15/04/13…Is the Neighbourhood plan ‘a consensus view’?

DEAR Editor, As a local resident who has followed the development of the plan closely I would like to respond to Barry Yates? recent letter to ThameNews.net

Mr Yates says that the plan represents a consensus view ? how so? A consensus amongst whom?

When the Town Council consulted on the draft plan last October, just 221 people responded, of whom 33 opposed the proposed distribution of residential allocations and only 31 were in favour.

?The majority of those opposing the distribution suggested an alternative allocation of increasing the number of homes on Site F, and reducing the number to the south of Thame on Sites C and D.? (Consultation Statement December 2012, Thame Town Council) .

Mr Yates argues that the issues raised by local residents such as Claire Forrest (see letters Thame Gazette, April 12th) have all been addressed.

The reality is that arguments and points made against the proposals have been ignored or met with the bland assertion along the lines of ?The allocations have been arrived at as a result of a robust process of technical testing and public consultation. No changes proposed. (Consultation report, Regulation 14 stage, November 2012, Thame Town Council).

There is still time for Mr Yates and the ?Yes? campaign to give a proper explanation of why the South of Thame will have over half the housing allocation even though this flies in the face of what most people have said they want – the housing dispersed around the town.

With regards to what Mr Yates refers to as ?a point of detail? he argues that the land at the Elms ?has not been grazed for many years.? This completely misses the point. Whilst it may be that the land has not been grazed since it was bought by a developer within the last few years, those who rush to develop this site need to take a longer view.

Building on this site will destroy one of the few natural green spaces left in this part of Thame, and damage part of the historic character of Thame. It is in the Conservation Area for a reason. There may not be physical public access at the moment but there are views across from Elms Park helping to create a much needed sense of space. Mr Yates is keen to kick concerns about traffic impacts arising from development of the Elms and other sites into the long grass ? ?the time to address these is when the individual sites come forward for detailed planning consent? ? but unfortunately by then it will be too late. As those who live in or near Nelson Street and Southern Road know only too well there are only so many ways through in that part of town.

The Town Council, (Consultation Statement December 2012) states ?There was opposition to development on land at The Elms.? So despite the reservations of English Heritage and the opposition of local people, our own town plan is to open the door to building on this historic site all for the sake of just 45 houses. In whose interests is this development?

Finally, and importantly is the question of what happens if the town votes No.

Mr Yates tells us ?it is WRONG to say that if the town votes No it will still have a say where the new housing goes?. So do we now have a planning system that allows no further consultation regarding any revised proposals, and no opportunity for residents/citizens to have a say on planning applications? Really? I think we should be told. ??.

One of the striking features of the Yes campaign has been the rather hysterical tone- threats of dire consequences should there be a No vote. To stand a chance of reaching an informed view, it really would be helpful to have a clear unemotional statement setting out what the process for housing allocation would be in the event of a No vote.

Mr Yates makes a final plea for us all to support our town councillors, and to appreciate their hard work. Whilst many have worked hard it is more important to stay clear sighted about the plan itself and its legacy. The YES campaign is in full swing and has much political support behind it. Those who oppose the proposals need to make their voices heard too on May 2nd. It is not just Claire Forrest who has serious and legitimate concerns about the soundness of this plan for Thame-and about the process behind it.

David Phillips
Local resident