Thame.net

The Elms: Disagreement over Conveyance continues

Written by

Sonja Francis

in

,

Dear Editor, It seems that Cllr Dyer remains confused about the Elms Park conveyance.

Really, no errors? – (his first para). He says the conveyance mentions the yellow area to be 6.736 acres. In fact that (small) area is not individually measured. The red and yellow together are the 6.7 acres which comprise the park.

Then in his para2, the Council will continue to do all to benefit the protection of The Elms, regardless of future ownership (of the Elms). Nothing to do with “what we know as Thame Park.”

The Park rules are in the schedule he refers to but we are not talking about that schedule, although in fact, the Council are in default on several items. We are talking about the clause which undertakes to protect The Elms, which includes the field, contained in Para 2 on the first page.

Then he says that “this condition” (restricted use of the gates) ceased to applywhen the Purser family sold the property in 2010.

No it didn’t cease. the conveyance states that the Council will not withold (i.e. will allow) the same (restricted) access to future owners.

Cllr Dyer stubbornly remains confident of the validity of including Elms Field in the neighbourhood plan. Okay, we can test that in court.

Regards
Peter Webb
Thame

Comments

2 responses to “The Elms: Disagreement over Conveyance continues”

  1. Mike Dyer avatar
    Mike Dyer

    If Mr Jarse (really, how much longer can you get away with that pseudonym ?) would like to contact me through the Town Hall or Town Council web site I would be very pleased to provide you with a copy of the original Conveyance for your own consideration.

    I will now be away in France for 4/5 days so regret that Mr Webb will have to be patient for any response.

  2. Hugh Jarse avatar
    Hugh Jarse

    As the vast majority of us do not have copies of these document we cannot judge one way or another. I, like many other people in Thame, saw Elms Field on the Neighbourhood Plan and, once I was satisfied that it wasn’t Elms Park, happilly said YES to the plan. It’s fallow land that we have no access to, so to see it developed and provide housing that we are going to have to put somewhere still seems the most sensible solution to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More posts