25/04/13…..Is the Neighbourhood Plan indeed ‘a plan’ ?
DEAR Editor, Regarding the Thame plan, I hope you will publish the following, which follows up on my very brief interview today (yesterday 24/04/13) on Radio Oxford.
The ‘plan’ is not a plan really. It is a list of objestives. Many obvious like more green space, more community facilities, employment opportunities etc. Some objectives are indeterminate because, like the possible consolidation of the Lord Williams senior and junior schools on one site, that decision is the responsibility of other agencies and has yet to be fully studied and decided.
Also as an example, the statement that the Thame cattle market would like to move to the show ground is simply a statement of a desire that has existed for a great number of years. Where is the plan that says it can happen and how achieved?
Secondly the plan (in inverted commas), assumes that Thame must find space for 775 new houses as required by SODC. That is its core element.
This is unacceptable considering the source of the figure. I suppose it all started with the not-much-revered John Prescott?s desire to concrete over southern England, but the 775 figure originates from the assumption by the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) that South Oxon must find room for some 3000 new homes. SODC were given the job of allocating these across the district and dumped 775 on Thame. But, SEEDA is, or rather was, a QUANGO which was wound up by the present government in, I think, March 2012. Its figures were based on an assumption of increased immigration – whereas current policy is to reduce immigration.
It is surely illogical that the defective forecast of this defunct agency should remain in place.
Thirdly, Despite what Cllr Dyer said on BBC Radio Oxford today, the plan gives no additional powers to local and district councils. It provides future guidance only. All new development continues to go through the existing planning procedures and presumably councils can remember for a few months where they don?t want development to go.
Yes, the ‘say yes’ to Thame group have threatened that a No vote will lead to a vast estate, universally agreed to be undesirable, being forced on Thame by SODC. This casts SODC as arrogant idiots. Also, the threat that a No vote is pointless removes the whole purpose of a referendum. Why ask if you insist on the answer?
The ‘plan’ is presented as something to be accepted in its entirety whereas it should be offered as a series of topics where majority opinion could accept or reject all, or accept some and reject others.
Moreover, it is stated blithely that acceptance of the plan will lead to a nice present from the government of
