Category: Missed a ThameNews story?

Dear Editor,

When the Elms Petition group informed the public that Thame Town Council had employed, as Planning Consultant, Mr Collinge, a person with close links to Rectory Homes – his previous employer, major client and landlord, the group member who publicised that fact was threatened with legal action by Rectory Homes, despite the fact that his complaint was against the Council, not Rectory.

Now, the Royal Town Planning Institute, has considered evidence that Mr Collinge had been involved in discussions regarding building on Elms Field, contrary to his denials. We understand that The Institute’s Conduct and Disciplinary Committee has found Mr Collinge to be in breach of their code of professional conduct and that a warning is being issued to Mr Collinge, though he has the right to appeal against the Committee’s findings. Meanwhile, the town council’s website shows that he continues to be paid by them as Planning Adviser.

The public should also be made aware of the fact that the recently resigned Thame Town Clerk seems to have suffered a ‘memory loss’ when asked about a meeting with me. This meeting was organised at the request of Cllr Donald Butler, who wanted the Clerk to understand the petition group’s objections to development in Elms Field. She brought Mr Collinge to that meeting and introduced him as the Council’s Planning Consultant. Mr Collinge later claimed to the RTPI that the meeting was held to educate this writer on matters of the Localism Act, and the Clerk supported this erroneous statement. Her ‘memory loss’ is curious since Cllr Butler is bound to confirm the true purpose of the meeting and we understand that the RTPI has also judged that the meeting was held to discuss Elms Field, and nothing else.

The Council must therefore say what they are going to do about this situation. They should remember also that the petition group has already shown clear evidence that an important letter from English Heritage, which concluded that development on the Elms field would be “deeply damaging”, was withheld from the Councillors on, what the Elms Petitition group believes to have been, plainly false grounds. This meeting is where Councillors approved the Thame Neighbourhood Plan for referendum, and included in our opinion, other false information designed, we believe, to ‘guide’ them. The Council has not admitted what we believe to be clear falsehoods, nor said who was responsible.

The Council must also admit to the fact that, under the deed the Council signed in connection with the gift of land for Elms Park, it is contracted to protect The Elms, which is clearly shown on the Conveyance plan to include the field. Further, the same contract prevents the opening up of any access between Elms Park and Elms field, other than for the use of the owners of The Elms. Cllr. Dyer has denied this but remained silent since being shown the Conveyance. Are the rest of the Council equally stubborn, and if so why?

The Council needs to correct the situation and admit that the inclusion of this Conservation area pasture in the Thame Neighbourhood Plan as a development site was an error, committed in, what we feel to be, suspect circumstances. They already are obliged to re-allocate some of the original 45 houses to more suitable sites; they should take out and re-allocate the lot.

Readers can learn more by visiting elmspetition.org.uk, where they can also see the petition and sign it if they agree with what it says. They might like also to write to their Councillors reminding them that they should represent the opinions of the voters, who are clearly against this proposed development.
Peter Webb, Thames
on behalf of the elmspetition Group

Dear Mayor,

With the recent revelation that The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) has found Mr Jake Collinge in breach of their code of conduct in relation to his work on the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, we write to request that you formally review the Neighbourhood Plan and specifically propose a motion to remove The Elms from it.

It is public knowledge that Mr Collinge undertook a substantial amount of work on the Neighbourhood Plan despite his ex-employer, on-going major client and landlord Rectory Homes being owner of one of the sites allocated for housing, The Elms. Although you and your council have always insisted he had no input when it came to The Elms, the RTPI have clearly found this claim to be incorrect.

Evidence provided to the RTPI in relation to this investigation includes details about the meeting between Thame Resident Peter Webb, the Town Clerk Helen Stewart and Mr Collinge. Whilst Mr Collinge, you, your council and the Town Clerk have always maintained this meeting did not relate to The Elms, Mr Webb has been entirely vindicated with the verdict. Mr Webb has always maintained the sole purpose of the meeting was to discuss The Elms and Mr Collinge clearly participated in it. We request that you acknowledge this in its entirety and rectify the untruths spoken about the content of this meeting, in particular by Ms Stewart, the Town Clerk who has corroborated, what appears to be, this false statement.

The fact that Mr Collinge was even remotely connected to the construction of a plan which paved the way for his ex-employer and on-going client, Rectory Homes, to receive what is tantamount to a windfall by including a substantial piece of conservation area in approved sites for housing development, is deplorable.

What is even worse though, is that your council and Rectory Homes have issued legal threats to residents of Thame who have dared to raise this issue in public. To these people, we request that you make a full and unreserved public apology for your part in this.

Furthermore, we have analysed the recent financial payments as released on the Town Council website and noted that Mr Collinge was paid at least £12,000 in Q4 of 2014 for his work on the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. We request that a full disclosure of the amount paid to Mr Collinge for his entire work on the Plan is made and request that you do everything in your powers to recoup much of the money paid out, based on the fact that his work has been proven not to be impartial.

When you analyse the ruling of the RTPI declaring Mr Collinge in breach of his professional code, along with other factors including, what appeared to us to be, the withholding from the public and councillors the letter from English Heritage which described any development as “deeply damaging,” we are sure that you cannot continue to have confidence in the inclusion of The Elms in the Plan.

Whilst we do not suggest the Plan should be entirely scrapped, the area of concern is clearly The Elms. With recent amendments to the planning application for development on The Elms a minimum of eight houses already have to be reallocated as per the provision in the Plan. We request that you reallocate all 45 houses across other suitable sites and remove The Elms from the Plan with immediate effect.

We look forward to your immediate action on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

The 2100 members of The Elms Petition Group.