27/06/11…Core strategy consultation demand

DEAR Editor, Further to my e-mail of last week, I have had the opportunity to produce what, I hope, is a more considered view (on the Core Strategy. Please find below therefore, a paper I wrote on the above. I have distributed it to SODC cabinet and planning committee members, as well as Thame Town Councillors, in advance of this week’s meetings.

The paper is, I believe, self-explanatory and not excessively long. It demands that a consultation takes place before a final decision is made. Given that only a very short time has passed since the Lower School announcement of June 17th, it represents the only means available for comment.before the SODC deliberations.

Regards
Bob Austin

Thame: Core Strategy

In advance of the decisions regarding the submission of the Core Strategy as it affects Thame, I wish to make the following points:
Various figures have been quoted for the total numbers of houses to be built from 560 to 850. It appears that the total increase in housing stock could be 1170, being the original target of 850 plus a windfall development figure of 320. The latter I calculated from the original 850 figure as reduced to 530 for the original figure for site F. It is a matter of regret that a serious error was made in the inclusion of windfall development by SODC. One does have to ask, however, whether the scale of the windfall development (320 houses) amounts to the possibility of almost unrestricted large scale development between core strategy reviews. Does it?

At 2.5 persons per household (probably an underestimate given the family nature of the town), the increase in the population provided by 1170 houses will amount to a population increase of between 25 and 30%. This together with the potential, purely commercial, Sainsbury’s proposals would transform the town utterly. It would be a milestone along the road of Thame ceasing to be a market town. The infrastructure investment implications would be enormous for schools, doctors, transport etc. It was reassuring to read the Mayor?s comments about getting the infrastructure in place but there is a lack of detail. What work has been done?
With regard to the Lord Williams?s School , and unless demographic trends intervene, the population expansion could imply an increase in size towards 3000 pupils a figure so big that it might necessitate a split back into 2 schools- a return to the current 2 sites!

Alternatively, numbers could be restricted by reducing intake from the surrounding, Buckinghamshire, villages. The latter would necessitate Buckinghamshire having to build a new secondary school. This would be a denial of Thame?s role as a market town at the centre of a hinterland that naturally pays scant regard to administrative boundaries and, also, of current parental expectations that appreciate a fully comprehensive school environment.

Nimbyism can apply to local authorities just as much as to protestors against development! Have proposals for a single site school included consideration of these issues? What are the conclusions?

Presumably the consolidation of Lord Williams?s School on a single site would be financed by a one-off sale of publicly owned land. The announcement of June 17th by the school was short of detail but can an assumption be made that all finance (including contingency) would be in place to fund an extended development? Given the sale of land, where will the new primary school be built? As an additional point, and in the real (commercial) world, the demolition of modern buildings (some very modern school buildings) would have a financial impact and give pause for thought. Do the savings and benefits justify the cost?

In the Thame Gazette of 24th June, Angie Paterson (SODC cabinet member for planning and councillor for Watlington) states that there is a housing need that has to be met. I don?t think anybody would disagree with that but the fulfilment of that need must be reasonable, complete and proportionate. The word ?strategy? implies a co-ordinated plan, fully worked up and openly broadcast. Angie Paterson admits, however, that the ?possibility of school site coming forward helps enormously? to fill the void created by the windfall problem. The single site proposal appears, therefore, to be a tactical response created by an urgent need to meet the Inspector?s expectations- not a strategic need. Coincidentally, it meets the ambitions of a very important stakeholder in Thame.

In circumstances as described above, it might be considered reasonable that the citizens of Thame were not informed of the school development before 17th June. More particularly, the people living near the Lower School site have not been able to submit their views before the deliberations of the scrutiny committee, or the full cabinet, as has been the case with the resident associations of Lea Park and Southern Road. However, this lack of consultation is not justifiable. As early as October 2010 a submission by the Town Council to SODC in the document ?Thame additional consultation Oct 2010? SODC website) clearly states a preference by Thame Town Council for the housing development replacing Lower School on Towersey Road. Furthermore, the Town Council were proposing to reduce houses on site F by the number to be built at the Lower School site- even at a time when the windfall problem had not arisen.

A verbatim quote is as follows (page 2):

?Comparing Site F to Site D the town council considers Site F would be preferential.
– Reasons include:
– site is ?contained? by the by-pass;
– provides the opportunity to facilitate enhancements to Lord Williams by enabling a single site school and the potential re-development for residential purposes of the existing Lower School at Towersey Road, which would reduce the number of houses to be allocated to Site F
– opportunity to develop and enhance green infrastructure along Cuttlebrook;
– various access options;
– easy to connect to existing (and extended) bus routes
– scope for strategic scale planting to reduce the visual impact
– good access to the town centre with potential for pedestrian/cycle enhancements.?

Why were those residents affected not consulted about the Lower School option? Given the availability of time, was lack of consultation proper procedure? The inevitable consequence of this omission has been that any comment, like this one, is isolated and forced by a deadline. This may be convenient but it is not right.

Conclusion:
Angie Paterson is quoted in the Thame Gazette as saying: ?If we delay or fail we don?t have a plan and Thame could find all the sites being built on.? Some might regard this comment as alarmist and intended to encourage acquiescence. Nobody can dispute that Thame must bear its fair share of new housing but then so should Henley, Wallingford and Watlington. Notwithstanding her comment, it does not excuse the lack of consultation. It could have been done. It should have been done. The people of Thame deserve better.

The Lower School option should not be approved before it is properly debated with Thame residents. This is not nimbyism but ensuring a proper democratic response. There is undoubtedly a need for more housing but it should be appropriate, proportionate and subject to consultation.