04/08/11….Thame residents angry at lack of consultation

A Thame residents group is unhappy about the way they have apparently been ignored in consultations about a proposal to demolish a Thame school for housing.

Speaking at Tuesday?s Thame Council meeting to ratify its response to changes to the Core strategy, Bob Austin, Chair of the Towersey Road Neighbourhood Association, asked councillors: ?Is it reasonable that the citizens of Thame were not fully informed of the school development proposal before June 17? More particularly, the people living near the Lower School site (Lord Williams?s) have not been able to submit their views as has been the case with other residents? associations. This lack of consultation is not justifiable.

“As early as October 2010 a submission by the town council to SODC clearly states a preference by Thame Town Council for housing development replacing Lower school on Towersey Road.

?Why were those residents affected not fully consulted about this option? This lack of consultation appears to be contrary to guidelines. At best it can be described as neglect, at worst, contemptuous of the residents of the neighbourhood.?

Mr Austin questioned whether it was known whether parents wanted one large secondary school, as they had not been consulted so far either.

A second speaker, Barry Yates, Chair of the Oxford Road Residents Association, told councillors that his members felt that the proposed increase from 530 to600 houses on Site F would be over development of the site, making it three times the size of Chiltern Vale and creating 2,500 vehicle movements, increasing the current number by 15%. His other concerns included:

1. Combined with unification of schools, the increased housing numbers would equal traffic nightmare at peak times

2. Only two proposed vehicle entrances onto the site would mean that all traffic would exit onto the already busy oxford Road, therefore creating an imperative that any development at Site F includes
a) new roundabout half-way down by-pass
b) New exit/improvement at Oxford Road roundabout

3. That no new primary school is planned for necessitating children on new estate having to commute to John Hampden School in Park Street, Thame. Mr Yates was of the view that they would not walk (3 miles in total) down the Phoenix trail which would mean more cars on Oxford road, and more congestion around the school. He pointed out that they could walk from site D to both John Hampden and Lord Williams?s schools

4. The need for traffic calming in Oxford Road as part of this proposition, but needed NOW!

5. Uniting the two secondary schools would mean selling off greenfield, school playing fields

?How can you condone this?? asked Mr Yates. ?Is this not a windfall site?? he added, and objected to the fact that no parents had been consulted.

Mr Jeff Lowe, speaking on behalf of the landowner of Site F, and the Developer, said that the proposed density of the development of Site F is well within planning guidelines and that any proposal for where the additional 175 homes required by the Core Strategy revisions would go, would go out for public consultation. He denied that the development would increase traffic problems in the area.

He said that his company was working with the school “to help it realise its aspiration for a combined school.”

The town council intends to make the following objections and observations to SODC’s proposed changes to its Core Strategy, currently being considered by a Planning Inspector:

* that it objects to Thame being allocated more houses than Henley, since Henley is a bigger retail centre than Thame

* That a wider range of sites should have been considered for Thame for its allocation, not just site F

* That no specific sites should be allocated at this time for Thame, but should wait for the production of a strategic town or ‘Neighbourhood’ plan (to be produced by the town council. (This would have to go to a local referendum according to the town clerk.)

* Need to know where off-site community facilities are likely to be, as there are no plans for such facilities on Site F

* That Crowmarsh be considered as part of Wallingford in the allocation of housing numbers for Wallingford.

The Planning Inspector will next sit in November.