Validity of Neighbourhood Plan questioned

Dear Editor, The (Town) Council says that a reason is required to justify making any change to the Town (Ed. Neighbourhood) Plan but several reasons already exist.

To start with, there is a conflict in the adopted plan, which gives an undertaking to protect existing open space, but then allocates housing development to Elms Field, an existing open space within the conservation area.

Then also the validity of the adopted plan is in doubt since it was passed to referendum by Councillors who were give three pieces of incorrect information before they were invited to vote the plan through. This false information is a matter of record, via the minutes of the Council meeting held on the November 20, 2012. The only question is who made the incorrect statements recorded in those minutes?

Also, in the final circular by the plan’s working group to all residents, there was an absence of essential information on where the Plan proposed housing was to go. Location was , after all, the main purpose of the plan in the first place. The same circular instructed residents to vote “Yes” and said that that there was no point in voting “No” because we were going to get 775 houses anyway. The number was not the issue. Where to build was the issue so people were misdirected.

Finally, In the final Neighbourhood Plan, the Regulation 14 statement includes a list of the statutory Consultees but absolutely no details of any responses gained from them. This is in direct contradiction to the guidelines set out to create a neighbourhood plan.

Constituents might be reminded that Cllr Dyer, who lead the working group which produced the Plan, continues to repeat his mantra to the effect that, had Elms Field not been allocated housing in the plan, it could have come forward as a windfall site. Cllr. Dyer and his cohorts refuse to see the obvious nonsense of this. The fact is that, being in the plan severely restricts the SODC Planning Authority to examine the site for suitability; which is the normal first step on any planning application. They cannot refuse development on the site, only deal with matters of scale, design and possibly numbers.

On the other hand , if The Elms was to come up as a windfall site,  SODC Planning’s powers are restored and they can find against development on the basis of the sites unsuitability, as an important open space within the conservation area.

It is a fact also that there is plenty of room on the other designated sites and the Council has already decided where these 45 houses can go, if they are taken off Elms Field.

Why does the town council refuse to act on a matter where a substantial number of residents have clearly expressed an opinion against development on Elms field to their Councillors, who are supposed to be acting on behalf of their constituents?

Peter Webb
Upper High Street
THAME