this is referred to in our response.

Article 4 Direction – The Pavilions White Horse Business Park Trowbridge
You will see from the website we are a private sector led partnership, supported by the largest businesses in Trowbridge, committed to winning investment and creating jobs in Trowbridge at a time when the town is expanding rapidly.

You can see from the ‘Opportunities’ page of our website that we have identified the building the subject of the Article 4 Direction as one of our priorities

The White Horse Business Park is the most important, and high profile, employment site in the town.  Its loss to residential accommodation would be disastrous.

 We have been shown a copy of the submission made to you by the barrister on behalf of Three Pavilions Ltd and we want to record our concerns about the conclusions drawn by that submission.

Wiltshire Council has made this Direction, because, and only because, the development to which it relates is prejudicial to the proper planning of the area.  It is absolutely necessary to protect the wellbeing of the area.  The potential harm that the direction is intended to prevent should be clearly addressed has been identified.  It is the loss of the most important employment opportunity in the town

 

(Note the words in italics are quotations from National Planning Guidance)

The sophistry in the barrister's submission cannot escape these obvious conclusions.  Whilst the building has been empty for several years now, this was the case when Barclays Bank left in the nineties and Virgin Mobile arrived several years later and became Wiltshire’s largest employer.  Transforming Trowbridge have been very disappointed with the marketing of the building and we are now involved in taking initiatives to draw the availability of the building to, in particular, the call centre industry.

The Government’s motivation for giving Permitted Development rights was surely not intended to transform Trowbridge’s most prestigious Business Park into a residential area when local housing need is being met through the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Within a few hundred yards of The Pavilions, the Core Strategy has identified a development site - Ashton Park Urban Extension - that will provide some 2600 dwellings (30% affordable) with a suitable mix of housing in line with Core Policies 45 and 46. With the large number of new residents these homes will attract, the pressing need will be for an increased supply of employment opportunities. Trowbridge, being Wiltshire’s County Town, with excellent transport connections, has for many years functioned as a major employment location for a wide catchment area. Significant housing proposals in all the neighbouring market towns will inevitably result in even higher demand for more jobs. The loss of a major employment site at such a critical time, when all efforts are being directed at building expanded, balanced communities is unthinkable.         

We trust that the Secretary of State will consider it is inappropriate to intervene in this matter.  It is essentially a local issue.

 

 

 

The Pavilions under threat from a cynical Investment Company.

The article below appeared in the Bath Chronicle last week. 

Transforming Trowbridge has urged Wiltshire Council to confirm the Article 4 Direction.  Mr Gutwirth's comments, about the level of compensation which may be payable should the Direction not be confirmed, are considered to be totally inaccurate. 

The Pavilions remain the best opportunity to attract new employers to Trowbridge. The County Town needs jobs not homes.  There are many examples of local authorities making Article 4 Directions to protect their most important employment opportunities and we are pleased that Wiltshire Council appear to be doing the same.

The White Horse Business Park is Trowbridge' s most important job-creating investment opportunity and it must be protected.  The new owners have made no effort to secure tenants for this important building preferring instead to exploit a loophole in the General Development Order to change the use of the building to residential in order to turn a quick profit with no thought for Trowbridge's best interests.

Very sad!

Come on Wiltshire Council confirm the Direction and we will work with you to identify some business investors and create some jobs.

Wiltshire Council facing compensation pay out over vacant office space plans

By James Crawley  |  Posted: May 11, 2016

Residents in Trowbridge have until Thursday (May 19) to have their say on plans to turn a vacant office block into 98 apartments.

Wiltshire Council has blocked the proposals put forward by Ashbourne Investments Limited, which included a tennis court and gym at The Pavilions on the White Horse Business Park, but may now have to pay compensation to the building owners.

The Government allows changes of use from office to residential without the requirement of formal approval where the space is not being used for its intended purpose.

Wiltshire Council is now facing the prospect of forking out millions of pounds in compensation, according to the building's owners, having passed an Article 4 Direction. This removes the developer's rights to carry out their proposals.

The plans to transform the vacant buildings was submitted to the local authority in March.

However they were branded a "disaster" by a group known as Transforming Trowbridge.

Ashbourne Investments Ltd managing director, Mike Gutwirth, said: "We haven't come across a single council in the UK that has taken this drastic measures, mainly due to the significant compensations which they may be liable for.

Mr Gutwirth added: "Unless the council reconsiders their position, not only have they missed out on turning a large vacant property (which has been empty for years) into something productive, they would potentially be liable for millions of pounds in compensation. Needless to say this will be a huge strain on the already tight public coffers."

As a result of the Article 4, the applicant must apply for full planning permission.

Speaking to the Wiltshire Times, chairman of North Bradley parish council councillor Roger Evans said: "We don't always agree with Wiltshire Council but it is very nice to have that feeling of a big brother helping us out. We have got to work together on this and the more the council do to help the community the better."

Community Governance Review consultation meeting – 11 May 2016

 

Submission by Transforming Trowbridge

Thank you for the opportunity to make representations, on behalf of Transforming Trowbridge, on this most important subject.

Transforming Trowbridge is a private sector led partnership focussed on promoting, facilitating and enabling investment opportunities in Wiltshire’s County Town.

We have adopted a number of priorities one of which is to support the initiative to enlarge the town's boundaries.

It is important that Trowbridge grows to strengthen its principal service centre role and deliver improved infrastructure and facilities in the town. Sustainable growth with employment development alongside new housing is needed, both within the central area of the town and in the form of an urban extension, which is fully integrated with the town centre.

These words are not mine, rather those of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

The inclusion within the town boundary of the allocated and built housing sites and employment land close to the town is an imperative to enable resource to become available for investment in the social, economic and environmental aspects of the town.  This is so important when promoting the area to potential investors.

I contend that the adoption of the proposal to extend the town boundaries is in the best interests not just of the town, but also of Wiltshire Council and the parishes whose size will be reduced.

In a large unitary county such as Wiltshire, there is significant advantage in using the review process to differentiate between urban and rural populations.  West Ashton, for example, is a parish with a distinct identity e.g. church, village hall, school.  In the next few years the parish will be swamped by development to the north of the A350.  Already there are a significant number of houses closer to Tesco in Trowbridge than West Ashton Village Hall.  The people who live in those houses relate to Trowbridge as will those who occupy the proposed developments and see or will see themselves as part of the Trowbridge community.  The residents will say they live in Trowbridge (not West Ashton).  The same arguments will be true for much of the development in other parishes.

Wiltshire Council by its own planning policies has identified the Trowbridge  community area as a major growth area.  Having done this, it inevitably follows that this review must take account of this and include significant areas of that allocation within the town.  The development sites have been identified because (and only because) they are adjacent to Trowbridge.

Enabling Trowbridge to grow will enable Wiltshire Council to delegate significant activities and services to the Town Council who will then have significant additional resources to improve and provide a wide range of social and environmental facilities.

I understand that some may wish to defend the boundaries of the existing parishes but this a point of view based on emotion rather than logic.

Wiltshire Council is required to carry out the review reflecting the identities and interests of the communities in the area.

Strategically, in a large (still mainly) rural unitary authority it is in the best interest of Wiltshire Council to develop strong urban centres which can take care of themselves, provide services and lead initiatives to encourage investment.

Transforming Trowbridge trust that Wiltshire Council will make a positive decision and deliver an expanded and stronger County Town

Meeting with new owners of the former Bowyers' site today to learn about their exciting plans for investment in Trowbridge. Innoxmills.