Category: Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor, I must congratulate Mike Dyer on being the only Town Councillor out of sixteen, willing to put his head above the political parapet in connection with the possible revisions to the South Oxfordshire District Council’s Core Strategy (read Housing Plans).

Your correspondent, Liz Wiles, inaccurately accuses Mr Dyer of stating ?Site F is favoured by Thame Town Council?, whereas I cannot find this statement within his letters. Even though it might be true, no one is actually saying it from their side of the fence.

It is unfortunate for the Thame Town Councillors that this perception has been engendered by the text contained in the belated letter sent to some residents by Scott Riley, of the South Oxfordshire District Council’s (SODC) Planning Policy (Department?), wherein he states “We are consulting on Site F, which has been suggested by Thame Town Council, as a potential preferred site or alternatively the site we originally consulted on, Site D.” (Of course this is Local Council Officer “Humphrey” speak!).

What we don’t know is when the SODC received the suggestion from the Thame Town Council, who authorised it and when it was first raised in Council as a “potential preferred site”.

I don’t believe this issue was not being discussed before October 1st when the consultation period commenced either informally between Councillors, or within closed Council Committee meetings at both the SODC and the Thame Town Council. Bear in mind we also have four elected Councillors representing the Council Tax Payers on the South Oxfordshire District Council, three of whom are listed as being on the Planning Committee (2 as substitutes?). (Mike Dyer is not one of them and uninvolved with the SODC.)

Despite this representation, the news only broke to the unsuspecting Council Tax Payers when someone (Mrs N Mallows) from Stanton St John (12 miles away) brought the issue to light in the letters page of the Oxford Times dated October 7th. I, and my neighbour Mrs Jenson, only became aware of the consultation through an acquaintance on the following Saturday evening, nine days into the consultation period. We subsequently received letters addressed to “Dear Sir or Madam” from Scott Riley (SODC Planning Policy) on Monday 11th October. It seems the SODC’s Planners don’t know who we are but the Tree Preservation Department, or to put it more precisely, the Legal & Democratic Services (yeah, I’m not making it up), of SODC know exactly who we are when they send out their 24 page Tree Preservation Orders.

It is apparent that Mr Riley’s letter was hurriedly sent out in response to the news getting out and the first waves of indignation hitting his mailbox. Likewise, it seems the Town Council have cobbled together a series of events, posters and a public meeting. As others have said elsewhere, all too little and too late for them to regain credibility. Now we have Helen Stewart, the Thame Town Clerk, weighing in with demands to hold the Blot on Thame Action Group to account.

Well Ms Stewart, the boot should be on the other foot, you and your associated Town Councillors should be held to account for the early lack of action, information and the details mentioned in paragraph four of this letter. Even as late as last Tuesday afternoon, October 12th, no information was available in the Town Council Information Office and worse, the staff had no idea what was going on and I had to copy my letter from Mr Riley to them for their own information. I’m sorry, I’m not making it up!

Maybe the early release of the minutes of all the meetings held by the Town Council and committees for the last 12 months, will dispel the misinformation that Ms Stewart asserts.

Whilst it may be unfair for residents to aim their ire at the Thame Town Council over these matters, it is quite understandable. Of the eight Town Councillors representing the North Ward, not one of them, so far as I know, has been willing to visit either Ms Wiles, Mrs Jenson or their neighbours but, (surprise – surprise), someone has commissioned a private survey company to send round a nice young lady on Sunday October 17th , canvassing views on the matter. Well, they visited me in Old Union Way anyway. One wonders who is paying for this survey.

To make matters worse, the residents of Old Union Way, part of the Renaissance development sited within the grounds of the old Rycotewood College, have never been visited by any of the Town Councillors in the past two or more years where residents have been contributing significant sums of Council Tax to the local economy. That is, as far as I know, with the exception of Councillor Dyer, but he visited me on other business.

Your readers may be surprised by this, especially when you consider that, indirectly through the Berkeley Homes developers, a contribution of about

Dear Editor, In response to Jill Swanson?s letter yesterday ? yes, of course I and the Town Council are concerned that the consultation period is woefully
inadequate. Unfortunately the limited window of opportunity and early deadline have been imposed by SODC, not by Thame Town Council.

I also recognise that people feel that they have not been kept informed of recent developments, but the Town Council have been in exactly the same position. It is only in the last couple of weeks that the reduced numbers have been known, opening up the opportunity to reconsider an alternative site, and those couple of weeks have been filled with hastily arranged meetings whilst simultaneously working to launch the best consultation process that we can achieve within the time available. Far from keeping
people in the dark, we are actively trying to engage them in the debate.

Town Councillors would welcome, and have been actively lobbying for, an extension to the deadline but without any success to date. Given the limited amount of time that is available, surely it would be better to focus on the issues rather than tilting at windmills.

In some of the recent correspondence and forums I sense an underlying but growing conspiracy theory ? unreasonable, unjustified, unwelcome, and unhelpful ? that it is Thame Town Council who are culpable in setting the short deadline, making decisions behind closed doors and, by inference, acting against the best interests of the community. May I remind everyone
that Town Councillors are all local residents ourselves, elected by the community to represent the interests of the community, and that we work
tirelessly in this endeavour. There are no party politics at play, no predetermination, no vested interests, no hidden agendas ? just the desire
to consider the options and arrive at the right outcome for Thame. We may be the nearest and most obvious target for dissent but why the instinct to turn against the very people who are trying, against the odds, to do the right thing ?

I hope that the whole community will use the limited amount of time available to concentrate on the real issue, engage with the debate, and ensure that we reach an outcome which preserves the character and heritage of Thame.

Yours Faithfully
Mike Dyer

Dear Editor, In response to Mike Dyer?s letter of 14/10/10, I would like to question some of his statements. He states that ?site F is favoured by Thame Town Council?, however other councillors are adamant that no decision has yet been made. How did TTC come to this decision? Until June 2010, the only option was site D. Who, if anyone, has been consulted since then as to which is now the preferred site? If TTC have already decided they favour this site, why make the pretence of a public consultation? Does he speak for the whole Town Council, or is this just his personal view?

I am confused and as some-one who will be directly affected by Site F, I have NOT been consulted up to this point.

No one seems to have even been aware of the new Core Strategy Review, and ?Public? consultation. It was all hidden within the depths and layers of the SODC planning website, which no one would choose to visit unless to see details of a local planning application, or prompted by some public notice.

The residents near site F only found out about all this by sheer chance- a passing conversation of one person who then phoned SODC for information. They then sent just 30 or so pre- prepared leaflets only to houses bordering site F. These were received on Sat.9/10/10. From then on, over the last week, a few local residents have had to practically force TTC into action, by repeatedly visiting, phoning their offices, and making direct contact with the Councillors.
TTC only updated the home page of their website on 14th October, just 15 days before the deadline!

The offer of a public meeting, display of information, market stall, etc. were hastily thrown together on 14/15th October purely in response to this pressure. Therefore, I do not see his comment of the TTC?s ?efforts to facilitate a wide ranging public consultation?, as being remotely credible. If we had not shouted loud enough, nothing would have been made public. The deadline for ?informed? comment is 29th October: The school

Dear Mr Dyer, Is Thame Town Council not concerned that the meeting taking place on the location of 530 new homes is only 4 days before the deadline for all resident?s comments to be received by SODC?

Up until now the residents of Thame have received no information on the change of preference of Thame Town Council for site F. The Gazette article rushed in this week will be the first time the majority of residents have been informed of the council?s new site preference.

Surely the deadline of 29th October has to be extended to allow time for fair and proper notification and consultation on this new development.

Yours sincerely,
Jill Swanson

P.S. If anyone would like to comment on this tight deadline in light of the changes, and also if anyone has concerns about the site choice of F, The Pig Farm, then as well as contacting Thame Town Council and Ann Ducker at SODC to air your views you can also contact a new action group that has been formed at:

blotonthame@hotmail.co.uk

Dear Editor, Having read the previous letters I would like to add two points: Firstly, I dont think Cllr Mike Dyer appreciates the distress this consultation is causing his constituents. Stop defending this flawed consultation. You have been elected to protect Thame so fight to increase the consultation period, help us to understand the issues and get as many people involved as you can. I know Facebook is the trendy way to contact people but in my view a piece of paper through the door is much more effective if you want people to know what is going on. SODC needs to give us time to digest and consider what is proposed and I know for a fact that there are many people who know nothing of this consultation let alone its true implications.

Secondly, do people really think this is about 520 homes? Ask yourself – If the Lower School is relocated what will happen to the land it currently occupies? Im guessing that original target of 850 houses might be reached after all. Im surprised this hasn’t been added to the list of ‘Site F Positives’ on the Town Councils ‘Comparison of site D and F’.

Yours
Sue Bishop

Dear Editor, I am appalled to hear that Thame Town Council have chosen to simply dump 500+ houses, a hotel, and a new school on one site ? a huge development – with no regard to the views of the people of Thame.

Furthermore, they tried to deny our chance to comment by failing or choosing not (?) to make the news public. None of this would have come to light but for a chance conversation by a neighbour, just a week ago. This prompted SODC to send just 30 or so letters to our immediate neighbours. Then only after repeated requests for information, the Town Council has finally offered some information, and an 11th hour public meeting.

It?s too little, too late ? with a deadline of 29th October.

WHY? Thamenews.net published an article based on a press release from SODC on 1st October. Thame Council would have had this information well before this date, but chose to sit on it and keep it for discussion behind closed doors.

WHY? Were just a handful of representatives of residents committees invited to comment- none of these from the affected area?

WHY? In just 4 months has there been a complete reversal of the decision to build on Site D? This previous, balanced, well discussed decision was based on information from many in-depth, expensive surveys and reports assessing the pros and cons of all the various sites. Has the ?sweetener? of the offer of a small piece of land to LWS clouded their judgement? In the current climate, there will be no money to build a new school for up to 20yrs. It will remain an empty site for years, if it is not then used for more housing.

This development, as proposed, would change Thame forever. The prominence of so many houses, & a hotel on this raised site will be a Blot on The Landscape. Thame will no more be ?An Historic Market Town?, but ?Milton Keynes- on Thame?.

My 16yr old daughter took one look at the plan and immediately said, ?That will look awful?. Why can she see that and Town Councillors cannot?
Liz Wiles.
Oxford Road
Thame

DEAR Editor, May I be the first Town Councillor to put his head above the parapet by responding to letters featured on your web site over the last couple of days.

Both Mrs Guy and Mrs Jenson are openly critical about the lack of public consultation on the siting of proposed new housing development in Thame, when in fact the opposite is true. Since the original consultation there have been many fundamental changes -not least a change of Government, the abolition of regional spatial strategies, and the eagerly awaited Localism Bill – which have opened up the opportunity to reappraise the options.

In the meantime Thame Town Council have been campaigning and lobbying to influence the number of houses planned for Thame and have been highly
influential in reducing the original 850 down to 530 for the fifteen year period to 2017. It is partly due to this significant reduction that we have been able to reconsider site F, which was originally overuled because it would not accomodate the numbers being suggested.

It is only in the last couple of weeks that the Town Council themselves have been aware of the revised numbers and that SODC have launched a new round of
consultation, and during those couple of weeks Councillors have discussed the issue at length and have attended a number of hastily arranged meetings
with SODC Planning Dept. We have also been putting together as thorough a consulatation process as is feasible within the time constraints imposed by
SODC, and this is now taking place with an exhibition in the Town Hall from next Monday, a stall at next Tuesday’s market, a poster campaign, a detailed
option appraisal in next weeks Thame Gazette, and a Public Meeting at St Mary’s Church on Monday 25 October.

There is also the opportunity to comment through the Facebook Group ‘Thame Location 530’ which has gone live this week and which includes a balanced appraisal of the positive and negative factors relevant to both site D (favoured by SODC) and site F (favoured by
the Town Council).

The Town Council are most certainly not presenting a ‘fait accompli’. We are eager to get a concensus of views from the residents and businesses in the
town and Council Officers have been working hard to launch the consultation process as quickly as possible. I am particularly bemused by Mrs Jenson’s
comment that Thame Town Council want to make a decision on political grounds rather than for sensible planning reasons, and Mrs Guy’s comment that the
Council are trying to move the preferred site by stealth. There is absolutely nothing political about this process, with Town Councillors of all political persuasions coming together to present the facts and the options to the people of Thame and to invite input and opinions which will enable us to best serve the interests of the community in planning any
future growth of the Town.

I can speak for all of my colleagues on Thame Town Council in declaring that none of us are overtly political in relation to local issues and that we put ourselves forward for election because we care enough about this community to give a substantial amount of personal time and commitment to representing its best interests. Our efforts to facilitate a wide ranging public consultation, despite severe time restraints imposed upon us, surely evidence this and we look forward to lively discussions at the Market Stall and at the Public Meeting, and to receiving comments through the Facebook Group and other media. Nothing would please us more than for the whole community to fully engage with this important issue.

Yours Faithfully
Mike Dyer (Thame Town Councillor)

Dear Sir/Madam, It appears that Thame Town Council have changed their mind regarding the preferred location for the proposed 530 homes in Thame. It seems that they council are now favouring a site in between the by-pass and the Oxford road. This site is wholly unsuitable for a number of reasons a notable one being the traffic impact along the Oxford road and the significant danger this would pose to the school children at Lord Williams Uppers School.

In addition this site is completely visible and would be an eye-sore on the beautiful countryside seriously damaging the ambience of the old market town. The council seem to have disregarded the original site bordering Thame Park Road which has immediate access to the Phoenix Trail and where the visual impact would also be much less.

The council started a consultation period for the Oxford Road site last Monday with the closing date for comments being 29th October. However, the consultation period has not been well publicised and it seems the vast majority of Thame are not aware of this new proposal. It is imperative that people are made aware and quickly given the short consultation period and the imminent closing date.

Yours faithfully
Fiona Guy (Mrs)

Copy of letter sent by Fiona Guy to The Oxford Mail:

Letters to the Editor
Oxford Times
Newspaper House
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EJ

Sir

I was interested to read the letter of Mrs N Mallows (Less is more, Times, 7 October 2010), who lives in Stanton St John, who was responding to the South Oxfordshire District Council public consultation in regard to their Core Strategy Review. Mrs Mallows is fortunate to know about such a public consultation.

The vast bulk of the population of Thame hardly know such a consultation is going on. Apparently this so-called public consultation went ?live? on Monday, 1st October, on the council?s web site. But, unless you visit the web site regularly, or visit Thame Library, where there are copies of a leaflet, you are not aware of such a consultation.

Back in 2007 the council consulted on five different site options for 800 new houses in Thame and came down in favour of a site off Thame Park Road for sound planning reasons. Now Thame Town Council has changed its mind yet again and has come down in favour of a site bordered by the by-pass and Oxford Road. Surely as the council which has the interests of the people of Thame at heart, the town council should have consulted everyone in Thame before opting for something else?

Apparently county councillors and the town council are supporting the Oxford Road because they would like to ?move? Lord Williams?s Lower School from Towersey Drive to this site. There has also been talk of a new hotel being located on this site.

SODC has said it wants to reduce the housing numbers in Thame from 850 to 530. Clearly as a resident in Thame I would support this however it appears that some local councillors are trying to put more development onto the Oxford road site by stealth. The so called consultation is on housing only with no mention of the school move or suggested hotel. Mrs Mallows makes the point ?less is more? which is absolutely correct for Thame however sadly it seems this view is not shared by some local councillors.

We overlook the Oxford Road site and only after one of my neighbours contacted SODC early last week did we receive a letter informing us of the public consultation. This letter was dated 7th October and we received it on 9th October, nearly a full week after the start of the consultation period. Others is this area have not heard anything.

I hope you publish this letter to alert people about what is going on. David Cameron, an Oxfordshire MP promised us Localism, and local people would be listened to. But how can people respond if there is no meaningful public consultation? The deadline for comments is very soon ? 29th October. Be warned.

Yours faithfully
Fiona Guy

Dear Sir or Madam, In the past stories have been run about how Thame was threatened by another 850 homes in the next 15 years. Now the district council has said that this number will be cut to 530 although there will be additional windfall sites. Now people are being asked whether they support 530 homes and employment on the pig farm or on land in Thame Park Road. The reasons for the consultation is that Thame Town Council now want the homes on the pig farm rather than the district council?s preferred option in Thame Park Road.

I, my friends and neighbours are really surprised that Thame Town Council has not consulted us on this before. Having looked at the town council?s web site, I see that it states: ?The town council is a service provider for the Thame community, an influencer and conduit for local views, working effectively and efficiently in partnership with other organisations.? All well and good but it is a pity that they did not go out to the public before the councillors changed their minds about where the new homes should go. If the town council believes in having a dialogue with local people this has to be two-way and the general public should be told about potential decisions before they become a fait accompli.

It seems the town council is now backing the site of the pig farm opposite Lord Williams? Upper School since it supports the idea that the Lower School should go there too and there would be a combined school on both sides of the road. (This plan appears to have been kept particualrly quiet – what will happen to the existing Lower School site? More housing no doubt.) The traffic on Oxford Road is already high and placing not just the homes and employment there but the Lower School as well will make the road very dangerous for people to cross.

Also the land is partly in a flood plain and rises to a high level between the by-pass and Oxford Road, so a large area of land would be concreted over, making any flash flooding worse for Thame and most worrying, threaten existing homes further down the Oxford Road.

South Oxfordshire?s professional planners had supported the site in Thame Park Road. Time and again at Local Plan inquiries the inspectors have refused homes on the pig farm for sensible planning reasons, (for example the very real risk of flooding). Now it seems that Thame Town Council and certain residents? association representatives want to make a decision on political grounds rather than for sensible planning reasons.THIS IS NOT RIGHT!

The deadline for comments are only a couple of weeks away ? Friday, 29 October. What is really bad, is that virtually everyone, other than those who have already made these decisions, are being kept in the dark and it appears the ‘consultation’ process is being rushed in order to limit the public’s response in terms of contribution and volume. THIS IS NOT RIGHT!

Yours faithfully
Julie Jenson (Mrs)
Old Union Way, Thame
12/10/10

Dear Editor, I’ve said it before but congratulations on the way you fulfil the duty and the pleasure of local journalism:, i.e. keeping people informed.

Your report yesterday on the meeting about the future of Thame hospital is a splendid example of that and, as an old hack myself, may I say that you’ve got a very good note!

Regards,
Norman Brand
Thame