26/02/13… Resident challenges the choice of the Preferred Option for housing development

FOLLOWING the Examination meeting for the Thame Neighbourhood Plan on February 19, and to record this historic occasion in Planning history, ThameNews.Net has been publishing notes from the meeting in instalments. These are not intended to be a word-for-word, blow-by-blow account but to give a taste of what was discussed during the Examination meeting.

The following takes up from where Mr Paul Early was invited to answer questions from the Examiner, Mr Nigel McGurk, as to why he was of the view that the preferred option (for majority of housing on Sites C and D ) did not meet the ?Basic Conditions?. Here is a reminder of what is meant by ‘Basic Conditions:

The Basic Conditions for Neighbourhood Plans are specified by law:
? must be appropriate having regard to national policy
? must contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development
? must be in general conformity with the strategic
policies in the development plan for the local area
(SODC’s Core Strategy in this case)
? must be compatible with human rights requirements
? must be compatible with EU obligations.

In his reply, Mr Earley said that the preferred option was not sustainable as regards transport, as Site C was further than a 20 min walk to the town centre and that Site D, at the upper end of that time limit and so people would use their cars.

The Examiner then asked Mr Earley why he felt concerned about the process (of arriving at the preferred option). He replied that, at the time of SODC?s Core Strategy appraisal of sites (2011), Sites D and F came out best but Thame Town Council preferred Site C. The District Council advised that Site C was not the best site because of poor linkages and too far out from the town centre. This advice was repeated, said Mr Earley, later in 2012.

?At the Core Strategy Examination day for Thame, in November 2011,? he recalled, ?the Residents Associations (RAs) did a good job of questioning the levels of housing (allocated to Thame). They were the stars of the show!? he added. It was after this that the allocation of homes was left to be decided by the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. Mr Earley said that many of the RAs had formed quickly to challenge levels of development on sites that would affect them.

He continued, saying that the RAs were then invited after this, to work with the town council (on housing allocation sites) ?at closed meetings from which the public were excluded from participating in a key part of the process.? He then said that there was ?a hiatus? of six months when, as far as the general public were concerned, nothing happened, but during which time confidential meetings were being held with RAs, that were not listed in the town council?s published list of meetings. Nor, he added was there any mention of why there had been such a delay, in public statements on TTC?s website or press releases that went out after that time, nor on the ?Have your say? leaflet where they (the public) were supposed to say where they thought the housing should go.

Mr Earley?s view was that the options discussed at the Public meeting earlier in the year had been abandoned during these private meetings in favour of options that would least affect the RAs? members. He likened the process of offering options in the ?Have your say? leaflet and then not modifying the Preferred Options taking into account the responses, to ?People setting the questions and marking their own papers!?

He told the examiner that the RAs represented around a half to two thirds of the town, and that there were significantly large areas of residents, including many in the High street where he lived, not represented, where residents who would have views would be unable to take part in the discussion.

Sue Rowlands of Tibbalds, representing the town council, was asked by the Examiner, how many Town Councillors were involved in the decision for the Preferred Option. She replied that the group consisted of 15/16 people, of which one third were councillors. She was then asked why she was of the view that the Preferred Option did meet the ?Basic Conditions?.

She told him that there were two Consultation weekends in 2011, the second of these ?fleshed out? the need for housing growth. They had looked at four approaches, she said, including SODC?s. ?It was clear that this was very complicated,? she said, ?and as a result of the diverse feedback, we discussed how we would go forward.” She explained that, rather than getting the whole town involved, it was decided to get a ?core group? to look at the options for meeting the vision and the objectives. The core group decided on the preferred options, she said.

Paul Earley then said that in his view Ms Rowlands had confirmed his point and added: ?We have some very capable people in the town who could have contributed and it would not have been improbable to have involved more people rather than just those with vested interests.? He concluded that it was his view that the council had been ?taken over by the political situation? and that it was important that the best sites come forward now.

REMINDER: All the background papers, including the full representations made in writing to the Examiner that the questioning of speakers was based on, can be found on SODC?s website HERE

TOMORROW: Getting around ? Car Parking