03/06/13….More ‘defects’ in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan?
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
