Author: Sonja Francis

DEAR Editor, Cllrs. David Bretherton and Mike Welply have taken it upon themselves to issue a statement in the Gazette. It appears to be an advertisement, though it is not so headed and I assume they paid for it themselves.

I regard the opening paragraph to be rude in the extreme. Where were those voices earlier? Well councillors, why would any sensible person be speaking out against a plan before knowing what the plan proposes? Meetings were well attended from the beginning. Written comments were invited and many people wrote in.

Finally a plan of sorts is announced, and at that stage, with the silly threat that worse would befall if citizens said No to it, because SODC will then have their evil way, we were clearly told that there is no point in saying No. To anyone who can think, that means that the referendum is declaring itself to be a sham.

All these threats centre on the the 775 house target and this is the issue that dominates the whole thing.

With SODC cast as evil big brother, it seems apparent that relations between SODC and Thame Town Council may not be condusive to the “partnership” that MP John Howells speaks of in the same Gazette issue. Interesting also in the same paper, we have the Planning Minister, Nick Boles declaring neutrality and Cllr Dyers confessing to being guilty of “unintentionally” inferring that the Minister is pro plan.”

I wonder if Cllr Dyer will confess to “inadvertantly” having used council transport, equipment and personnel in the putting up of the ‘Say-Yes’ signs around the town.

Strange also that, from the same Gazette issue, Minister and MP do not seem to be on the same hymn sheet. It makes me wonder if Mr. Howell is also on the same hymn sheet as his assistant, The Rev/Cllr Angie Patterson, cabinet member for planning at SODC.

Back to the Bretherton/Welply statement – they speculate – and dream up the spectre of 1000 + houses because, it seems, that lurking in the bushes are a horde of nasty, speculative developers who will flock to take advantage of the chaos. There will be more “windfall sites” they say – ignoring the fact that it, the Council itself is proposing one such windfall site – on land which is designated as Important Open Space within the Conservation area. Oblivious also to the fact that for all the fine words against estate development, those 45 houses are by any definition, an estate.

These two councillors appear to ignore the fact that all applications go through a planning approval process, the adoption of the Thame Plan gives no additional powers. It simply provides guidance to the planning committee. That guidance can exist even without a plan.

They then make the ridiculous assertion that without a plan everything will happen (“unintegrated” – whatever that means) in the first five years and that chaos will ensue hereafter. Why only in the following 10 years? Why not over the next 100?

“Only good for speculators”, they say. Except the speculator who bought the property which gave him Elms field, presumably.

Peter Webb
Thame

DEAR Editor, Hallam Land Management ltd (HLM) represents landowners to the east of Thame, south of Kingsey Road, and we have been closely involved with the Neighbourhood Plan process. Our proposal for East Thame was, and is, a scheme that delivers 400 dwellings, a 210-place community primary school, a new employment area, a GP Surgery, a community hall and associated community infrastructure. A balanced scheme meeting the needs of the community.

Our key concern with the Thame Neighbourhood Plan relates to ensuring that adequate infrastructure and community services are provided alongside the dispersed housing sites proposed in the plan; a concern echoed by consultees and local residents in Thame. Whilst the Inspector concluded that the Plan met the ?Basic Conditions? laid down by Central Government, there was no thorough investigation by the Inspector at the Examination into infrastructure and how it would be delivered. We think the Plan is sadly lacking in this area. The current delivery strategy is not clear and robust, and it is entirely possible as a consequence that housing might come forward without necessary infrastructure if the plan is approved at the Referendum on May 2nd.

If, like us, the residents of the town have concerns regarding the adequacy of the strategy for future infrastructure provision; a concern that primary schools, doctors? surgeries and roads should not be allowed to go ?over capacity’, then it is our view that a ?No? vote should be cast at the Referendum, allowing a re-consideration of the sites, with an emphasis on infrastructure delivery associated with housing growth.

Yours Faithfully

Nick Duckworth
Director
Hallam Land Management

DEAR Editor, Peter Webb?s letter to you published yesterday about the Thame Neighbourhood Plan challenges the basis on which the Neighbourhood Plan has been developed because, he says, it stems from a now defunct Quango. If there is no valid basis for the plan then SODC should publicly state the council?s present position. I quote from Mr Webb?s letter:

??. the plan (in inverted commas), assumes that Thame must find space for 775 new houses as required by SODC. That is its core element.

?This is unacceptable considering the source of the figure. I suppose it all started with the not-much-revered John Prescott?s desire to concrete over southern England, but the 775 figure originates from the assumption by the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) that South Oxon must find room for some 3000 new homes. SODC were given the job of allocating these across the district and dumped 775 on Thame. But, SEEDA is, or rather was, a QUANGO which was wound up by the present government in, I think, March 2012. Its figures were based on an assumption of increased immigration – whereas current policy is to reduce immigration.

?It is surely illogical that the defective forecast of this defunct agency should remain in place.?

It really would help to see an official reply to this claim.

Speaking personally and having followed this issue as much as I?ve been able, it is my impression that the Plan is a pretty good deal. I quote from a Newsletter I received from East Thame Residents Association,which details some of its own reservations but says that ?rejection of the Neighbourhood Plan would bring further difficulties and uncertainties in its wake?. We believe, on balance, that a Yes vote is the best way forward.?

That?s my personal view as well. We live in an uncertain world. Developers have huge resources and and can bide their time. Power, money and bureaucracies tend to get their way. Why leave things wide open for what could be much less suitable and out of scale for Thame? This isn?t defeatism. It?s realism.

The Neighbourhood Plan is pretty good bird in the hand. There could be vultures in the bush.

Norman Brand
Fanshawe Road
Thame