01/05/13…..Thame Neighbourhood Plan – In defence of the Residents Associations involved

DEAR Editor, In his letter of 29/04/2013, Colin Sears implies that the TTC was ‘unduly influenced’ by the three RAs representing the West of Thame.

I assume he has been reading one of the leaflets distributed by the strangely anonymous ‘No’ campaign. These appear to contain many, of which could be construed as, inaccuracies and misleading comments.

All six Residents? Associations are individual and independent, and as stakeholders, were invited to send representatives to the relevant meetings. Southern Thame RA did not send one rep. to every meeting. I do not have the exact figures, but would estimate they attended no more than half of the meetings. The attendance figures simply reflect the level of enthusiasm and support within each RA.

It should also be noted that the most crucial meeting in this long process was back in Nov. 2011. All Thame RAs were represented, with the exception of STRA. This was the point at which the Independent Planning Inspector allowed Thame Town Council to allocate all 775 houses through its own Neighbourhood Plan, rather than SODC. It was most probably the presence and involvement of so many RAs ‘at the table’ that gave him confidence that this could work.

Following one meeting that STRA was able to attend in Feb. 2012, a summary of comments and ideas submitted by all six RAs was compiled by the town clerk. In this, both Southern Thame RA and Towersey Road RA proposed and supported housing development on both sites D and C.

I quote:

STRA: ?Land between Thame Park Road and Chinnor Road (Old Option C)—- has been dropped from options being considered for housing development—– . This is inconsistent and ignores the appetite amongst residents in earlier consultations for all or part of the land to be set aside for housing development- one option being houses on both sides of the Thame Park Road to create a ‘balanced’ entry to the town from the South.?

Towersey Road RA: ?Site C could absorb more housing and reduce the impact on F&D.”

Throughout the process all RAs have had every opportunity to get involved (as have all the other stakeholders – Schools, GPs, Business reps etc). If, as suggested, the ‘Western’ RAs had unduly influenced TTC, surely there would be no housing at all on site F? As it is, the three main sites have been more or less evenly allocated 1/3 each of the bulk of houses. In addition, site F will have to take on a new primary school, and the doubling in size of LWS.

This final Plan offers lower density housing, larger gardens and huge areas of green, public open space for all of Thame. We should be thinking of the quality of life of the future inhabitants of these new houses. We, or our families, may be lucky enough to live in one. Don?t be fooled that the ‘No’ campaigners are ‘friends’ of Thame. We don?t even know if they live here. It is possible that their own vested interests could far outweigh any of those of any of the six public spirited Residents Associations.

If you choose to vote ‘Yes’, be prepared to join in and help support the Town Council implement this Neighbourhood Plan over the next 15 years to make sure that YOU benefit from it, not just the landowners and developers.

You could always set up or join your own local Residents Association.

Name and address supplied

(I do not see why I should give mine whilst the ‘No’ Campaigners hide behind their anonymity).

PS It would appear that Mr Castle, or ‘The Castle Family Trust’ have finally put their names on leaflets promoting the ‘No’ Campaign. 30/04/2013