27/05/13…’A better plan for Thame’ ?

DEAR Editor, It is stated in The Thame Neighbourhood Plan that there is a the need for a new site for the Fire Station. The plan offers nothing to resolve this, only the impractical suggestion that, if the Fire Station moves, the site can be used for shopping. This site is owned by the County Council, who also run the Fire Service, so the property produces no revenue. In that case, very possibly, the County would agree to donate the site for the community centre which people say they want. This of course only if a free or low rent site could be found for the Fire Station. Such a site exists. The ‘plan’ producers have failed to find it and plan for the resolution of, in this case, not one but two objectives.

The ‘plan’ fails to state specifically that no supermarket will be allowed outside the ring road although making much of wanting to encourage town-centre shopping. It suggests specifically that a pharmacy and shop selling white goods are possibilities. This ignores the fact that the town lost at least two pharmacies in recent years. Also, we now learn that Domesco is to close. We wonder what will fill their space? Another non-payer-of-business-rates charity shop? No ‘plan’ can resolve the problem of finding retail business opportunities. This can only be done by individual entrepreneurs.

Mention is made of encouraging residential use over shops. No ‘encouragement’ is needed. Landlords naturally seek to rent out all the space available, if practical. The problem is usually lack of separate entrances to upper floors and also, in some cases like jewellers, a security problem with letting out a floor over a shop.

Then there is the stated desire to attract one or more company HQs to Thame. No plan for how will this be achieved. There may be something that could help, but there is no evidence that the plan makers have considered it.

Are voters aware that the adoption of this ‘plan’, rushed through to be first in the south, actually gives no new powers to anybody. All it is, is guidance for SODC and that could have been given informally, while the ‘plan’ is reassessed and revised to include some specific action plans.

SODC policies exist and continue to be applied as appropriate to any planning application. It is sheer guff to list all those policies in the ‘plan’. And do not voters agree that it would have been best to remove conflicts? For example, having stated, many times, that more green space is required, how is it that the ‘plan’ actually removes some green space which has been defined (by SODC) as Important?

Then there is the business about the present of