DEAR Editor, The plan for Thame has been passed by a majority of voters on a 40% turnout but let us review what we have got. We’ll do this in a series of steps so that the points we raise can be absorbed.
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 THE BETTER PLAN FOR THAME GROUP at 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 a friend of Thame.
The biggest single issue is the 775 new house target but how many voters know the origin of this figure?
South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) were given orders by the South of England Development Agency (SEEDA) to plan for a need for some 3000 homes in South Oxfordshire and they were required to allocate this total across communities in the district. Thame got, after some haggling, 775.
Why did these targets survive the closing down by the present government of SEEDA? This QUANGO, defunct since March 2012, had based its forecast of future housing need on the expectation of increased immigration. Current government policy is to decrease immigration.
Thame Town Council say they have fought the target ? but did they tried hard enough? It is not enough to say that other authorities have tried and lost. Really? Who and where?
Since Thame is actually the first authority to register a plan (not counting the rural Cumbria) how can it be said that others have failed? The promises of the new Localism Act need to be fully demanded by TTC and supported by SODC, as well as by MP John Howell who makes much of his support for localism and democracy.
Isn’t it reasonable that the maximum new build target for Thame, and elsewhere, should start by identifying land where houses, and other things like business schools etc could be built so as not to have a negative impact on the existing community? Sustainability in other words.
With the potential housing areas identified, and desirable densities and open space on these sites decided, the maximum new build (not a ‘target’) is determined ? thus from the bottom up – not from the top down.
In the case of Thame, where people have expressed clearly the opinion that variation of style and type is required, the plan should contain possible directions as to how that will be achieved. It doesn’t.
Are voters able to agree, on reflection, that the plan is not really a plan at all, but a list of (mostly obvious) objectives and desires, like more open space, more employment opportunities, active town-centre shopping, a community centre etc etc? – listed amongst a great deal of filler material? There is little, if anything, saying how these objectives will be achieved.
It is surely evident that some objectives conflict and a true plan should offer a resolution ? for instance in respect of the future use of the Cattlemarket. Multi use? Including housing and an (unfunded) community centre? Think about the removal of all that concrete.
How many voters realise that the site is owned by SODC and appreciate that the rent received helps reduce our council tax? The ‘plan’ says nothing about this. A solution for the site is available and it ensures continued income for SODC. Why is this solution not discussed and offered as part of a true plan.
And why so much vilification of Lea Park? In fact the estate is very tidy, quite green and properties are well looked after. There is quite a bit of variety in design, although consistency of roof pitch and roof tile is something that must, and can, be avoided in future.
Peter Webb
Thame
On behalf of A BETTER PLAN FOR THAME GROUP