Thame resident challenges Neighbourhood Plan ‘Yes’ campaigner

DEAR Editor, Barry Yates’ letter in the local press last week contains a blatant untruth in regard to Elms field. It is completely wrong to state that the field has not been used for grazing for many years. It was used for this purpose up to about a year ago, and two sheep farmers who wish to use the field have since been denied the opportunity to rent, only since the change of ownership. Mr Yates also avoids mentioning, or doesn’t know, that the field is designated as important open space within the conservation area and thus councillors should never have even considered it as a potential housing site.

It is also misleading to state that a “No” vote will lead inevitably to SODC imposing a massive housing estate on Thame. As for Lea Park, was it not Thame councillors who were responsible for building over a space within the site which had been gifted specifically for open space?

It is surely possible that SODC and TTC will wake up to the fact that there is no merit in pre-determining where future development will go. Applications to build can be judged when they are made. All that the Town Council and SODC need to do now is to establish where development definitely will not be entertained – e.g the sites on the wrong side of the ringroad – and make it clear that estate- style proposals will not be entertained elsewhere.

Both councils should realise that they have a duty and right under the localisation rules to fight back against the imposition of excessive housing development. This, by questioning why the government, having disbanded the South East England Development Agency quango, did not also undo the demand for house building which that agency had set in train. SEEDA’s estimate of future need was based on the assumption of increased immigration. Plainly this is contrary to current government policy, which is to reduce immigration. Please note, conservative and lib-dem councillors.

Claims to have averted huge single development may satisfy some councillors but avoids the reality that 775 is still an unsustainable number for Thame. Only site F can be developed without too great an adverse impact. Possibly also site C, providing that any proposal for the latter includes a good level of tree planting as a barrier between the houses and the industrial estate. The number of houses these two sites can support should be the target.

I am disturbed also that Mr Yates and his councillor friends seem unaware of the financial realities when it comes to affordable housing. 40% affordable is only achieved by having 60%, by definition, unaffordable.

The affordable units will probably be a mixture of rental units and shared equity sales, all at pricing levels well below open market value. probably about 60% of that value. The developer has overheads, including financing costs, and needs to make a return on his investment, which includes land costing probably well over £1 million per acre. Result? the 40% “affordable” houses may end up recovering actual build cost but the fact that they contribute nothing to the needed profit on the investment, means that the shortfall is picked up by the other 60%, adding to their selling price.

Unfortunately this is not the end of the story, because Planning Departments have developed a habit of loading additional costs onto any development, by way of Section 106 agreements. These may be contributions to facilities completely unrelated to the development itself, for example a swimming pool, leisure facility or meeting rooms in some location other than the site concerned. A developer might assume this is going to add £10,000 per unit and this charge has to be recovered from the “unaffordable” houses.

Even worse, Planning Departments have now invented a new charge called a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). There are reports of this amounting to £50,000 per house. Such an extraordinary level may not be apply locally, who knows? But it is yet another burden on housing cost – and all this has been nodded in into existence by Councillors.

And given the above, I also have to ask – By what magic is Mr. Yates going to ensure that his affordable houses have large gardens? Does he envisage densities which were applied to council housing in the post war construction era? That would be 8 or 10 to the acre. So a land cost of at least £100,000 before building starts! Amazing thought process!

All this leaves me in doubt about “The Plan”. What plan? Has anybody received a summary through their letter box? It is complete we are told, but where is it? And is it a plan or is it a list of generalities about more shopping, more employment, more leisure facilities and more green areas and of course, more housing.

Now a video is on the web. It is nicely produced but it tells you nothing. Except for the fact that the £3,000,000 which the Council says the government will “give” to Thame over the next 15 years turns out to be the CIL I refer to above. So it is not a gift. It is a tax charged against the new housing, to make those (60%) houses even more unaffordable.

The more I write, the more I feel angry that citizens are being manipulated – particularly when we are told blithely that a No vote is pointless. Really? So what kind of referendum is that? To tell us that Yes is the only alternative is an insult to the intelligence of Thame residents. Also, I am less than impressed by the fact that our MP and Planning Minister are thoughtlessly lending their support to the Plan.

My annoyed conclusion is that we should vote No and in doing so, give a clear message to the Town Council and SODC to get out of their mutually unco-operative mode and consort a clear plan, with defined elements, where we vote on each separately in order to achieve an agreed whole – and a Plan means a list of positive actions to achieve the objectives, not just a list of those objectives

Regards
Peter Webb
Upper High Street
Thame