27/04/13…Does a ‘No’ mean SODC will ‘have their evil way’ ?
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
