26/10/10…..Thame has its say on where new homes should go

IT was standing room only at last night?s public meeting in Thame to allow residents to vent their concerns and preferences for 530 new homes required to be built in the town between now and 2027 (the Core Strategy).

The meeting was a culmination of a week of social network discussion, emailing and a frenzied battle for which action group?s posters could stay up the longest before disappearing, the like of which Thame has not seen before.

Although the meeting was called by Thame Town Council to gauge whether site F on the Oxford Road or site D on the South East side of the town had the town?s support, some residents used the event to question whether the town needed that number at all.

The Town Council and some residents? groups have indicated that their preference is for site F, and held an exhibition last Monday, October 18, at the town hall to display a plan of the development, and close by a representation of site D. Option F is opposed by the Blot on Thame Action Group and some residents of the Renaissance development on the old Rycotewood site in Oxford Road.

The meeting, held at St Mary?s church, Thame, was more-or-less equally divided between the two sites, with concerns about flooding, access from the two sites and landscape concerns, dominating the questions.

The meeting was chaired by the Mayor of Thame, Adam Buckland and the panel included Town Cllr Mike Dyer, Thame Town Council?s Planning Consultant, Jake Collinge, SODC?s Cabinet Member for Planning, Angie Patterson and SODC Planning Officer, Beryl Guiver.

FLOODING

Ms Guiver said that with good drainage and the use of holding ponds, and the fact that no building would be allowed to take place on land liable to frequent flooding, neither site would lead to flooding of neighbouring properties.

ACCESS

There was some discussion about site F being a better choice because it could have more than one access (a negative point against site D some felt), one into the Oxford Road and another on to the A4188 by-pass. Ms Guiver replied that there would probably only be one access point from both sites, site F?s being into the Oxford Road.

LANDSCAPING

Several people were concerned about the effect on the landscape of both sites and Ms Guiver admitted that both options would have an impact, site F on the North side and site D to the South East, though as there was not now to be any develop in the South West Field because of the reduction from 800 to 530 homes, she stated, there would now be more scope for landscaping which would mitigate the problem for Moreton.

530 HOMES

Some speakers asked why the distribution of new homes required could not be spread in smaller parcels over the coming year and more be built in the villages. Ms Guiver said that 40% of the homes needed had been allocated to larger villages and a number to smaller villages. A benefit of one large site is, she said, that infrastructure has fixed costs which are too substantial for the gains of smaller developments.

?We have managed to get the number down from 800 to 530 and we cannot get the number any lower,? she said. ?We have to work within the current legislation and need to come up with a plan soon. We must allocate the site now otherwise we jeopardise control of where future development goes within the district and any developer can put in a plan.?

Other matters discussed were the possible effects on local schools, the effect on health provision, the effect on wildlife corridors eg for bats, and the effect of development near what one speaker called, ?The green lung of Thame,? the Phoenix Trail, site D.

The SODC representative indicated that the catchment area for Lord Williams?s School may have to preclude pupils from outside Thame in order to absorb more secondary pupils, but that primary school provision in the town was adequate for such growth. One more doctor would probably need to be employed to cope with the increase.

Thame Town council will be discussing their response to the consultation (which ends on Friday) tonight.

See: LINK for more information about the consultation and how to have your say.