Author: Sonja Francis

DEAR Editor, Here are some other defects in the Thame Plan which readers may like to consider. Green space on windfall sites? These latter were defined as unforeseeable opportunities to build the odd house in a large garden, conversion of houses into flats, and the building of houses on any brownfield sites that might become available (e.g. Lower school). The former two would certainly not create open space opportunities, so why mislead? And why does the plan talk about more open space on Lea Park. Have any of the Yes for Thame plan group been there and identified how to achieve the impossible?

Similarly with the promise of more rights of way. The council has no power to create them. South Oxfordshire District Council can require a right of way as part of a Section 106 agreement but this would apply only over land owned by the developer. Continuation of that right of way cannot be enforced over any neighbouring land unless in Council ownership.

Also why pretty maps of footpaths which help pedestrian movement? Look at the map in the plan brochure. The paths are what we call pavements and they mostly already exist. Guff, in other words.

Then, a word about affordable housing. Some Councillors and Planning Departments clearly fail to understand, or to admit publicly, that 40% affordable means, by definition, that 60% are unaffordable; made even more so by section 106 agreements that load costs onto a developer, often relating to money needed for something like a swimming pool, somewhere unrelated to the site concerned.

Now also, a new Capital Investment Levy (CIL) has been invented. More cost to be borne by the buyer of the unaffordable house. To make matters worse, the Thame ‘plan’ is full of even more charges blithely expected to be loaded on developers. The Yes for Thame group need to get real. The developer does not and cannot pay. These are all hidden taxes on people trying to buy a home.

If there is a requirement for rental homes below market rent level, then these should be financed from general taxation, council houses in other words, and not for sale.

Finally, for the moment, plan supporters have found favour with voters with the promise that the new houses will have large gardens and that there will be ‘huge’ open space. Don’t believe it. Land has a cost. That cost is spread over the houses built thereon. The larger the gardens and the greater the open space, the fewer the houses and thus the higher the cost that goes to each.

It’s simple arithmetic. As a guide, land will usually represent about 30% of the cost of a house but, if the ‘plan’ producers have found a way to acquire it below market value then please tell the the secret to the rest of the country.

The plan for Thame was been passed by a majority of voters on a 40% turnout but it is not a plan at all, thus these letters from the A better Plan for Thame Group.

There is more to come, but if our arguments cause anyone to feel that they were coerced or manipulated into saying Yes, why not email abetterplan@hotmail.co.uk with something to the effect that – ?I know the votes have been cast already but as someone who voted Yes, I would like to record that I feel this was probably an error.”

People who didn’t or weren’t able to vote originally might also now like to take a position on the issue but please identify whether emailing as a resident or friend of Thame.

A Better PLan For Thame Group

DEAR Editor, It is stated in The Thame Neighbourhood Plan that there is a the need for a new site for the Fire Station. The plan offers nothing to resolve this, only the impractical suggestion that, if the Fire Station moves, the site can be used for shopping. This site is owned by the County Council, who also run the Fire Service, so the property produces no revenue. In that case, very possibly, the County would agree to donate the site for the community centre which people say they want. This of course only if a free or low rent site could be found for the Fire Station. Such a site exists. The ‘plan’ producers have failed to find it and plan for the resolution of, in this case, not one but two objectives.

The ‘plan’ fails to state specifically that no supermarket will be allowed outside the ring road although making much of wanting to encourage town-centre shopping. It suggests specifically that a pharmacy and shop selling white goods are possibilities. This ignores the fact that the town lost at least two pharmacies in recent years. Also, we now learn that Domesco is to close. We wonder what will fill their space? Another non-payer-of-business-rates charity shop? No ‘plan’ can resolve the problem of finding retail business opportunities. This can only be done by individual entrepreneurs.

Mention is made of encouraging residential use over shops. No ‘encouragement’ is needed. Landlords naturally seek to rent out all the space available, if practical. The problem is usually lack of separate entrances to upper floors and also, in some cases like jewellers, a security problem with letting out a floor over a shop.

Then there is the stated desire to attract one or more company HQs to Thame. No plan for how will this be achieved. There may be something that could help, but there is no evidence that the plan makers have considered it.

Are voters aware that the adoption of this ‘plan’, rushed through to be first in the south, actually gives no new powers to anybody. All it is, is guidance for SODC and that could have been given informally, while the ‘plan’ is reassessed and revised to include some specific action plans.

SODC policies exist and continue to be applied as appropriate to any planning application. It is sheer guff to list all those policies in the ‘plan’. And do not voters agree that it would have been best to remove conflicts? For example, having stated, many times, that more green space is required, how is it that the ‘plan’ actually removes some green space which has been defined (by SODC) as Important?

Then there is the business about the present of

DEAR Editor, Hallelujah! We have a plan ? now four weeks old, and about to be delivered! Starting with history, I refer to the town clerk?s letter clarifying the process for ?The Count?. It was very reassuring that at least in this process there could be no interference by anyone in the Town Hall, or others.

C.H. was not the only one who had concerns about this matter. These concerns stem from the total contempt with which the town clerk and all architects of the plan treated the majority of participants that were promised a say in the process but were totally excluded without notification. I will not go into details of all the disgraceful shenanigans that were employed then, as well as in the ?Yes? campaign, as those concerned will know exactly what I?m referring to.

However, as none of this will give us a better plan, we must put it all behind us and look to the future, support those entrusted with the plan?s delivery, and hope for the best!

I noted that the ?Yes? campaigners have made a start which, although rather late, should be welcomed by all those sidelined. I refer to the Jeanette Matelot-Green?s statement that the 24% of ?No? voters should now be listened to.

Also, although this has not yet been confirmed by those entrusted with delivering the plan, the proposal to put 85% of all affordable/social housing on site ?F? and ?The Elms? and the remaining 15% on ?C? & ?D?, seems to me a very welcome one. The common sense of this proposal is really far sighted. Those who would normally occupy such dwellings are also those more often reliant on public transport of which there will be no shortage on those sites, in contrast to sites C & D which will have none at all.

We hope there will be more ?good? ideas followed by ?good? decisions as ?the plan? is delivered.

Oliver Dyroff