Category: Letters to the Editor

DEAR Editor, Cllrs. David Bretherton and Mike Welply have taken it upon themselves to issue a statement in the Gazette. It appears to be an advertisement, though it is not so headed and I assume they paid for it themselves.

I regard the opening paragraph to be rude in the extreme. Where were those voices earlier? Well councillors, why would any sensible person be speaking out against a plan before knowing what the plan proposes? Meetings were well attended from the beginning. Written comments were invited and many people wrote in.

Finally a plan of sorts is announced, and at that stage, with the silly threat that worse would befall if citizens said No to it, because SODC will then have their evil way, we were clearly told that there is no point in saying No. To anyone who can think, that means that the referendum is declaring itself to be a sham.

All these threats centre on the the 775 house target and this is the issue that dominates the whole thing.

With SODC cast as evil big brother, it seems apparent that relations between SODC and Thame Town Council may not be condusive to the “partnership” that MP John Howells speaks of in the same Gazette issue. Interesting also in the same paper, we have the Planning Minister, Nick Boles declaring neutrality and Cllr Dyers confessing to being guilty of “unintentionally” inferring that the Minister is pro plan.”

I wonder if Cllr Dyer will confess to “inadvertantly” having used council transport, equipment and personnel in the putting up of the ‘Say-Yes’ signs around the town.

Strange also that, from the same Gazette issue, Minister and MP do not seem to be on the same hymn sheet. It makes me wonder if Mr. Howell is also on the same hymn sheet as his assistant, The Rev/Cllr Angie Patterson, cabinet member for planning at SODC.

Back to the Bretherton/Welply statement – they speculate – and dream up the spectre of 1000 + houses because, it seems, that lurking in the bushes are a horde of nasty, speculative developers who will flock to take advantage of the chaos. There will be more “windfall sites” they say – ignoring the fact that it, the Council itself is proposing one such windfall site – on land which is designated as Important Open Space within the Conservation area. Oblivious also to the fact that for all the fine words against estate development, those 45 houses are by any definition, an estate.

These two councillors appear to ignore the fact that all applications go through a planning approval process, the adoption of the Thame Plan gives no additional powers. It simply provides guidance to the planning committee. That guidance can exist even without a plan.

They then make the ridiculous assertion that without a plan everything will happen (“unintegrated” – whatever that means) in the first five years and that chaos will ensue hereafter. Why only in the following 10 years? Why not over the next 100?

“Only good for speculators”, they say. Except the speculator who bought the property which gave him Elms field, presumably.

Peter Webb
Thame

DEAR Editor, Hallam Land Management ltd (HLM) represents landowners to the east of Thame, south of Kingsey Road, and we have been closely involved with the Neighbourhood Plan process. Our proposal for East Thame was, and is, a scheme that delivers 400 dwellings, a 210-place community primary school, a new employment area, a GP Surgery, a community hall and associated community infrastructure. A balanced scheme meeting the needs of the community.

Our key concern with the Thame Neighbourhood Plan relates to ensuring that adequate infrastructure and community services are provided alongside the dispersed housing sites proposed in the plan; a concern echoed by consultees and local residents in Thame. Whilst the Inspector concluded that the Plan met the ?Basic Conditions? laid down by Central Government, there was no thorough investigation by the Inspector at the Examination into infrastructure and how it would be delivered. We think the Plan is sadly lacking in this area. The current delivery strategy is not clear and robust, and it is entirely possible as a consequence that housing might come forward without necessary infrastructure if the plan is approved at the Referendum on May 2nd.

If, like us, the residents of the town have concerns regarding the adequacy of the strategy for future infrastructure provision; a concern that primary schools, doctors? surgeries and roads should not be allowed to go ?over capacity’, then it is our view that a ?No? vote should be cast at the Referendum, allowing a re-consideration of the sites, with an emphasis on infrastructure delivery associated with housing growth.

Yours Faithfully

Nick Duckworth
Director
Hallam Land Management

DEAR Editor, Peter Webb?s letter to you published yesterday about the Thame Neighbourhood Plan challenges the basis on which the Neighbourhood Plan has been developed because, he says, it stems from a now defunct Quango. If there is no valid basis for the plan then SODC should publicly state the council?s present position. I quote from Mr Webb?s letter:

??. 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.?

It really would help to see an official reply to this claim.

Speaking personally and having followed this issue as much as I?ve been able, it is my impression that the Plan is a pretty good deal. I quote from a Newsletter I received from East Thame Residents Association,which details some of its own reservations but says that ?rejection of the Neighbourhood Plan would bring further difficulties and uncertainties in its wake?. We believe, on balance, that a Yes vote is the best way forward.?

That?s my personal view as well. We live in an uncertain world. Developers have huge resources and and can bide their time. Power, money and bureaucracies tend to get their way. Why leave things wide open for what could be much less suitable and out of scale for Thame? This isn?t defeatism. It?s realism.

The Neighbourhood Plan is pretty good bird in the hand. There could be vultures in the bush.

Norman Brand
Fanshawe Road
Thame

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

DEAR Editor, I should like to respond to Ms Warren’s recent letter in the local press. Most of us would share Ms Warren?s concern that the imposition of 775 new houses over the next fifteen years is a threat to the unique character of Thame, but she seems to have missed the point that this is the very reason for our Neighbourhood Plan.

The houses are coming whether we want them or not, but at least the Plan gives us a chance to manage this expansion in a way that seeks to protect everything that we value in our community. One of the fundamental principles in establishing the Neighbourhood Plan is the overwhelming sense of community that Thame has to offer, a community that we wish to preserve.

Thame Town Council did not acquiesce to the government?s housing numbers, rather fought tooth and nail over a period of two years opposing the housing allocation in the South East Plan. Admittedly, some larger councils chose not to accept the housing figures, favouring locally determined housing numbers but, despite their opposition, have subsequently had them imposed anyway. Through the Neighbourhood Plan, we can exercise some control over where the houses go and can resist the burden of a single large estate on the edge of town.

None of the proposed sites in and around Thame are designated as ?Green Belt? land, or subject to any national landscape designation (such as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The sites are simply open countryside, granted valuable in its own right, but not subject to the same constraints as Green Belt/AONB.
That said, the Neighbourhood Plan was methodical in grading landscape value and seeking to avoid development on higher value landscape areas. Of the land available around Thame, the allocated sites are the least versatile and valuable in agricultural terms.

It would be impossible to accommodate 775 houses in Thame without utilising some greenfield land, and we are further restricted in the choice of sites because Thame is surrounded by the flood plain. The addition of 775 homes inevitably means developing greenfield sites and one of the early consultation findings was an aspiration to move away from the high density, town ‘cramming’ and ?garden grabbing? that we have seen in the last decade, and a move back towards lower density schemes with decent sized gardens, off-road parking, and good standards of privacy.

Vaughan Humphries
Cornmarket, Thame

DEAR Editor, As a local resident who has followed the development of the plan closely I would like to respond to Barry Yates? recent letter to ThameNews.net

Mr Yates says that the plan represents a consensus view ? how so? A consensus amongst whom?

When the Town Council consulted on the draft plan last October, just 221 people responded, of whom 33 opposed the proposed distribution of residential allocations and only 31 were in favour.

?The majority of those opposing the distribution suggested an alternative allocation of increasing the number of homes on Site F, and reducing the number to the south of Thame on Sites C and D.? (Consultation Statement December 2012, Thame Town Council) .

Mr Yates argues that the issues raised by local residents such as Claire Forrest (see letters Thame Gazette, April 12th) have all been addressed.

The reality is that arguments and points made against the proposals have been ignored or met with the bland assertion along the lines of ?The allocations have been arrived at as a result of a robust process of technical testing and public consultation. No changes proposed. (Consultation report, Regulation 14 stage, November 2012, Thame Town Council).

There is still time for Mr Yates and the ?Yes? campaign to give a proper explanation of why the South of Thame will have over half the housing allocation even though this flies in the face of what most people have said they want – the housing dispersed around the town.

With regards to what Mr Yates refers to as ?a point of detail? he argues that the land at the Elms ?has not been grazed for many years.? This completely misses the point. Whilst it may be that the land has not been grazed since it was bought by a developer within the last few years, those who rush to develop this site need to take a longer view.

Building on this site will destroy one of the few natural green spaces left in this part of Thame, and damage part of the historic character of Thame. It is in the Conservation Area for a reason. There may not be physical public access at the moment but there are views across from Elms Park helping to create a much needed sense of space. Mr Yates is keen to kick concerns about traffic impacts arising from development of the Elms and other sites into the long grass ? ?the time to address these is when the individual sites come forward for detailed planning consent? ? but unfortunately by then it will be too late. As those who live in or near Nelson Street and Southern Road know only too well there are only so many ways through in that part of town.

The Town Council, (Consultation Statement December 2012) states ?There was opposition to development on land at The Elms.? So despite the reservations of English Heritage and the opposition of local people, our own town plan is to open the door to building on this historic site all for the sake of just 45 houses. In whose interests is this development?

Finally, and importantly is the question of what happens if the town votes No.

Mr Yates tells us ?it is WRONG to say that if the town votes No it will still have a say where the new housing goes?. So do we now have a planning system that allows no further consultation regarding any revised proposals, and no opportunity for residents/citizens to have a say on planning applications? Really? I think we should be told. ??.

One of the striking features of the Yes campaign has been the rather hysterical tone- threats of dire consequences should there be a No vote. To stand a chance of reaching an informed view, it really would be helpful to have a clear unemotional statement setting out what the process for housing allocation would be in the event of a No vote.

Mr Yates makes a final plea for us all to support our town councillors, and to appreciate their hard work. Whilst many have worked hard it is more important to stay clear sighted about the plan itself and its legacy. The YES campaign is in full swing and has much political support behind it. Those who oppose the proposals need to make their voices heard too on May 2nd. It is not just Claire Forrest who has serious and legitimate concerns about the soundness of this plan for Thame-and about the process behind it.

David Phillips
Local resident

DEAR editor, We all share Claire Forrest?s concerns for the future of Thame [letter – local press Apr 5], but her’s is a personal view.

All the points she makes were addressed during the 18mths of consultation. The resulting Plan represents a consensus view, which is both deliverable and sustainable. It disperses development sites around Thame, whereas the alternative would be SODC?s proposal to put most of the housing on one single estate. Site F is already carrying its fair share of development under the Plan with a large housing estate, plus expansion of Lord Williams School, plus a reserve for a new Primary school. Each site presents challenges with increased amount of traffic but the time to address these is when the individual sites come forward for detailed planning consent.

One of the key elements of the Neighbourhood Plan is the low level density of housing on each site which will mean houses will have decent gardens. The last thing Thame needs is another Lea Park with its high density of housing, narrow roads & insufficient parking. I believe each site is required to have 40% affordable houses, so they will be spread around the town too.

On a point of detail the ?centuries old grazing field? has not been used for grazing for many years, and the reduced relatively small amount of development on The Elms would release the land for public access and leisure- an extension of Elms Park giving better connectivity to the town centre.

Most importantly Ms Forrest states that if the town votes No it will still have a say where the new housing goes. WRONG! A No vote means the SODC planning officers & the district councillors from Didcot, Wallingford & Henley, who know nothing of & care little about Thame, will decide.

We elected the town council to represent us. They have spent the last 2 years working hard on this Plan, consulting widely & taking professional advice. No Plan can be perfect but they have come up with an excellent one, which I note was applauded by the Independent Examiner. Our Councillors deserve our support at this crucial time. Say Yes for Thame on May 2nd.

Barry Yates
Yes for Thame group

DEAR Editor, Further to my letter of March 22, LINK in which I spoke of my relief at being told my appeal for a Blue Badge had been granted, I learned today, only because I rang up to enquire when it would arrive, that it had NOT been granted after all. I wonder if anyone would have ever told me. Apparently it was a mistake. Some mistake, some very serious disappointment ? and for some maybe, who are at my stage in life, potentially injurious, I would have thought.

I had been told to allow 15 working days for delivery of the Badge. Today, the 14th day, I rang up to check that it was on its way and was then told by Oxon County Council that their records said my appeal had been REFUSED.

Not according to the letter I received, I pointed out; it said they were ‘pleased to inform me’ that they could now issue the Badge. Their letter was on my desk as I spoke.

‘We can only apologise for the mistake’, I was told. If this was a mistake it was disgustingly casually made, and reported to me with virtual insouciance. My wife and I had made plans for very simple shopping trips based on the promise of this badge.

The effect of the news is devastating, literally dis-appointing. I am increasingly lame, in constant pain, face the prospect of one, maybe two knee operations, and am 77 years old.

I said in my letter to you of March 22 that I had received a fair hearing, and so I did. I also said that if the decision had gone against me I would have accepted it. I would NOT have agreed with it, however. But in these circumstances I do not accept and shall fight it.

My application was genuine, as is my need. I shall take this a lot further.

Yours sincerely,
Norman Brand,
Thame

DEAR Editor, I am writing in response to your article entitled ?Park gates safety ?not an issue? says Council? of 25/03/2013. I am surprised and concerned by the manner in which Thame Town Council (TTC) is conducting itself over this matter. The un-gated access from Elms Park onto Park Street is clearly dangerous, as the 23 individual objections (many of which give witness accounts of near misses) to TTC?s latest retrospective planning application concur; I am in no doubt that there would have been many more objections if more locals were aware of the application and its history. I cannot understand TTC?S motive for not having implemented the fitting of a gate which they originally applied and obtained planning permission to install. To now say that the gate is not required and that there is ?not an issue? seems to demonstrate a lack of concern and ability to listen to the general public.

Commenting in The Thame Gazette (February 23rd 2013 ) Town Clerk Helen Stewart said that ?parents have a duty of care to look after their children?; this is true and it is correct that there is an unenforced byelaw stating that dogs must be kept on leads in Elms Park. Likewise TTC have a duty of care to make the access as safe as is practically possible and parents should be able to allow children to play freely. In the same article Helen Stewart said ?There was never any intention by the council to install a pedestrian gate because it would cause more trouble than it?s worth.? Is that appropriate motive for endangering the public and ignoring breaching planning permission?

The OCC Highways Liaison officer considers the situation not dangerous because there has not been a serious accident at this point in the last 6 years. I think this is a questionable criterion for assessing pedestrian safety; had the situation always been as it is now then maybe this would be a worthwhile box ticking exercise, but in this case a pedestrian barrier was removed under the pretence of replacing it with a safety gate and the access was then left unprotected within the last 2 years.

TTC stated in the design and access statement of their 2008 planning application (P08/E0772) ?…with the installation of a self-closing gate we can ensure that cyclists, children and animals are prevented from directly, and dangerously, accessing the highway from the park.???We feel that this proposal would be better suited (functionally and aesthetically) to the job that the railings are doing.? What could have changed so much since that time that TTC have completely changed their minds?!

In your article of 25/03/2013 you quote Cllr Mike Dyer as saying ?that he had been approached by a resident living opposite the park and that he had written back to him inviting him to come and talk, but that the resident had never done so?. I believe that Cllr Dyer is referring to me. I did indeed receive a letter from him and from Helen Stewart (after being ignored and rebuffed for over a year) and both stated that there was not a safety issue and that Oxfordshire Playing Fields Association (OPFA) and The Police were happy with the situation (I believe that they may have been quoting these organisations out of context and that they had commented on the original application plans which included a self-closing gate). OPFA have now said that they have not previously commented on the current situation and that they would like to see a self-closing gate in place. Because Cllr Dyer at that time stated that TTC had no intention to (and never had intention to) install a self-closing gate, TTC appeared to be in breach of their original planning permission and frankly, while it was courteous of Cllr Dyer to invite me to do so, I saw little benefit in me meeting with TTC when their minds were clearly set (as borne out by the current official comments) and the matter would have to be presented to the Public for consideration of retrospective planning permission.
I did, however, approach the Deputy Mayor, Cllr Lambert, during the current application?s consultation period to enquire if he was aware of the retrospective application and the contradictions between it and the 2008 approved application; he informed me he was not and I provided him with the relevant documents. Cllr Lambert subsequently told me that he had raised the matter at a TTC meeting but that there was a consensus of opinion that no further action was required.

There is an organisation called The Friends of Elms Park which has raised considerable funds by organising an annual music festival. While this could be a valuable body representing the users of Elms Park I fear that it is, de facto, a quango Chaired by Mayor Champken-Woods and set up as a charity to enable access to grant monies not permissible to Local Councils.

If the motive for not installing the gate as per the originally granted permission is lack of funds, then it might be useful to see the original quotes for the installation of the self-closing pedestrian gate (there should be some, as a condition of the 2008 planning permission was that works should not be started until a contract for the full proposed works had been agreed). Given the strength of public concern, it may be that funds could be raised via The Friends of Elms Park in a similar way to the praiseworthy achievements in raising funds for the Thame Youth Memorial; it would be tragic were another name added to that Memorial should a road traffic accident statistic for the Elms Park entrance be entered on the OCC Highways Liaison Officer?s tick sheet.

TTC say that it is a mystery to them how a gate appeared in their original application; an application which was commissioned by them, entitled (an application)? ?to install a public access gate to the side of vehicle access gate at entrance to Elms Park?, signed by Town Clerk Helen Stewart then recommended for approval at their own planning committee meeting on 22 July 2008. This surely raises some serious questions of competence or integrity or both.

Such questions are perhaps particularly pertinent at this time when TTC are asking us to vote ?yes? for Thame in the Referendum of 2nd May. I cannot walk away from what is blatantly a dangerous safety issue where I have witnessed several incidents of children running out of the un-gated access up to the road edge. I am urged by TTC propaganda that the Thame Neighbourhood Plan is the peoples? way of having a say in how new housing and infrastructure will be implemented and that TTC considers the views of the people of Thame; this is not my experience with this issue of public safety and, based on this experience, I do not feel comfortable entrusting other important decisions to them. I am sure that the TTC Officers and Councillors have a valuable role in assisting the qualified planners at District Council and that the Draft Town Plan is a useful document, but I feel that any further implementation should be by accountable professionals.
As a further justification for the 2008 application to change the gate arrangement onto Park Street, the design and access statement cited that ?work with the NAG had highlighted: the need for better entrances and exits, primarily to help the police manage bad behaviour in the park and the ease of escape that exists at the moment.”. This made sense and the fencing of the boundary on the south-west boundary of the park seems to have helped.

However, I note that there are proposals in the Neighbourhood Plan recommending development of the historic parkland site belonging to The Elms House. This is a valuable remnant of unimproved grassland with significant mature trees and is therefore an important and sensitive wildlife resource which I had expected to be preserved in its current state as an asset to Thame. The proposals to open pedestrian access into it from Elms Park will create a new ?escape route (s)? for miscreants and a problem area for policing. TTC seem to be contradicting advice that they have previously cited as important.

I would like to thank the Editor for what appears to be very accurate reporting of TTC meeting proceedings. I was not aware that The Elms Park self-closing gate was to be discussed at TTC?S Culture, Leisure and Recreation Committee meeting of March 19th, as it was not on the published agenda, and, as no minutes have yet been published, I would be none the wiser were it not for your reporting.

Richard Jeffries
Park Street
Thame

DEAR Editor, I would like to thank everyone who took part in Tidy Thame and Muck Out Moreton last Sunday, March 24, in such bitterly cold conditions. Despite the weather and a few other set backs, this year was definitely a success once again.

In an ideal world there wouldn’t be any litter to collect, but at least thanks to the hard work of the volunteers there are now areas of Thame not covered by our excellent street cleaner, such as the Phoenix Trail, which look much more pleasant. Around 50 people helped in one way or another – printing and displaying posters, making cakes for the tea at the end of the day, driving the bags of rubbish from the collection points to the central point on Southern Road Recreation Ground, for example, as well as the members of the working parties themselves, who battled against the biting wind to collect rubbish or maybe cut back brambles.

Thank you all for your help. You are all heroes!
Mary Stiles