Category: Letters to the Editor

DEAR Editor, Hallelujah! We have a plan ? now four weeks old, and about to be delivered! Starting with history, I refer to the town clerk?s letter clarifying the process for ?The Count?. It was very reassuring that at least in this process there could be no interference by anyone in the Town Hall, or others.

C.H. was not the only one who had concerns about this matter. These concerns stem from the total contempt with which the town clerk and all architects of the plan treated the majority of participants that were promised a say in the process but were totally excluded without notification. I will not go into details of all the disgraceful shenanigans that were employed then, as well as in the ?Yes? campaign, as those concerned will know exactly what I?m referring to.

However, as none of this will give us a better plan, we must put it all behind us and look to the future, support those entrusted with the plan?s delivery, and hope for the best!

I noted that the ?Yes? campaigners have made a start which, although rather late, should be welcomed by all those sidelined. I refer to the Jeanette Matelot-Green?s statement that the 24% of ?No? voters should now be listened to.

Also, although this has not yet been confirmed by those entrusted with delivering the plan, the proposal to put 85% of all affordable/social housing on site ?F? and ?The Elms? and the remaining 15% on ?C? & ?D?, seems to me a very welcome one. The common sense of this proposal is really far sighted. Those who would normally occupy such dwellings are also those more often reliant on public transport of which there will be no shortage on those sites, in contrast to sites C & D which will have none at all.

We hope there will be more ?good? ideas followed by ?good? decisions as ?the plan? is delivered.

Oliver Dyroff

DEAR Editor, The plan for Thame has been passed by a majority of voters on a 40% turnout but let us review what we have got. We’ll do this in a series of steps so that the points we raise can be absorbed.

There is more to come, but if our arguments cause anyone to feel that they were coerced or manipulated into saying Yes, why not email THE BETTER PLAN FOR THAME GROUP at abetterplan@hotmail.co.uk with something to the effect that – ?I know the votes have been cast already but as someone who voted Yes, I would like to record that I feel this was probably an error.? People who didn’t or weren’t able to vote originally might also now like to take a position on the issue but please identify whether emailing as a resident or a friend of Thame.

The biggest single issue is the 775 new house target but how many voters know the origin of this figure?

South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) were given orders by the South of England Development Agency (SEEDA) to plan for a need for some 3000 homes in South Oxfordshire and they were required to allocate this total across communities in the district. Thame got, after some haggling, 775.

Why did these targets survive the closing down by the present government of SEEDA? This QUANGO, defunct since March 2012, had based its forecast of future housing need on the expectation of increased immigration. Current government policy is to decrease immigration.

Thame Town Council say they have fought the target ? but did they tried hard enough? It is not enough to say that other authorities have tried and lost. Really? Who and where?

Since Thame is actually the first authority to register a plan (not counting the rural Cumbria) how can it be said that others have failed? The promises of the new Localism Act need to be fully demanded by TTC and supported by SODC, as well as by MP John Howell who makes much of his support for localism and democracy.

Isn’t it reasonable that the maximum new build target for Thame, and elsewhere, should start by identifying land where houses, and other things like business schools etc could be built so as not to have a negative impact on the existing community? Sustainability in other words.

With the potential housing areas identified, and desirable densities and open space on these sites decided, the maximum new build (not a ‘target’) is determined ? thus from the bottom up – not from the top down.

In the case of Thame, where people have expressed clearly the opinion that variation of style and type is required, the plan should contain possible directions as to how that will be achieved. It doesn’t.

Are voters able to agree, on reflection, that the plan is not really a plan at all, but a list of (mostly obvious) objectives and desires, like more open space, more employment opportunities, active town-centre shopping, a community centre etc etc? – listed amongst a great deal of filler material? There is little, if anything, saying how these objectives will be achieved.

It is surely evident that some objectives conflict and a true plan should offer a resolution ? for instance in respect of the future use of the Cattlemarket. Multi use? Including housing and an (unfunded) community centre? Think about the removal of all that concrete.

How many voters realise that the site is owned by SODC and appreciate that the rent received helps reduce our council tax? The ‘plan’ says nothing about this. A solution for the site is available and it ensures continued income for SODC. Why is this solution not discussed and offered as part of a true plan.

And why so much vilification of Lea Park? In fact the estate is very tidy, quite green and properties are well looked after. There is quite a bit of variety in design, although consistency of roof pitch and roof tile is something that must, and can, be avoided in future.

Peter Webb
Thame
On behalf of A BETTER PLAN FOR THAME GROUP

DEAR Editor, If any motorist trying to pass me as I ride my ancient bike near the crown of the road thinks I’m being a sanctimonious cyclist, I’m not.

I’m trying to avoid being thrown off the machine by potholes. And my sincere thanks to those drivers who slow down and give me a wide berth.

Norman Brand
Thame

DEAR Editor, In his letter of 29/04/2013, Colin Sears implies that the TTC was ‘unduly influenced’ by the three RAs representing the West of Thame.

I assume he has been reading one of the leaflets distributed by the strangely anonymous ‘No’ campaign. These appear to contain many, of which could be construed as, inaccuracies and misleading comments.

All six Residents? Associations are individual and independent, and as stakeholders, were invited to send representatives to the relevant meetings. Southern Thame RA did not send one rep. to every meeting. I do not have the exact figures, but would estimate they attended no more than half of the meetings. The attendance figures simply reflect the level of enthusiasm and support within each RA.

It should also be noted that the most crucial meeting in this long process was back in Nov. 2011. All Thame RAs were represented, with the exception of STRA. This was the point at which the Independent Planning Inspector allowed Thame Town Council to allocate all 775 houses through its own Neighbourhood Plan, rather than SODC. It was most probably the presence and involvement of so many RAs ‘at the table’ that gave him confidence that this could work.

Following one meeting that STRA was able to attend in Feb. 2012, a summary of comments and ideas submitted by all six RAs was compiled by the town clerk. In this, both Southern Thame RA and Towersey Road RA proposed and supported housing development on both sites D and C.

I quote:

STRA: ?Land between Thame Park Road and Chinnor Road (Old Option C)—- has been dropped from options being considered for housing development—– . This is inconsistent and ignores the appetite amongst residents in earlier consultations for all or part of the land to be set aside for housing development- one option being houses on both sides of the Thame Park Road to create a ‘balanced’ entry to the town from the South.?

Towersey Road RA: ?Site C could absorb more housing and reduce the impact on F&D.”

Throughout the process all RAs have had every opportunity to get involved (as have all the other stakeholders – Schools, GPs, Business reps etc). If, as suggested, the ‘Western’ RAs had unduly influenced TTC, surely there would be no housing at all on site F? As it is, the three main sites have been more or less evenly allocated 1/3 each of the bulk of houses. In addition, site F will have to take on a new primary school, and the doubling in size of LWS.

This final Plan offers lower density housing, larger gardens and huge areas of green, public open space for all of Thame. We should be thinking of the quality of life of the future inhabitants of these new houses. We, or our families, may be lucky enough to live in one. Don?t be fooled that the ‘No’ campaigners are ‘friends’ of Thame. We don?t even know if they live here. It is possible that their own vested interests could far outweigh any of those of any of the six public spirited Residents Associations.

If you choose to vote ‘Yes’, be prepared to join in and help support the Town Council implement this Neighbourhood Plan over the next 15 years to make sure that YOU benefit from it, not just the landowners and developers.

You could always set up or join your own local Residents Association.

Name and address supplied

(I do not see why I should give mine whilst the ‘No’ Campaigners hide behind their anonymity).

PS It would appear that Mr Castle, or ‘The Castle Family Trust’ have finally put their names on leaflets promoting the ‘No’ Campaign. 30/04/2013

DEAR Editor, I read in your report about the Yes for Thame campaign’s stand in the town centre that Jeanette Matelot Green stated the development of 45 houses on the Elms field would get planning permission whether the Neighbourhood Plan gets voted in or not.

This perplexed me – does she have the ability to see into the future and predict the decisions of the District Council’s Planning Committee? If a planning application is put forward to build on the Elms field there will be strong opposition to it and many arguments against it put before the decision-makers. Nothing is a foregone conclusion.

Yours faithfully

Claire Forrest
Lambert Walk
Thame

DEAR Editor, I send this as I believe that the ?advertisement? by David Bretherton and Mike Welply in last week?s Thame Gazette is in part an indirect response to my letter to Barry Yates (published on your website) of 15th April ? my letter and the points in it certainly received no direct response. It therefore feels appropriate to make the following comments –

– the points and arguments that are being made by sceptics/opponents of the plan were made at every point in the process-from the beginning in the sessions with Tibbalds and at every subsequent stage including the rounds of written submissions [look at the evidence base]

– the process-via the core group structure – was exclusive from the beginning. That is it excluded any opinion that was not in concordance with the ?consensus? view emanating from the core group [again look at the evidence base]

– in the advertisement we are being presented with a very negative choice-a non choice between accepting 775 houses-or (so we are told) even more if we say no to the former. So ?confirming? that under present political arrangements we will either have too much or much too much development. The Neighbourhood Plan is being presented as making the best of things in the circumstances-I would contend that even on that basis it fails-certainly for the south/south east of town.

-a fundamental problem is that 775 houses is too much-we have been asked to participate in this exercise in ?localism? when the core element is prescribed from above and completely non negotiable. No area of town wants this much development. I would note here that John Prescott has been out of Government for over 3 years ? more than enough time for the present government to change things had they wanted to. Instead they have changed the planning system to make it a lot easier for developers.

– finally I would ask what position our District Councillors took during the process that generated the SODC Core Strategy – did they vote for or against, including the housing allocations for Thame?

Yours sincerely
David Phillips
Thame

DEAR Editor, There is so much scaremongering going on that the residents of Thame must be confused as to what is fact and what is fiction. Below are the true facts about the arrangements for The Count.

1. The request for the Count to be held in Thame was made by the Town Council
? not town councillors – because it was of the opinion that local people may be interested in the outcome of this two year process

2. The arrangements for the Referendum are the responsibility of the Counting Officer who in this instance is David Buckle, CEO of the district council.

3. The ballot boxes for the referendum will be subject to the same controls as the ballot boxes for the County Council elections

4. The votes that are cast will be verified under the scrutiny of the Returning Officer and his staff

5. The verification and count process is the responsibility of the Counting Officer

6. The counting assistants will actually be staff employed by the Town Council and not Town Councillors

7. The accuracy and authenticity of their counting skills will be subject to the scrutiny of the Counting Officer and his staff

8. The count has been advertised as being open to the public for some weeks

9. The only restriction that will apply in being able to watch the count will be the capacity the room is legally able to hold

There are some extremely passionate opinions being promoted and the fallout is resulting in aspersions that do not help anyone. If over the next day or two any final lobbying can be done legally, with integrity and respect then the residents of Thame will be able to make a decision they consider is the right one for the future of the town and not made on doubts and fears.

Helen Stewart
Town Clerk – Thame

DEAR Editor, Last week’s Gazette advertisement in support of a Neighbourhood Plan ‘Yes’ vote was signed by Councillor David Bretherton and Councillor Mike Welply. The use of the ‘councillor’ title gives the impression that both were commenting in an official capacity on council policy.

I understand that according to The Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012, no material is allowed to be published by or on the behalf of the relevant council or the local planning authority during the referendum period.

I am disappointed that use of the ‘councillor’ title may afford unwarranted gravitas to this advertisement, whether or not deliberately intended. Perhaps the councillors concerned could clarify their position.

Roger Cole
Thame

DEAR Editor, I heard recently that Thame Town Council will be counting the results of the referendum to save money. If this is so, why at this stage when tens of thousands of pounds have already been spent on the Neighbourhood Plan?

How can we be sure this count will be fair and impartial given that a number of town councillors are actively involved with promoting the vote ‘Yes’ campaign? Is the vote count open to public scrutiny/observation?

Catherine Hollingworth
local resident

DEAR Editor, It is becoming quite clear that an undue influence has been put upon The Town Council by the three Residents Associations representing the western area of Thame. The interests of the remaining areas have consequently received less consideration.

Under this circumstance the pressure placed upon the inhabitants of Thame to vote Yes by members of the Town Council can hardly be seen as being democratic.

To those who have doubts in the fairness of the manipulations vote NO.

Colin Sear
Park Terrace
Thame