Neighbourhood Plan

Sorry to sound bitter, but I keep getting e mails regarding the Shiplake Neighbourhood Plan. I find it hard to either get excited about it or even have a view. Following the complete disregard of the Henley and Harpsden one regarding Thames Farm and other sites i genuinely cannot see the point. Developers will build where they want to build and Henley residents will object to anything in their own backyard. NP's give people on the committee plenty to do but appear to have little or no teeth..

Posted by: Rupert Thurgood | 29/01/2018 12:12 pm

You are correct so far as Thames Farm is concerned hence my comments about SODC and their deficiency on Housing supply numbers. We hope they get their act together sooner rather than later otherwise we will become one village not 2 and be swallowed up by Henley! It is precisely to guard against that that we are doing a huge amount to get the plan in place. At that point the housing supply threshold reduces significantly so it should be worth the effort. It's far from straight forwards however!

Posted by: Peter Boros | 29/01/2018 5:43 pm

Mr Boros....I understand the theory behind NP's and I'm not disputing there worth if even remotely adhered to. Thames Farm goes against everything to which you refer 'ensure housing of the size and type wanted goes where it is wanted'. It was not wanted by the vast majority of Lower Shiplake residents and not that many Henley ones! The Henley and Harpsden NP was benign in this case and I fear the Shiplake one will be similar...

Posted by: Rupert Thurgood | 29/01/2018 4:21 pm

Mr Thurgood, I understand your scepticism! NP's are a very new thing in Planning and the system is neither fully in place nor perfect. They rely upon the theory that SODC comply with an obligation to deliver a housing pipeline of a certain capacity. SODC have not yet reached that threshold hence why Thames Farm was available for consideration and approved. The SG believes that having a robust plan is essential to then ensure housing of the size and type wanted goes where it is wanted.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 29/01/2018 4:11 pm

I do agree with you that no plan would be better. I was enthuisatic before, when I thought it would deal with lots of future issues eg school, paths etc, but if the plan is going ahead, we need to make sure it does not open the villages upto future development in the wrong place, by making areas like agri land vulnerable. I dont agree that people will object to everything near them, and Shiplake has had alot of infill recently, but not small houses that we need.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 29/01/2018 3:17 pm

Once green agricultural land is proposed in our plan, then any 'agricultural land will be seen as vulnerable. I know the chair of the NP committee will disagree, stating that we will have proposed development boundaries which will protect the green gap' but I am not convinced. And how were these decided upon? Gladman and other developers will see one part of an agricultural field eg site 7 as identical to the remaining part; or even the field opposite. We are told the plan will protect us, mm!?!

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 29/01/2018 2:48 pm

The trouble is that once sites are included in the NP it is assumed that development is approved by the locals. SODC have shown with Henley/Harspen plan, that the development on the site is not necessarily going to be what the locals agreed too in NP; only have to see all the low cost housing sites now have OAP homes. That's why I am really concerned with alll the green field agricultural land being proposed -even if some labelled as 'reserve site'; as I know which a builder would rather go for.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 29/01/2018 2:43 pm